Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Prismark10 The First Men in the Moon is a low budget BBC4 adaptation of the HG Wells book. The film stars Mark Gatiss as Cavor and Rory Kinnear as Bedford. Gatiss also adapted the screenplay.The setting is July 1969 on the eve of the first lunar landing as a 90 year old Julius Bedford tells a young lad the story of how two men made the first journey to the Moon back in 1909. He recounts that when he was a young man, he met Professor Cavor who had invented 'Cavorite', a substance that blocked the force of gravity and they worked together to build a ship that would fly them to the moon and encounter the Selenites.The film is an affectionate tribute to the HG Wells book but the pacing is uneven, the drama is low key and the special effects display its low budget origins. Gatiss and Kinnear do their best to elevate the production values but Gatiss screenplay is uneven and the direction does not help too much to make it more memorable.

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.

SinisterCreep After so many bad Hg Wells film and TV adaptations it's nice to see one that's quite faithful to the original story and well made. the acting's great, so is the script and it should make you smile. It's well worth a watch if you like Wells stories and sci fi in general. The pacing was well done unlike for instance the new series of Dr Who has been since it came back in 2005.The special effects aren't too bad either. the selenites themselves are well done and there's also a nod to the old George Melies silent film which was a really nice touch.the only real downside i thought was we didn't see much of the Selenites world underneath the moon. I'd like to have seen some more spectacular scenery like giant caves and the impression there's a city of selenites under the moon.Still I liked it and will be watching it again.

demondave93 Yet another pointless remake, and not by Hollywood this time.This film is an obviously low-budget, otherwise poor adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel, which demonstrates poor production values, laughable special effects, dubious sets, wooden acting, and uninspired directing.Most of the film seems to consist of pointless rambling exposition by either Gatiss (Cavor) or Kinnear (Bedford), with none of the inherent charm, drama, or comedy of the original film.This film is so much worst than the 1964 classic starring Lionel Jeffries that I'd recommend that you find a copy of that version instead of wasting your time with this one, which is merely another example of something the entire movie industry should learn about remakes:'If you can't make it better, Don't make it at all.'