Initially, this reminded me of one of those stories that might have been written by Enid Blyton and made by the Children's Film Foundation. It's starring children and it's, primarily, for children too. After the death of his father in the lunar mines, "Caleb" (Isaiah Russell-Bailey) is to be shipped to the ultimate "Omega" colony were he is to be fostered in luxury. He's not keen, and when chatting with his three friends they decide to pinch a rover vehicle and go for a joyride outside of their base. They need a code to open the doors though, and that's where "Addison" (Mckenna Grace) comes in - and off they go. At times the rest of this is quite entertaining - the kids get to be kids in space suits with oxygen tanks as propulsion units and foolery ensues. Sadly, though, the writers can't resist and the melodrama soon comes bounding over the crater and sinks the whole thing. It can't quite decide if it's an adventure film or a drama, and sadly falls between both stools. The actors are quite good, and I think had they been left to deliver an action film as they explore the Moon having fun and mishaps along the way, it would have been very much better. As it is, the soft-focus father/son reminiscences just clogged the whole thing up, dragged the pace down and left me a little bit bored. It's watchable though, just not memorable.
45 Reviews
It delivers what promisses
vlacarvalho13 May 2023
I was wondering if there is no friends of the people who were involved in this production. Why is it with a low evaluation. Its 4,7 when I write this.
It its a Disney production with a beautifull coming of age story. There are the elements of drama and comedy and a family like story, that can atract a public of young age and adults.
Some picky adults will complain about some sciency inacuracy in some sequences. But it serves the script.
I am not an English native, so, pardon my mispells or another errors. I could use some translation tools, but I chose not to.
Those were a light almost 90 minutes of leisure.
It its a Disney production with a beautifull coming of age story. There are the elements of drama and comedy and a family like story, that can atract a public of young age and adults.
Some picky adults will complain about some sciency inacuracy in some sequences. But it serves the script.
I am not an English native, so, pardon my mispells or another errors. I could use some translation tools, but I chose not to.
Those were a light almost 90 minutes of leisure.
Its ok
budd-9728014 May 2023
It's not a bad movie for the whole family, but i think my wife and I enjoyed it more then our ten and twelve year olds as they both were not glued to the tv and both lost interst at different times. I think adults would like a bit more backstory and kids would like it to be a little more fast paced. As a previous reviewer has said, stand by me and goonies on the moon is a pretty good comparison.. but is nice to see disney getting back to the basics..
After the death of his father, a boy growing up on a lunar mining colony takes a trip to explore a legendary crater, along with his four best friends, prior to being permanently relocated to another planet.
After the death of his father, a boy growing up on a lunar mining colony takes a trip to explore a legendary crater, along with his four best friends, prior to being permanently relocated to another planet.
Even my 13 year old son gave up on this dumpster fire...
paul_haakonsen16 May 2023
I have to admit that I was actually harboring some expectations to this 2023 Disney family sci-fi adventure titled "Crater" from writer John Griffin and director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Sure, I had never heard about the movie prior to sitting down to watch it, but with it being a Disney movie, then I figured chances were good of it being an enjoyable movie.
Talk about a swing and a miss. I managed to endure close to an hour of the 105 minute runtime that "Crater" ran for, and then I gave up out of sheer and utter boredom. The storyline in "Crater", as written by John Griffin, had the appeal of wet cardboard. It was so difficult to get submerged into the storyline and finding anything to enjoy. And it didn't help one bit that the characters in the movie were every bit as bland and irrelevant as the storyline itself. In fact, my 13 year old son, whom I sat down to watch "Crater" with, he gave up on the movie not even 20 minutes into the ordeal.
I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but it was a shame that the actors and actresses were literally given nothing worthwhile to work with and to bring to the screen. I am sure that there were some good talents among the cast ensemble, they just didn't get to shine on the screen at the hands of director Kyle Patrick Alvarez.
Visually then "Crater" was good. It being a Disney movie does have its perks, and a proper budget for proper effects is one of those things. And it shows, because the CGI effects and special effects in "Crater" were good, realistic and added something good to the movie. Ultimately, the special effects could only do so much to alleviate for the movie's shortcomings in every other department.
"Crater" came and went without leaving as much as a ripple. And believe you me, when I say that I have zero interest in returning to the movie and attempt finish watching it. I just simply cared nothing about the flaccid and nearly non-existing storyline, nor of the one-dimensional character gallery.
This was a big disappointment of a movie, I have to say that much.
My rating of "Crater" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.
Talk about a swing and a miss. I managed to endure close to an hour of the 105 minute runtime that "Crater" ran for, and then I gave up out of sheer and utter boredom. The storyline in "Crater", as written by John Griffin, had the appeal of wet cardboard. It was so difficult to get submerged into the storyline and finding anything to enjoy. And it didn't help one bit that the characters in the movie were every bit as bland and irrelevant as the storyline itself. In fact, my 13 year old son, whom I sat down to watch "Crater" with, he gave up on the movie not even 20 minutes into the ordeal.
I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but it was a shame that the actors and actresses were literally given nothing worthwhile to work with and to bring to the screen. I am sure that there were some good talents among the cast ensemble, they just didn't get to shine on the screen at the hands of director Kyle Patrick Alvarez.
Visually then "Crater" was good. It being a Disney movie does have its perks, and a proper budget for proper effects is one of those things. And it shows, because the CGI effects and special effects in "Crater" were good, realistic and added something good to the movie. Ultimately, the special effects could only do so much to alleviate for the movie's shortcomings in every other department.
"Crater" came and went without leaving as much as a ripple. And believe you me, when I say that I have zero interest in returning to the movie and attempt finish watching it. I just simply cared nothing about the flaccid and nearly non-existing storyline, nor of the one-dimensional character gallery.
This was a big disappointment of a movie, I have to say that much.
My rating of "Crater" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.
'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' meet on the Moon.
yusufpiskin13 May 2023
'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' meet on the Moon.
Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, the director of the 2015 movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, this Disney Plus movie is a pleasant spectacle that you can watch with the whole family.
The fact that it takes place on the Moon does not make this movie a Science Fiction movie, so the criticisms made here are very absurd.
A true Coming Of Age/Road movie.
Leading musician/actor Billy Barratt, who has previously met with the audience in 2019's A Christmas Carol and 2019's Responsible Child, has done a good job.
He had already won an Emmy from Haluk Bilginer before.
Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, the director of the 2015 movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, this Disney Plus movie is a pleasant spectacle that you can watch with the whole family.
The fact that it takes place on the Moon does not make this movie a Science Fiction movie, so the criticisms made here are very absurd.
A true Coming Of Age/Road movie.
Leading musician/actor Billy Barratt, who has previously met with the audience in 2019's A Christmas Carol and 2019's Responsible Child, has done a good job.
He had already won an Emmy from Haluk Bilginer before.
Another teen adventure that doesn't please...
bheadher23 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
What is with the namby pamby approach that Disney is shoving down our throats...this outing is missing something, a whole lot of something. Maybe I missed it, but why is the crater such a mystery? Why are four teens even looking? Those are questions that I would think should be answered before they even head out on their journey of awakening...yes, I blame the writers for toning down what could have been an interesting movie...
Yes the CGI is good, but it does not tell a story and that is what is lacking in this one. In other words, the story is what really matters; not the scenery. They got clever with the holographic representations, but that does not make this story fun to watch...
Yes the CGI is good, but it does not tell a story and that is what is lacking in this one. In other words, the story is what really matters; not the scenery. They got clever with the holographic representations, but that does not make this story fun to watch...
It is scientifically wrong, but interesting movie
sandoval987616 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
To be honest, I didn't have bad time watching the movie. It is a decent family movie.
It is quite dystopian in a way that people are basically slaves for lunar mines. In my opinion it's a good commentary of where is today's world (unfortunately) heading.
I also like the design of the unfinished lunar city. It feels like retro 60s vision of the lunar colony.
But what was making me cringing are scientific inaccuracies. Let me list some of them:
Anyhow, not a terrible movie, but could be much better.
It is quite dystopian in a way that people are basically slaves for lunar mines. In my opinion it's a good commentary of where is today's world (unfortunately) heading.
I also like the design of the unfinished lunar city. It feels like retro 60s vision of the lunar colony.
But what was making me cringing are scientific inaccuracies. Let me list some of them:
- Gravity. It behaves as it should only when characters are on the lunar surface which is nonsense. Microgravity should exist in the base, in the lunar rover and on the surface and be exactly the same at all places. One of the characters has a heart issues because of the lunar environment, but he gets magically better inside of the rover because the gravity is different there. Yeah, right.
- Lunar rover. Anyone heard of something called an airlock?
- Crater building. Again, airlock anybody?
- Lunar base. Yet again, why someone hates airlocks so much? There should be an airlock in the rover tunnel. Also, why everything is so unprotected when you know that you will have meteor showers? The spacecraft is just waiting to be a huge strainer, the dome has no covering for the protection etc.
Anyhow, not a terrible movie, but could be much better.
Don't let your kids watch this
datcugeorge29 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Basically, this movie is teaching kids as follows:
1. It's OK to steal a car for a joyride... as long as you're having fun.
2. Don't worry about wasting valuable resources (like oxygen, for example) as long as you're having fun wasting them ( the resources on which your life depends!).
3. It's perfectly ok to destroy someone else's home (as long as you're having fun!).
4. If you have some health condition which requires medicine to be taken - leave it in the car!
5. On the Moon, the gravity is 6 times lower than on Earth.... ONLY OUTSIDE... inside any habitat is just as on Earth. (No, it's NOT!) I can't give a rating of ZERO... too bad!
2. Don't worry about wasting valuable resources (like oxygen, for example) as long as you're having fun wasting them ( the resources on which your life depends!).
3. It's perfectly ok to destroy someone else's home (as long as you're having fun!).
4. If you have some health condition which requires medicine to be taken - leave it in the car!
5. On the Moon, the gravity is 6 times lower than on Earth.... ONLY OUTSIDE... inside any habitat is just as on Earth. (No, it's NOT!) I can't give a rating of ZERO... too bad!
Surprisingly good movie
Snootz7 September 2023
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.
Nice movie, but Disney... whats wrong with you guys?
alfredoconras31 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I think is a nice family movie about friendship and i don't get why there are always haters, for GOD it's a movie, it's only for entertainment and it's for young kids.
Always looking for scientific accuracy... gravity problems? Star trek tech, air problems? Star trek tech, easy.
But one thing that worries me more is, Disney obviously with its inclusion campaign, we have all races but they didn't care about the message of a bunch of kids stealing a car, breaking and entering a house, destroying it and stealing stuff like its good?
So then you can´t say anything to those new gen of kids that will do that, cause it wasn't "gangsta rap that made them do it"... it was a disney movie that will make them do it!
So i don't care cause it's like old 80s or 90s movies were there was no problem at all with showing kids doing bad stuff, not like now that everybody are scare of what they say or do, so I really enjoy it a lot.
I recommend it!
Always looking for scientific accuracy... gravity problems? Star trek tech, air problems? Star trek tech, easy.
But one thing that worries me more is, Disney obviously with its inclusion campaign, we have all races but they didn't care about the message of a bunch of kids stealing a car, breaking and entering a house, destroying it and stealing stuff like its good?
So then you can´t say anything to those new gen of kids that will do that, cause it wasn't "gangsta rap that made them do it"... it was a disney movie that will make them do it!
So i don't care cause it's like old 80s or 90s movies were there was no problem at all with showing kids doing bad stuff, not like now that everybody are scare of what they say or do, so I really enjoy it a lot.
I recommend it!
I don't get it why this movie is rated so low
shahriarislamemon21 July 2023
I mean i understand that it is not a great movie, but it isn't that bad that it gets only a 5.3 rating. This movie is about a band of friends filled with emotions, have dreams, cares for each other. They really show their bonding all over the movie. And that is what all matters.
The fun little adventure they had, the sudden fear of danger, trying to get out of that danger, all things were written so well. I know it might feel like generic sci-fi movie and it is 100% scientifically accurate. But keep in mind that it wasn't meant for adult viewers. It's a movie for the young ones. Who have dreams and want to have a quality time while watching it.
To anyone reading any bad reviews or wanted to skip this movie because it has a bad rating, don't listen to anyone. Give it a shot. It's worth it.
The fun little adventure they had, the sudden fear of danger, trying to get out of that danger, all things were written so well. I know it might feel like generic sci-fi movie and it is 100% scientifically accurate. But keep in mind that it wasn't meant for adult viewers. It's a movie for the young ones. Who have dreams and want to have a quality time while watching it.
To anyone reading any bad reviews or wanted to skip this movie because it has a bad rating, don't listen to anyone. Give it a shot. It's worth it.
Not very good airlocks? What airlocks SPOILERS.
DaytonaBob23 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The story was pretty badly written. What they call boioerplate. I doubt the writers ever met in person and just talked on he phone and emails.
No originality and thumbed its nose at science.
So many things wrong. The script was boring and predictable.
Kidnapping being one of them as well.
But you cannot just hop in a vehicle and take off. NO SECURITY??
And just the right sizes for space suits in the truck. Really?
NO AIRLOCKS? ANYWHERE?
Where did the air in the model apt come from and NO FLAMES as the air would be oxygen rich and thus it would have possibly blown up and definitely would have sucked all the air out. NO FLAMES ON THE MOON.
Then the bit wasting oxygen? The FIRST thing you'd think taught in any kind of school setting NO WASTING Oxygen.
Now what is this nonsense about Earth. They don't have videos, pictures or movies of EARTH and asking stupid questions like IS THE SKY REALLY BLUE??? Are the buildings really tall?
Seriously that a major it of idiocy by the writers.
The "model apartment" just happened to have air with NO airlock? Just alk in and plenty of air. AND destroying it? Was considered funny or necessary? What would happen if someone else needed to use it and these jerks destroyed it. Same with the food. They came across as kids who never went to school and were thugs in waiting.
Further if it takes 70 years to get there then how was it discovered? IF it took y70 years to find it then it would have taken another 70 years to get the information back to Earth and another 70 years to send supplies t0 build homes that look JUST LIKE EARTH HOMES? And another on and years to make sure it was safe for humans. And another 70 years of going back with information. In other words at least 225 years before the first people could "conize" the planet. At a minimum.
AND the kids all dress like today's ghetto kids do?
It would have made more sense to hire writers with an education IN SCIENCE and SPACE.
It did have potential but as usual Disney writers have no sense of originality or intelligence. Walt was REAL big on science and accuracy. Funny how it is all down the drain.
No originality and thumbed its nose at science.
So many things wrong. The script was boring and predictable.
Kidnapping being one of them as well.
But you cannot just hop in a vehicle and take off. NO SECURITY??
And just the right sizes for space suits in the truck. Really?
NO AIRLOCKS? ANYWHERE?
Where did the air in the model apt come from and NO FLAMES as the air would be oxygen rich and thus it would have possibly blown up and definitely would have sucked all the air out. NO FLAMES ON THE MOON.
Then the bit wasting oxygen? The FIRST thing you'd think taught in any kind of school setting NO WASTING Oxygen.
Now what is this nonsense about Earth. They don't have videos, pictures or movies of EARTH and asking stupid questions like IS THE SKY REALLY BLUE??? Are the buildings really tall?
Seriously that a major it of idiocy by the writers.
The "model apartment" just happened to have air with NO airlock? Just alk in and plenty of air. AND destroying it? Was considered funny or necessary? What would happen if someone else needed to use it and these jerks destroyed it. Same with the food. They came across as kids who never went to school and were thugs in waiting.
Further if it takes 70 years to get there then how was it discovered? IF it took y70 years to find it then it would have taken another 70 years to get the information back to Earth and another 70 years to send supplies t0 build homes that look JUST LIKE EARTH HOMES? And another on and years to make sure it was safe for humans. And another 70 years of going back with information. In other words at least 225 years before the first people could "conize" the planet. At a minimum.
AND the kids all dress like today's ghetto kids do?
It would have made more sense to hire writers with an education IN SCIENCE and SPACE.
It did have potential but as usual Disney writers have no sense of originality or intelligence. Walt was REAL big on science and accuracy. Funny how it is all down the drain.
US transgression and vengeance culture to Disney norm and beyond
kennethkrabat14 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very troubling script, or version of script.
Usually with real world film: They become a movie in the editing room, and until then they are a lot of loose intentions centered around a script and the abilities of the hired actors and the editor - but the more CGI the movie is working with, the less material to manipulate in the editing room.
What works:
Speciel effects, the (child) actors, maybe except for the Disney darling, who is more Disney daytime show than snotty Earthling in a feature film (she DOES grow a bit), the Lunar landscape, the employed hardware.
What is not so good: The glass domed habitats on the moon and everything taking place in a meteor shower, give me a break!! (Look to the recent series "Silo" (2023) to get an idea of how to build to protect against the environment). The presentation of character motivations, as if a young audience would be confused by less sobby back-stories and more character action explaining motives.
And then: There are some unresolved points to mention. Some really nasty ones. And this is where the move is spoiled and this review spoils the movie.
yeah, it sounds complicated, but it really is very simple: Dad kill himself, boy go to Earth-TV to see what unspoiled vibrant LIFE really is, Friends go with boy, Car break down, Friends go to midway station...
Argh! There is SO much wrong with this script on SO many levels. The transgression of Dad into life of son. The transgression of authorities abiding by dad's insurance. The transgression of putting Boy on cryo ship, AND while unconscious, despite Boy's prior and clearly stated refusal to go. And the children's un-questioned acceptance of the transgression of the Mining authorities. And the transgression into his abduction trauma of simply handing the 14-year old Boy 70 years of goodbyes from his friends maybe 2 hours later subjective time. AND the children's Disney-given right to trash the symbols of the past in an orgy or destruction, perfectly disregarding any understanding of OR desire for man-made beauty. As a statement to the future - in a kind of grovelling for present day children "YOU are the future - you can do what the hell you want with the past".
I DO apologise for this jumbled review, but really... I cannot be bothered to structure my anger and frustration and loathing of the approval of this edit, and maybe of this script altogether, like I said in the beginning (lots of SFX make it hard to cut a film to deviate relevantly from the script - you can almost only remove scenes and plot lines altogether)
4/10 stars I give to the Lunar backdrop and the actors in general. The missing stars...
Usually with real world film: They become a movie in the editing room, and until then they are a lot of loose intentions centered around a script and the abilities of the hired actors and the editor - but the more CGI the movie is working with, the less material to manipulate in the editing room.
What works:
Speciel effects, the (child) actors, maybe except for the Disney darling, who is more Disney daytime show than snotty Earthling in a feature film (she DOES grow a bit), the Lunar landscape, the employed hardware.
What is not so good: The glass domed habitats on the moon and everything taking place in a meteor shower, give me a break!! (Look to the recent series "Silo" (2023) to get an idea of how to build to protect against the environment). The presentation of character motivations, as if a young audience would be confused by less sobby back-stories and more character action explaining motives.
And then: There are some unresolved points to mention. Some really nasty ones. And this is where the move is spoiled and this review spoils the movie.
- The lead is a young man, who discovers late in the movie that apparently his dad (and only parent) did not die by accident, but killed himself to give his boy a brighter future on a new planet away from the dreary minining colony on the moon
- That the place, which is the driving point for the story - and the kids literally drive across the lunar surface to get there, during a meteor storm, no less (HOW dumb are they, who have only ever known the moon?!) - turns out to be a place with nothing but a (beautiful) 3D projection of Earth similar to what Star Trek uses its Holo Deck for - which would only ever function as a painful reminder to the other children of impossible beauty, when...
- Yeah, and that's the next bad plot point: The young lead, following his father's death and insurance money because of that, is to be placed on a cryo ship to a New habitat, 70 years in deep sleep, to arrive as his own 14-year old self. But Boy does not want to - because he wishes to remain with the only friends he has ever known. But he has no say in the matter - he WILL be placed on the ship and sent away. Which is the reason for the kids' drive through the meteor shower to the famed place - which Boy's father made him promise to visit, before he is sent away, following Father's death...
yeah, it sounds complicated, but it really is very simple: Dad kill himself, boy go to Earth-TV to see what unspoiled vibrant LIFE really is, Friends go with boy, Car break down, Friends go to midway station...
- Midway station turns out to be a "model home" - built to lure early-on settlers to the moon, beautiful 60's/70's decor, and only this one was ever built, Mining company failing their promises. And for this reason Friends thrash the place, no questions asked. No beauty in itself is allowed, and the error of the deceit fully allows this destruction.
- And having seen (at the Moon holo deck) how the Earth and LIFE could be, Friends leave to go back to Mining Colony, as Boy is to be sent off, no questions asked by any of the children, Adults rule!, the other children returning to lead dreary lives with memories of a vibrant LIFE they can never experience. And then Lunar car breaks down, spacesuits shut down one by one, rescuers are approaching and then
- cut to the future, Boy wakes up on new planet. Never got to say goodbye to his friends, unconscious he was cryo-shipped away, and upon awakening he is given 70 years of yearly recordings from his best friend as a consolation meant to dissolve the trauma of his unwanted abduction, the journey he specifically asked to NOT go on, the forced journey, caused by Dad's suicide, and caused by his dad's explicit demand to Son to go see the "last of Earth, so he would understand why Dad was making this sacrifice..."
Argh! There is SO much wrong with this script on SO many levels. The transgression of Dad into life of son. The transgression of authorities abiding by dad's insurance. The transgression of putting Boy on cryo ship, AND while unconscious, despite Boy's prior and clearly stated refusal to go. And the children's un-questioned acceptance of the transgression of the Mining authorities. And the transgression into his abduction trauma of simply handing the 14-year old Boy 70 years of goodbyes from his friends maybe 2 hours later subjective time. AND the children's Disney-given right to trash the symbols of the past in an orgy or destruction, perfectly disregarding any understanding of OR desire for man-made beauty. As a statement to the future - in a kind of grovelling for present day children "YOU are the future - you can do what the hell you want with the past".
I DO apologise for this jumbled review, but really... I cannot be bothered to structure my anger and frustration and loathing of the approval of this edit, and maybe of this script altogether, like I said in the beginning (lots of SFX make it hard to cut a film to deviate relevantly from the script - you can almost only remove scenes and plot lines altogether)
4/10 stars I give to the Lunar backdrop and the actors in general. The missing stars...
space road trip
SnoopyStyle17 May 2023
It's the year 2257. A lunar mining colony is extracting helium for fuel to travel to the ultimate destination Omega. Newly orphaned Caleb (Isaiah Russell-Bailey) gets a spaceship ticket, but must leave his friends behind. He with his three best friends decide to steal a rover to go on a road trip to a crater where his father suggests something important. The boys need an exit code and recruits new Earth arrival Addison Weaver (Mckenna Grace).
This script is on the 2015 Black List. There is some work here, but most of Caleb's personal discovery drama is muddied by the tween sci-fi road trip adventure. I would have preferred a treasure hunt like the Goonies. All the world building may be interesting on the page. It didn't translate on the screen. It's still a fun road trip. As for the ending, it is not good action adventure. I was going to give it a fail for the tonal shift and for the bad logic. It's unlikely that they would place an unconscious Caleb on the rocket ship. Ultimately, I am giving it a pass for its poetry.
This script is on the 2015 Black List. There is some work here, but most of Caleb's personal discovery drama is muddied by the tween sci-fi road trip adventure. I would have preferred a treasure hunt like the Goonies. All the world building may be interesting on the page. It didn't translate on the screen. It's still a fun road trip. As for the ending, it is not good action adventure. I was going to give it a fail for the tonal shift and for the bad logic. It's unlikely that they would place an unconscious Caleb on the rocket ship. Ultimately, I am giving it a pass for its poetry.
The movie that could... have been good.
LovesBlues21 May 2023
This movie had so much potential! Squandered completely squandered moments denied to us by writer and Director. This movie could've gone in so many directions; towards social injustice, toward future and time travel; and many other sci-fi, realms; toward a love story; or just ... anywhere! They took us to the top of the cliff, and left us standing there, saying "You could have! Too bad you didn't try harder!"
Unlike the little engine that could this movie doesn't accomplish anything at all. The main character's conflict is a non-starter. A discussion on what indentured servitude is could have been enlightening to kids about to get first jobs, the audience is there-where's the writing?
Unlike the little engine that could this movie doesn't accomplish anything at all. The main character's conflict is a non-starter. A discussion on what indentured servitude is could have been enlightening to kids about to get first jobs, the audience is there-where's the writing?
Similar plot
facebook-239-91212715 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't seen it yet, but he story reminds me of John Christopher's "the Lotus Caves" from 1969. It's a teenager book like his other books "The Guardians" or "the Tripods". Of course a lot of stuff is not in the original story (father dies, coming of age etc.) It seems like there are other elements of Christopher's other books are in there too (father dies in the beginning: The Guardians).
Instantly I don't like the begining that the father dies. I wonder if the writers have kids and have watched a movie like this before with their kids. It's really a bad start and kills the mood instantly. When you want to watch a movie with your kids you dont want them to see how the father of another kid dies. That's totally awful to watch.
Instantly I don't like the begining that the father dies. I wonder if the writers have kids and have watched a movie like this before with their kids. It's really a bad start and kills the mood instantly. When you want to watch a movie with your kids you dont want them to see how the father of another kid dies. That's totally awful to watch.
5 kids share 1 brain.
joshuaseymour-4589220 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The movie was difficult to watch, had to make 2 attempts, not only is it incredibly slow moving, but the cascade of terrible discussions made by these kids should have gotten them killed or in the least have some significant repercussions following their rescue.
Terrible plot points that just don't make any sense....
I don't know it I missed it or what but I thought that they only had to work for 20 years and then they could go to the new planet, why did they not all meet back up on this new planet like 95 years later? The kid said that generations no longer had to recover their parents lost time. The main kid should have gotten there 70 years later and they should have been like we'll see you in 25 years. To be honest I might have misunderstood the time served but, it was very difficult to stay awake and actively pay attention to this movie. I mean I really love space movies and hadn't Found one I didn't like until now.
Also the acting..... I mean I know it is a Disney movie so I should expect Disney acting (acting with energy and enthusiasm set to 200) but super high energy and enthusiasm with bo substance is just..... bad.
The soundtrack was good though.
Terrible plot points that just don't make any sense....
- They find a model home that was designed by someone in the 1960's who was asked what they think life would be like in the year 2000.
- they destroy said house.... Just... cause. These kids have no sense of appreciation or anything, not only have they ruined it for everybody else but also themselves as there is now nothing to go back to. One kid almost broke the life support system, honestly it would have been a better ending for them to have just let him.
- they only bring 1 spare oxygen tank and waste it before they get halfway to where they're going.... Stupid!
- one of the kids collapses in the room in the crater because of his blood pressure and left his meds in the rover, they summarize that it's because of the low gravity, so instead of staying in the higher artificial gravity which is obviously better for his blood pressure they take him back out to the rover to get it, when it would have been more efficient for one of them to go get it and bring it back. It's at this moment that they get stuck in the meteor shower and again, instead of one of them braving it to get the meds and bring them back to the crater they all decide to risk getting hit by the metros on the way back to the rover.
- they they get back to the rover and realize they don't all have enough oxygen to last until they get saved, they decide to just chill and die instead of going back to the crater where there is oxygen. Also they said in the beginning that it would take a day to get to the crater, so I guess they all just sat in the rover for 24h minimum until they got rescued.
- the most ridiculous part of the whole ordeal is the fact that there were no repercussions for any of the theft or destruction that they caused.
I don't know it I missed it or what but I thought that they only had to work for 20 years and then they could go to the new planet, why did they not all meet back up on this new planet like 95 years later? The kid said that generations no longer had to recover their parents lost time. The main kid should have gotten there 70 years later and they should have been like we'll see you in 25 years. To be honest I might have misunderstood the time served but, it was very difficult to stay awake and actively pay attention to this movie. I mean I really love space movies and hadn't Found one I didn't like until now.
- it to mention all of the questionable science and physics inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Also the acting..... I mean I know it is a Disney movie so I should expect Disney acting (acting with energy and enthusiasm set to 200) but super high energy and enthusiasm with bo substance is just..... bad.
The soundtrack was good though.
Frighteningly bad
gacsogergely14 May 2023
There is the foundation for some youngsetr-adventure, but this script is either writte4n by an AI, or someone who should be banned from writing scripts.
The basic is, some kiddo wants to go to some crater. What is there? Nothing.
But you know what is everywhere? Oxygen.
Then you have plenty of Talking Faces In A Room. What am I watching - The Asylum? No, The Asylum does this better, because between the talking-in-rooms there are crazy things. Here: just blatant absurdity.
There is no reason why anyone in this film do anything, and what they do shouldn't work. The worldbuilding is the worst I've ever seen. On top of it that's not how physics work. That's not how anything works, really.
Finaly, there is the racism. Every coloured person in this product has disability. This is how Disney tells you, they are lower race, I can't figure out otherwise.
This is just bad. Frighteningly bad. There is no message, theme, any kind of coherency, really. I suspect AI-generated content, how alien this is to me. So deep in uncanny valley, it's absurd. This is why HPL-protagonists go mad.
The basic is, some kiddo wants to go to some crater. What is there? Nothing.
But you know what is everywhere? Oxygen.
Then you have plenty of Talking Faces In A Room. What am I watching - The Asylum? No, The Asylum does this better, because between the talking-in-rooms there are crazy things. Here: just blatant absurdity.
There is no reason why anyone in this film do anything, and what they do shouldn't work. The worldbuilding is the worst I've ever seen. On top of it that's not how physics work. That's not how anything works, really.
Finaly, there is the racism. Every coloured person in this product has disability. This is how Disney tells you, they are lower race, I can't figure out otherwise.
This is just bad. Frighteningly bad. There is no message, theme, any kind of coherency, really. I suspect AI-generated content, how alien this is to me. So deep in uncanny valley, it's absurd. This is why HPL-protagonists go mad.
Good family movie
estockages15 May 2023
Too cliched, other movie mash up, not perfect science... its so easy to criticize these sort of films, but no way enough to give a bad rating when the acting is great, story flows well, has a good message, it gives you amazing landscapes/scenery and makes you think a ton about life, love, friendship and existence in such a fun and different way. Good entertainment for kids over 6 up to adults.
I enjoyed it a lot and didn't feel it dragged at all and my two boys of 7 and 11 were glued to it also. I hope disney makes more of these kind of movies that deliver what a family movie should deliver. For a groundbreaking artsy masterpiece movie I would expect something else, but probably wouldn't have such a good family time.
I enjoyed it a lot and didn't feel it dragged at all and my two boys of 7 and 11 were glued to it also. I hope disney makes more of these kind of movies that deliver what a family movie should deliver. For a groundbreaking artsy masterpiece movie I would expect something else, but probably wouldn't have such a good family time.
Standard Dismal Disney
grayp-7627422 May 2023
No story, no adventure, no humor, no chemistry, and no sci-fi. Just copy and paste dialogue from one dimensional children in what is essentially a car ride to a lunar movie projector while discovering insurance fraud. With all the typical bleak, hollow future tropes that has become Disney's hallmark of late. Skip this mess and watch The Swiss Family Robinson or In Search of the Castaways and try to remember when movies were good. Since there's a mandatory character number for reviews and there's nothing left to say about this "film", here's some random words...pedantic, puerile, pathetic, putrid.
I wish i can unsee it
diyaaeraqi29 May 2023
When you find Disney Sci-Fi movie you would expect something great or at least good, well flash news it's not, no logic, no physics, no script, still it is a well made visuals.
And if you're looking for Sci-Fi good news, disney gave you up to 5 clips that has a Sci-Fi things, they're literally using a paper map, if they just used google maps it'd be much better.
They kept mentioning a planet called Omega, and in the end it was just another earth, no sci-fi again
It's literally an unwhatchable movie, disney if you just brought a video of two monkeys in the zoo and gave them some voice over it'll be much better.
I gave the movie one star just because i couldn't find the -1 star button.
There is no reason why they did that or that or anything at all.
And i thought bee movie is a trash, don't watch this movie unless you really want to start appreciating any other bad movie you have.
Thank you for reading and your time.
And if you're looking for Sci-Fi good news, disney gave you up to 5 clips that has a Sci-Fi things, they're literally using a paper map, if they just used google maps it'd be much better.
They kept mentioning a planet called Omega, and in the end it was just another earth, no sci-fi again
It's literally an unwhatchable movie, disney if you just brought a video of two monkeys in the zoo and gave them some voice over it'll be much better.
I gave the movie one star just because i couldn't find the -1 star button.
There is no reason why they did that or that or anything at all.
And i thought bee movie is a trash, don't watch this movie unless you really want to start appreciating any other bad movie you have.
Thank you for reading and your time.
Good
sadfjlfdo241 July 2023
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It is beautiful to see a company waste millions of dollars on child actors, just to end up with a dumpster fire that is appropriately called 'Crater'.
It doesn't make sense
hansefde27 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I know it's a kids movie, but that's no excuse for lazy writing. From a science point of view there is so much wrong, from a logical view even more. Kids running around on the moon? Waste of oxygen and resources. All the stuff they built and just left there? Also a waste, it would have been recycled. People working like slaves on the moon? That's plain stupid, these people are astronauts, they would have been educated and fully trained. And paid well because they would more act like surgeons than mineworkers. And mining helium? The scriptwriters ran out of ideas? At first glance this movie might seem entertaining because you want to know what's inside the crater. And when you find out even that is a stupid idea, why not place this at the dome for leisure? Not everyone can take a shuttle a day driving to see it? Waste of energy. Forget this movie or see it for free. Shame to waste your money on. The kids do their best to put down an acceptable acting performance, kudo's to them. But the script writers need to do their homework better, probably even AI could do better nowadays.
Neat little kids SciFi movie
flingebunt23 May 2023
A group of kids steal a rover on the moon to travel to a crater where a secret is waiting for one of them. They will have adventures and face dangers on their way while learning more about the world they live on and the world that their parents or grandparents came from.
The beauty of this movie is it is about kids living in a future that is negative. They learned nothing about the Earth at school, they see no great future for them because their parents and then themselves will be forced into basically bonded labour contracts with unfair conditions that are almost impossible to escape.
Yet the movie ends on a hopeful note, even if they are no revolutionaries. Yes, a lot of the moon stuff and physics is all wrong, but the reality of the feelings and story are important. These are kids and the story is grounded at their level.
Not sure why there are negative reviews. Maybe it is the adults watching what is a kids movies. Maybe it is parents upset that the movie is negative. Perhaps the pacing is too slow for modern kids. Not sure, but still should be better regarded than it is.
The beauty of this movie is it is about kids living in a future that is negative. They learned nothing about the Earth at school, they see no great future for them because their parents and then themselves will be forced into basically bonded labour contracts with unfair conditions that are almost impossible to escape.
Yet the movie ends on a hopeful note, even if they are no revolutionaries. Yes, a lot of the moon stuff and physics is all wrong, but the reality of the feelings and story are important. These are kids and the story is grounded at their level.
Not sure why there are negative reviews. Maybe it is the adults watching what is a kids movies. Maybe it is parents upset that the movie is negative. Perhaps the pacing is too slow for modern kids. Not sure, but still should be better regarded than it is.
Billy Barratt's character killed Caleb's father?
paralisis23 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
In general, a contradictory impression. Great actors (Billy Barratt the youngest person to win an International Emmy Award) and a great movie idea (sci-fi teen drama with all the roles played by real teenagers). The script does not live up to their level, unfortunately. Spoilers follow.
Why, in 2257, the inhabitants of Moon cannot not only periodically fly to Earth, but even do not have the opportunity to watch videos about how everything looks on Earth? One of the characters even asks about the color of the sky on Earth.
Why do they have such ancient clothes for 2257? In 2257, there will certainly be other clothes types.
How did it happen that the main character at the end was sent to another planet for a better life, if in the movie everyone lives in such a cruel society where people's rights are violated? It would be much more plausible if the leaders of the company where the father of the protagonist worked came up with a legitimate reason to force the boy to work instead of the boy's father after the father's death.
The plot itself is boring. It would be much more interesting if Billy Barratt's character killed the main character's father in order to send the boy to a better place to live. Especially considering one of Billy Barratt's previous roles.
Why, in 2257, the inhabitants of Moon cannot not only periodically fly to Earth, but even do not have the opportunity to watch videos about how everything looks on Earth? One of the characters even asks about the color of the sky on Earth.
Why do they have such ancient clothes for 2257? In 2257, there will certainly be other clothes types.
How did it happen that the main character at the end was sent to another planet for a better life, if in the movie everyone lives in such a cruel society where people's rights are violated? It would be much more plausible if the leaders of the company where the father of the protagonist worked came up with a legitimate reason to force the boy to work instead of the boy's father after the father's death.
The plot itself is boring. It would be much more interesting if Billy Barratt's character killed the main character's father in order to send the boy to a better place to live. Especially considering one of Billy Barratt's previous roles.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
