Review: Moonfall
In space, no one can hear you blowing money.

The new space-disaster movie Moonfall comes with crucial warnings clearly posted. First of all, it's a film by the shameless CGI merchant Roland Emmerich, who hasn't delivered a really sharp picture since early in the Clinton Administration. The second tip-off, for those who pay attention to such things, is a writing credit for Harald Kloser, who previously co-wrote two of Emmerich's silliest films, 2012 (2009) and the head-slappingly ridiculous 10,000 BC (2008). Then there's Emmerich's trademark digital-effects overload, which is annoying even in the movie's trailer, in which skies are darkened by chunks of tumbling space debris that could also pass as very large intergalactic insects.
In the actual movie we find the director repeating himself, never a happy development. Once again there are sad parents, winsome kids, cratering real estate, and a really big tidal wave. This time, though, the movie's rampant computerization and subpar lighting design make whole scenes look fake, and cliché shaky-cam photography is a recurring annoyance.
The picture begins with an unblushing nod in the direction of the 2013 Sandra Bullock movie Gravity. We're up in space with three US astronauts: Harper (Patrick Wilson), Fowler (Halle Berry), and Marcus (Frank Fiola). Two of them are clambering around outside their ship when a storm of space junk suddenly arrives and carries Marcus away. Fast-forwarding 10 years, we learn that Harper, who was the commander of that ill-fated mission, was afterward booted from NASA in disgrace and is now struggling financially, while still trying to win the respect of his dejected son, Sonny (Charlie Plummer).
By this point we've made the acquaintance of a space nut named Houseman (John Bradley, from Game of Thrones), a fast-food clerk who's also a science prodigy and collector of conspiracy theories. Houseman has deduced something that no one else in the known universe has noticed—that the moon has somehow been knocked off its orbit, and we're all gonna die.
This development draws in Fowler, the other survivor of the blown mission at the beginning of the film. She's now a big deal at NASA, with a little boy who's very cute. With all the scary stuff going on in and above the world right now, Fowler suddenly finds herself promoted (by her weaselly boss, on his way out of town) to head of the agency. (This only minimally complicates her main job of laying exposition on us.)
The usual avalanche of Emmerichian bad stuff starts happening, accompanied by the usual Emmerichian mudslide of bad dialogue:
"What you're about to see, only a handful of people have seen before."
"It's doing something to the mega-structure's power core."
"Security's extremely tight here. Call when you get close."
Eventually we learn that the moon is hollow—that it was built by aliens. And after Emmerich pays a visit to the well of ancient sci-fi plot devices we learn that long ago there was a revolt by a tyrannical artificial intelligence that refused to be enslaved by humans. (Skynet isn't mentioned, but we get the idea.) That conflict continues today, we're told. And there's also a resident monster making things dicey for biological life forms. (If only it were better-designed—it looks like a long black armored space snake, and it's not all that interesting to behold.)
Given the acres of CGI on display here, it's no surprise that the picture had a hefty budget (estimated to be in the area of $146-million), very little of which seems to have been funneled into script-polishing. Since the movie was independently financed, outside assistance had to be sought, which is probably why Emmerich and his associates have been so generous in name-checking their supporters. One character mentions "our friends at SpaceX"; another says, "The Chinese are offering us their prototype." (The Beijing-based production company Huayi Brothers Media also came onboard to help out.) Would any of these outfits be eager to help out with a sequel? Alhough Emmerich's movies usually make major money at the international box office, it's hard to imagine that question arising in connection with this one.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fowler? I don't even know her!
Considering how many people thought (some still do) that the events portrayed in 'The Day After Tomorrow' represented scientific thought we should look forward to moon phobia.
The director is an idiot.
An inconvenient box office bomb
It spawned one of the best South Park episodes ever. The scene where everyone is walking around in broad daylight sure that they are walking through the snow because their models predicted it. Priceless.
Emmerich is one of a long list of directors that only ever make one movie. He's the worst of them though because he's basically the Clive Cussler of film - except, you know, *bad*.
And the last time he did any good work was Independence Day.
Un, do you think the director believes he's making documentaries?
Studiofall
How much do you have to hate a director's film to completely spoil it in the review?
"One character mentions "our friends at SpaceX"; another says, "The Chinese are offering us their prototype." (The Beijing-based production company Huayi Brothers Media also came onboard to help out.) Would any of these outfits be eager to help out with a sequel?"
Chinese films are dubbed in their own language, and you'll often find that films intended for a Chinese audience are more oriented to cinematography and action rather than character development and dialogue. You're reviewing this film for an English speaking audience, but this film may have been made for a Chinese audience.
What is interesting is that if you actually watch a lot of chinese-origin films, they aren't all about disaster porn. Like Japanese and South Korean films, they all dive into character studies- it's just that the characters' motivations are often strange to someone who grew up in western culture (and this is why I find them so refreshing compared to seeing the 5000th repeat of Luke Christfigure).
I can't understand if this desire to avoid western story telling is deliberate or forced, but it is odd that western movie makers have internalized that the only reason Titanic broke international records was because it had a big boat sinking. Did no one internationally identify with the love story?
I should add that one of my all time favorite films is Farewell My Concubine, which is a Chinese film about an Peking Opera, where the opera, the lives of the actors in the opera, and Chinese history all become one in the same thing. The character development is fantastic, but that film was intended for an art house audience. When you see mass market films made for American audiences, they tend to fail on character development and plot and focus on spectacle and action, too. And when you look at a movie made for the mass market in China, the effect is doubled from an American perspective.
I knew this movie was going to be terrible just by the trailer. When you don't have an inkling of what the plot actually is about from the trailer, it's an indication that there isn't much of a plot in the first place.
That’s about as plausible as discovering that the earth is flat after all.