Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

fedor8 I have never understood the point in putting 3 kilos of dough on an actor's face, just to make him look 50 years older. Why not simply cast an older actor? It's not as if the dough-covered main character is even vaguely recognizable underneath all that stuff, anyway. Sillier yet, they changed his voice so much that he ends up being utterly unrecognizable. So what's the bloody point? The excessive make-up kind of defeats the purpose. The ancient geezer just ends up looking grotesque, like a puppet from "Spitting Image", with a voice more suitable to Satan than an aging astronaut. Then again, perhaps 3 kilos of dough is still cheaper than hiring an additional actor.TFMITM has an entertaining first half but suffers a noticeable quality drop in the second – the same as in the 1964 version. This can't be a mere coincidence, and must be attributable to Jules Verne's book. The whole insect-like aliens vs. humans shtick was utterly original at the time when he wrote it, I don't doubt that, but as the decades went by this became a huge sci-fi pulp cliché, watering down considerably the effect the alien encounter is supposed to have on the reader/viewer. This is why it's difficult to show interest in most of the goings-on in that segment of the movie.The other problem with the second half is the depression-inducing, overly dark sets. Surely, the makers of TFMITM must have known that they were not making a dark Kafkaesque version of the "first" moon-walk, but something for audiences of all ages. The insect caves should have been more colorful and brighter, rather than resembling the gloomy depths of Hell. Aside from that flaw, the film is very solid visually. Certainly, well above average for a British sci-fi film.

tangochan85 Going into things, I expected this movie to be weird and maybe on occasion rude, but I was surprised to find it had a quiet straight-forwardness about it instead. It was not bad, but it wasn't really a movie I would watch again either. I can see the kind of atmosphere that Gatiss was trying to set up when he adapted the story, and I think that the atmosphere he set worked very well with the rudimentary CGI in the film. I was a bit dismayed to see that the old man version of Bedford looked almost exactly like the old man form of the Tenth Doctor from that one episode with the Master in Doctor Who. You would think there could be some variation in the costuming department, or maybe they reused the prosthetic to save money. Either way, it was a nice little movie, though not very memorable.

Leofwine_draca An unashamedly old-fashioned adaptation of a lesser-known H. G. Wells novel, previously made into a movie (complete with Ray Harryhausen stop-motion aliens) back in 1964. Mark Gatiss should be applauded for bringing something less familiar to the screen, showing that there's still a market for small-screen science fiction and horror (he also made the retro horror anthology, CROOKED HOUSE).Unfortunately, FIRST MEN IN THE MOON doesn't turn out to be the greatest film ever made. It's commendably old-fashioned, yes, featuring a great performance from none-other than Gatiss as a bizarre Edwardian mad scientist who creates a compound that will take his ship to the moon. Paired up with Gatiss is straight man Rory Kinnear, son of Roy and the spitting image of his father. Given that this production has an extremely low budget, much of the film is made up of dialogue as the pair fight, debate and argue, but of course the inevitable CGI effects eventually come when the twosome make their trip to the moon.The good stuff: for once, the CGI aliens look pretty good, and on par with Harryhausen's own creations. There's plenty of humour to soften the story, and Gatiss and Kinnear work well together. The bad stuff: the story seems very twee in places and the plotting is stretched out to the extreme, with very little actual incident to fill the running time. It has the feel of a children's show, although bizarrely the BBC like to show this stuff on an obscure channel in the middle of the night. A shame, as the kids gorging themselves on the latest DOCTOR WHO would probably enjoy this – and it's something I myself would have loved if I'd seen it at an early age.

maschiavon I cannot find the reason to do such a horrible thing like this. Poor production, horrible effects, bad acting, terrible screenplay, lost directing and so on... The 1964 version is thousands times better than this one, including the effects, so what's the point about doing this? Poor H.G Wells. I read his book in which this thing is based. So many wonderful ideas lost. The changes in the story did it worst so why to change something that was already good and known? I am a screenwriter and a director and I think we can change, adapt, specially old stories, but in order to make it better not worst which is the case here. This movie looks like to have been made by a film student of the first year that missed all the classes. One is too much, I give it zero.