Very good, but ending is botched

Rating: 8/10 (9 January 2010)

I was pleasantly surprised with this movie! The story is interesting, acting is solid, plot is convincing and character development is very intriguing (old, tired clone meeting the new, enthusiastic one with conflicts arising between them before they gradually realize they have both been misled). Even GERTY (the robot-supervisor) has some positive character development - a fresh move from clichéd, evil computers which have plagued sci-fi movies since HAL 9000.
I would have given it 9, maybe even 10, but the ending was rather inferior compared to the rest of the movie. I mean, launching a human being, from Moon to Earth, in a simple canister delivery vessel, without any life support?! How are we supposed to believe he arrived to Earth alive? Check Apollo 13 to see how difficult is to bring a human from Moon's orbit to the Earth, even in a fully equipped (but malfunctioning) spaceship. And even if he actually survived the trip, would Lunar Industries let him live to see the trial? It's obvious from the story that the Lunar Industries is a totally unethical company and Sam must have arrived to their facilities on Earth (precious helium-3 wouldn't be delivered elsewhere, I suppose). Would they rescue him and let him live to testify against them and ruin their highly profitable helium-3 business? I don't think so.
If I was writing the screenplay, Sam Bell would have escaped with a moon-rover and managed to reach (or at least contact) other humans on the Moon, perhaps a small colony or a research outpost (NOT operated by Lunar Industries). They would have rescued him and sent him to Earth in a proper spaceship. The movie would be then maybe 10 minutes longer and the production a little more expensive (depicting the colony, more actors included etc), but the ending would be much more convincing. It wouldn't cast a shadow over an otherwise highly recommended movie.