I am concerned that today's CGI-fed adrenaline crowd is losing appreciation for good story-telling. I find it difficult to believe this film only has a 5.6 average rating as of this posting. Then there's the ever-present attitude-laden 1-star "worst movie ever" ratings, which are nonsense. Fair-notice: In this review I'm gonna de-bunk some of the criticisms. ; )
This is simply good science fiction, not from the standpoint of space battles or giant robots, but from the standpoint of five friends who go through a significant time in their lives.
The characters are diverse and well-acted. The directing is excellent, the script well-written (for the most part), music appropriate. No there aren't any giant space ships or Kaiju here. This is simply a heart warming story about friendship... and the movie has an appropriate ending.
The debunking: We have to remember this story is viewed through the eyes of young teenagers-- not adults-- and the majority of those teens have been raised in an enclosed, very limited environment. Their viewpoint won't be the same as ours. In addition it's a youth movie. It will appeal to many adults as it did to me... but it's still produced as youth entertainment. We shouldn't judge this from a demanding-adult perspective.
"IT'S NOT SCIENCE FICTION". Nonsense. It's about teenagers raised in a mining facility on the Moon, who take a Moon rover across the surface of the Moon, engage in activities that could only occur on the Moon (and would not work on Earth), and face dangers found only on the Moon. That is science fiction. Yes, it is a road-trip coming-of-age film as well, but it is still science fiction. Almost the entire film is set on the MOON, under Moon-specific conditions.
GRAVITY: Many science fiction movies and shows-- whether they mention it or not-- employ the concept of artificial gravity. It was introduced in 1966 with Star Trek (if not earlier) and has continued ever since. So yes... when someone is indoors or in a vehicle, the gravity is different than it is on the surface of the moon. The characters don't need to look at each another and blatantly point out, "Wow, isn't this artificial gravity great?". It's kind of a given. Artificial gravity has become a standard trope of scifi films. So if we see characters exhibiting normal gravity conditions, we just take it for granted artificial gravity is being employed.
"MAGICAL CURE": One user complained about one of the kids with a heart condition "magically cured" when he was in the Rover. No... he was very visibly given his medicine, specifically intended for just that purpose. They did emphasize that same medicine several times during the movie.
"NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE": That is why they call this science fiction... a concept which often stretches and bends science to fit the story. For the purposes of this movie the science was accurate enough. If you're one of those people that absolutely demands 100% scientific accuracy, you might stick to documentaries and avoid science fiction entirely. But a caution: even documentaries probably won't meet your demand of scientific perfection. Science is kind of an ongoing study.
AIRLOCKS: Space vehicles and buildings do not always require airlocks. The Rover was a prime example. Instead of an airlock, the vehicle stores all the internal oxygen in tanks until a vacuum is created, then opens the rear hatch. Once the passengers return, are inside and the hatch closed, the oxygen restoration system is triggered. Same holds true with building entry-ways. Systems of the future aren't all 2001 A Space Odyssey. Even today underwater habitats are entered through an open hole in the floor, and water is kept out by the internal air pressure of the habitat. There's more than one way to enter and exit differing atmospheres and environments than using complex airlock systems.
Etc. Etc.
I give this movie only 7 stars for good reasons: The concept of the kids stealing a rover during a dangerous meteor shower warning, overriding station security during said shutdown, and the destructive display later in the movie (no spoilers)... as if that's all okay. Poor lessons to teach younger viewers. I'm sure they get a kick out of it entertainment-wise, but it would be nice if Disney could figure out less-criminal methods to accomplish their morality plays.
Given the environment those kids were in, they quite likely could have all died and endangered others in the process. Kids do crazy things and do get in trouble, but they also often wind up in confinement afterward for such criminal acts. Teach better lessons, Disney.
Wait, what am I saying? It's Disney; they've been teaching kids bad lessons for years. ; )
It still would be nice to NOT glorify open criminal defiance of essential security measures and willful (and shameful) destruction of property. So only 7 stars.
Despite these drawbacks, the movie was a fun watch, and the overall story well done. I found it entertaining, and the interaction between the characters very-well formed.
This is simply good science fiction, not from the standpoint of space battles or giant robots, but from the standpoint of five friends who go through a significant time in their lives.
The characters are diverse and well-acted. The directing is excellent, the script well-written (for the most part), music appropriate. No there aren't any giant space ships or Kaiju here. This is simply a heart warming story about friendship... and the movie has an appropriate ending.
The debunking: We have to remember this story is viewed through the eyes of young teenagers-- not adults-- and the majority of those teens have been raised in an enclosed, very limited environment. Their viewpoint won't be the same as ours. In addition it's a youth movie. It will appeal to many adults as it did to me... but it's still produced as youth entertainment. We shouldn't judge this from a demanding-adult perspective.
"IT'S NOT SCIENCE FICTION". Nonsense. It's about teenagers raised in a mining facility on the Moon, who take a Moon rover across the surface of the Moon, engage in activities that could only occur on the Moon (and would not work on Earth), and face dangers found only on the Moon. That is science fiction. Yes, it is a road-trip coming-of-age film as well, but it is still science fiction. Almost the entire film is set on the MOON, under Moon-specific conditions.
GRAVITY: Many science fiction movies and shows-- whether they mention it or not-- employ the concept of artificial gravity. It was introduced in 1966 with Star Trek (if not earlier) and has continued ever since. So yes... when someone is indoors or in a vehicle, the gravity is different than it is on the surface of the moon. The characters don't need to look at each another and blatantly point out, "Wow, isn't this artificial gravity great?". It's kind of a given. Artificial gravity has become a standard trope of scifi films. So if we see characters exhibiting normal gravity conditions, we just take it for granted artificial gravity is being employed.
"MAGICAL CURE": One user complained about one of the kids with a heart condition "magically cured" when he was in the Rover. No... he was very visibly given his medicine, specifically intended for just that purpose. They did emphasize that same medicine several times during the movie.
"NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE": That is why they call this science fiction... a concept which often stretches and bends science to fit the story. For the purposes of this movie the science was accurate enough. If you're one of those people that absolutely demands 100% scientific accuracy, you might stick to documentaries and avoid science fiction entirely. But a caution: even documentaries probably won't meet your demand of scientific perfection. Science is kind of an ongoing study.
AIRLOCKS: Space vehicles and buildings do not always require airlocks. The Rover was a prime example. Instead of an airlock, the vehicle stores all the internal oxygen in tanks until a vacuum is created, then opens the rear hatch. Once the passengers return, are inside and the hatch closed, the oxygen restoration system is triggered. Same holds true with building entry-ways. Systems of the future aren't all 2001 A Space Odyssey. Even today underwater habitats are entered through an open hole in the floor, and water is kept out by the internal air pressure of the habitat. There's more than one way to enter and exit differing atmospheres and environments than using complex airlock systems.
Etc. Etc.
I give this movie only 7 stars for good reasons: The concept of the kids stealing a rover during a dangerous meteor shower warning, overriding station security during said shutdown, and the destructive display later in the movie (no spoilers)... as if that's all okay. Poor lessons to teach younger viewers. I'm sure they get a kick out of it entertainment-wise, but it would be nice if Disney could figure out less-criminal methods to accomplish their morality plays.
Given the environment those kids were in, they quite likely could have all died and endangered others in the process. Kids do crazy things and do get in trouble, but they also often wind up in confinement afterward for such criminal acts. Teach better lessons, Disney.
Wait, what am I saying? It's Disney; they've been teaching kids bad lessons for years. ; )
It still would be nice to NOT glorify open criminal defiance of essential security measures and willful (and shameful) destruction of property. So only 7 stars.
Despite these drawbacks, the movie was a fun watch, and the overall story well done. I found it entertaining, and the interaction between the characters very-well formed.