Cloning glimpses of sci-fi classics

Rating: 5/10 (24 March 2013)

Compared to William Eubank's 2011 "Love", a sort of mega-clip "inspired" by Kubrick, Malick (and Aronofsky ?), Duncan Jones' 2009 "Moon" is clearly a better movie. It is also clearly more "about something" - not necessarily meaning this "something" is anything special or new. To quote James Berardinelli, " 'Moon' illustrates a truism forgotten by Hollywood : the best science fiction films are about SOMETHING. This film does not feature explosions(...), endless mind-numbing chase sequences. Instead, it (...) respects the intelligence and attention span of the adult. (...) It is intelligent, thought-provoking material." I quite agree with Mr. B., but his rating surprises me. To give a movie 3,5 stars out of 4 just for being "about something", respecting the intelligence of the adult and recycling "thought-provoking material" ? After all, I think there's more action in "Moon" than necessary, even including a couple of minor "explosions". It IS an action picture veiling itself in a "thought-provoking" toga - a patchwork in fact, not so far from Hollywood : here "2001" again, there "Solaris", next to it "Silent Running" (with a glimpse of "The Prestige", maybe ?). Ideas or images from these and others were cloned and skilfully put together (with addition of one talented actor in a sometimes - unintentionally, I suppose - caricaturing double-role) into a little sci-fi thriller, partly effective, but more manipulative than emotionally powerful, and in the predictable second half with cogs creaking in the screen writing department.
It has been two days before watching "Moon" that I finished reading "The Invisible Pyramid" by the great Loren Eiseley. There's no actual astronaut (anti)hero in this book, and yet it tells so much more about us conquering Moons.... It costs the reader more than 97 minutes to get from beginning to end - but it's worth the effort !