I'm always wary when PR people compare a contemporary science fiction film with Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". What's funny is that no one would have had the gall to make the comparison if Kubrick were still with us.
"Moon" is the latest film to be given that erroneous honour. See, the problem is that Kubrick was a true visionary, a one-of-a-kind filmmaker with the mind of a brilliant philosopher, and "2001" is much, much more than a film about the pitfalls of technology and the avarice of mankind.
I would describe "Moon" as an accidental satirisation of the "Jupiter Mission" or HAL-loses-his-artificial-mind sequence in "2001". Nothing more. And there are shades of "Solaris", too.
Thanks largely to "2001", the themes and ideas presented in "Moon" are shopworn and banal. Does everyone who works solo on a remote space station have to be mind-fucked, self-inflicted or otherwise?
A lot of people are excited about the mid-point twist in "Moon". I can sort of see why, but I happen to think that if the film had to have a twist then it should have been based on a more original and challenging idea. Yes, big corporations are greedy and only care about the bottom line, and sometimes their devotion to greater profits can be more important than adhering to a moral code.
I guess it's no surprise then that these bullshit-artist PR people who compare films like "Moon" to "2001" work for big corporations. That or they've spent too much time alone on a space station.
My score: 6/10
No comments:
Post a Comment