In the Shadow of the Moon

Edit: I realized only after submitting this review and getting tons of unhelpful votes that this movie has been heavily politicized and there are floods of people down-voting any positive review not for its content, but for its rating. For what it's worth, I cover the ambiguity of the movie's moral lessons in my review (that many clearly didn't read before down-voting). I happened to like that "is this really for the best?" ambiguity that ending entailed. Not once did I find this movie to be beating the viewer over the head with a political message; if anything, I found it opened one's eyes to the possibility that "for the greater good" is a flawed concept. I hate that this movie has been so politicized; as a centrist myself, I found no political slant to the movie and was surprised to hear of people wanting to boycott it. In this awful "cancel culture" waged by both sides of the political divide, I welcome movies like this that make viewers THINK. After all, if people are calling for a piece of art to be boycotted, you can be sure it has ruffled enough feathers to be a worthwhile discussion piece. So if you're a potential viewer hoping to avoid political bias, I say go into this with an open mind. I didn't find it as cut and dry as others, but then again, I'm not easily offended in the slightest.

"You're crazy," Locke says at one point when speaking to a man on one side of this moral debacle.

"I think we're both beyond the pale," the enemy replies.

THIS quote is apt, neatly laying out what I believe the true intent was for this movie. The murders committed are awful. The crimes they prevented were awful. Both sides are beyond the pale, mirroring the political divide happening around this movie's message that neither extreme can be a hero. How ironic; the controversy surrounding In the Shadow of the Moon matches its outlook. Now, on to the original review.

In the Shadow of the Moon somehow takes multiple genres and mashes them together to come up with a highly unique viewing experience that actually works. Locke is a cop on the job in 1988 when he investigates a series of mysterious murders that all happen at the same time and have multiple ties that baffle detectives and forensic investigators alike. So begins a chase over the decades involving a cop who slowly mentally degrades and a suspect who can't seem to be caught or killed. Another review stated the twist is too expected, yet they also said the movie could've been less convoluted, which sounded conflicted to me. The fact that the storyline was so complex and yet so easily understood worked well in this movie's favor, in my opinion. Because we follow the viewpoint of an investigator throughout the movie, we can slowly unravel the pieces to the puzzle alongside him so that the movie feels complete and satisfying without relying on plot holes or the convenience of confusing its audience by pulling the "because it's sci-fi!" card.

Who is Boyd Holbrook, and why the heck isn't he in more stuff? This was the first time I've seen him in anything. He did a fantastic job playing Locke. His character evolves so greatly throughout the movie, and he played each step believably and was a delight to watch. Cleopatra Coleman served her role as Rya well, but I wasn't as impressed with her usually stone-faced performance. She was believable, but she didn't stand out. Bokeem Woodbine was fantastic as Locke's partner Maddox. The sound design in this movie is outstanding, mixing distortion and music to ideally fit the mysterious but enthralling action pieces (particularly the first set of murders in '88 that are shown within the first ten minutes). The cinematography was fantastic to the point of being noticeable. This movie sucks you into its world and immerses you, its long takes allowing you time to focus on its plotline one decade at a time. In the Shadow of the Moon somehow is able to pull off multiple decades believably without relying on bashing the audience over the head with distracting nostalgia. Finally, while the movie starts out viewing these crimes as murders and ends up explaining the snowball effect leading up to them, it opens the door for philosophical questions regarding morality and time travel. I love, love, love thought-provoking movies like this.

If I have any complaints about In the Shadow of the Moon, it's that once the police thriller dissipates (as Locke becomes more deranged and isolated) and holds hands with the final sci-fi act, it slows down a little in pace. I was still glued to the screen as all story arcs began to merge and close, don't get me wrong, but the gritty city feel from the first half was so well-done I craved more and more. But looking over the movie with a critical lens, I can't see that they could've pulled it off any other way. This slowdown was necessary to the plot, and the development of both the story and the characters (particularly Locke) were handled with delicacy.

Overall, this is one Netflix movie you need to put on your queue and give a shot. Netflix has a lot of misses you have to dig through to find stuff like this. You might not love In the Shadow of the Moon as much as I did because tastes are subjective, but it is undoubtedly a well-directed and put together movie with a unique merge of genres that you owe it to yourself to try. Fantastic work, Jim Mickle. Boyd Holbrook, I'll be keeping my eye out for you in other movies. You caught my attention here.

Ok, film first.

Pretty decent script, good acting, pacing is a little off at times, but overall a not bad sci-fi.

Ok, now for the good bit.

The film deserves a 10 purely for the fact it has seriously annoyed so called 'patriots' and gun supporters that seem to be happy in ignoring the fact that what this film is about a mass terrorism event.

Yes, terrorist don't have to be a different skin colour or from a different country.

Even though the plot was pretty much clear from the start, the first part of the movie was enjoyable. A certain tension, a certain nostalgia. But then it all starts going downhill until it end in the sewers. The vague ethical elements never rise above kindergarten level, the science is preposterous and the "USA is the world" assumption is tedious. The acting is decent, so is the music and lighting. Too bad, as with nearly every movie these days, the plot didn't get as much attention.

So people are rating this low because it is alleged that it has a political message of 'wipe out an opposite view'? have they been hiding under a rock since cinema began? Most films before I was even born have been about one enemy wiping out another, morality has not been the premise of most films through cinematic history . This is simply an action film not based on real life, its obviously not a true story , the heart of it is simply the idea that if you were to, for instance, wipe out Hitler or his parents you potentially save millions of people from all different backgrounds. so do you wipe out the few or let the millions die? I suppose these films serve a good purpose in opening up the debate so I'll give it a 7 . Watch the film, enjoy it, its a good story , somewhat predictable at times but a good twist in the end.

It's mid budget and reasonable acting etc. There are a lot of negative comments and some people are offended way too easily, perhaps some are looking into it way too much for faults and racism, it's fiction. There are a hell of a lot more offensive movies out there, I am 58 and white and I did not even think of any of the things that some of the overly sensitive reviewers on here so just enjoy it as the fictional movie that it is and not a propaganda movie with messages of hate.