I should qualify my review in saying that I am now a staunch fan of all of Almodóvar’s works.  While this should not hinder my ability to effectively review his films, it does mean that certain negatives expressed by other reviewers end up being positives in my opinion.  The outlandish stories and focus on the impact of society on gender are sometimes dismissed by other viewers, but seeing the progression of this aspect of his films is like seeing many pieces come together to form an entire picture.  The Skin I Live In is another piece to that puzzle.

I was impressed with the raw emotion Almodóvar was able to pull from the story and yet view that in a very non-emotional way.  As a viewer, you are forced to confront the issues on your level without the film forcing you in one direction or another.  This is exemplified in Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas).  Banderas plays an emotional destroyed doctor and scientist.  (Quick note, spoilers will be ahead but I will try my best not to reveal major points.  But it’s hard not to when the film is done in the style that this film is, so suck it up.)  His wife was in an accident and burned horribly, eventually committing suicide which their daughter witnesses.  The daughter becomes emotionally unstable and is placed into a very unwanted sexual situation that leads to her entering an asylum until she too commits suicide.  To see Banderas move between these events is captivating as he expresses his emotions in a myriad of ways from hate to love to revenge.  Yet the viewer is never told to like him.  We eventually reach a point where we have to question his action and judge him, but that only comes once the entire story is revealed.

I was also blown away by Vera (Elena Anaya).  She is the first part of this drama we meet as she is in some the of full body suit locked in a room.  As the story progresses, we are presented with a character that has been a part of Robert’s grand science experiment (or so we think).  We discover her skin is a part of his trials on the creation of a new skin to help burn victims.  While not approved, Robert continues the experiment on Vera.  Things become more complicated as we discover that Vera has been sculpted to resemble Robert’s dead wife and that the gap between doctor/scientist and patient/experiment is slowly dissolving.

What drives the film is the narrative.  We being in the present with Robert and Vera in their current situation but we are taken back to Robert’s earlier life experiencing the accident with his wife, situation with his daughter, and what actions Robert takes to get us where we are when the film begins.  This approach allows the viewer to slowly figure out the story and the trajectory Almodóvar is taking.  By the time the film ends we are left with many twist and turns and many re-evalutions of the characters.  This adds a sense of thrill and discovery as the films progresses.  We want to know more and more and that process invests us in the characters.

And now for the skip this if you don’t want to know what happens in the film.

While the film exists not he level of a thriller/mystery, it goes well beyond that when the issues of gender are introduced into the story.  We are force to view Robert as the typical male dominant of Spanish society.  He is the alpha male who had it all only to lose it.  He is forced to confront the issue of rape as his daughter is accosted by a young inebriated man.  The question becomes, what would you do?  Through the slow process of flashbacks, we are shown that Robert has kidnapped the man and begun transforming him from a man to a woman.  The eventual outcome is Vera.  This revelation is truly disturbing but opens a whole new aspect of the film.  Is the punishment Robert inflicts on Vicente (Jan Cornet) / Vera justified?  How do we react to Robert’s move from obsession over punishment to obsession over the object of that punishment?  How would we react to forceful gender reassignment?  Perhaps my only caveat with the film is how much of this is resolved by the end, it’s almost too neat of an ending.

Welcome back to those that skipped the last paragraph.

The Skin I Live In is part of the continued excellence of the mind of Pedro Almodóvar.  While it is a twisted and disturbing film at times, it is also filled with care and love for the craft of film-making.  Almodóvar is able to draw out amazing performances from his actors while constantly challenging the viewers on many aspects of society such as gender and punishment.  This is just the latest chapter in what is an amazing career that will hopefully continue to challenge us in the future.

Clearly there are many viewers who will call this the film that gave us nude scenes with Dunst.  While I do not deny the value of such an observation, it really is the least favorable thing about this film.  For me, this was an uneven film that frustrates the viewer while amazing them as well.  Perhaps I am a glutton for punishment, but I like the frustrations that Lars von Trier creates.  It is not a typical film and really even a bit different from other Trier films, but that is a good thing in my opinion.  After watching every comic book film made this year, it was time to move beyond films that entertained me to films that made me contemplate my existence (or at least go a bit deeper than spandex).

The first half of the film examines the personal issues of Justine (Kirsten Dunst) just as she makes her way to her own wedding reception.  The viewer is a fly on the wall as the reception and good times of the happy couple devolve into a complete meltdown.  Her forlorn lover Michael (Alexander Skarsgård) treats her to what I can only call some very sweet and touching moments as they make their way to the familial estate.  I honestly thought it began very romantic (in a completely different way than Antichrist which began as a romantically filmed death) even while being filmed in a matter of fact manner.  And then crazy.  Without going too much in detail, we are treated to a piece by piece puzzle where each added piece gives us a clearer view of the very troubled Justine.  Just married and doing a stranger on a golf course, best reception ever!  The highlight of this section of the film is the way in which Dunst moves from sweetheart to depressed crazy woman.  Even while she acts out towards her newly minted husband, I still had an emotional attachment to her that created a patient/doctor relationship.  I wanted to understand her, help her.  It was very moving but juxtaposed with a very in your face style of filming.

Then we begin the second section of the film where I wanted to immediately smack the crap out of Justine.  We move ahead in time where Justine is being taken in and care for by her sister (Charlotte Gainsbourg), husband (Kiefer Sutherland), and son (Cameron Spurr).  At this point we move back into a more typical style of filming that allows Trier to move into a bigger world view.  The stylistic change fits perfectly with the subject matter, a planet is going to pass closely by the Earth and everyone is concerned it may collide.  Yep, mental health to science fiction cataclysm.  I was not as excited about this section of the film.  While the acting of Gainsbourg and Sutherland demonstrate great skill, the story became more than the film could handle.  My emotional ties had been severed with Justine and I really hoped the planet would collide with the Earth because then it would get rid of me having to keep watching the dynamic between the two sisters.  Does this mean I didn’t like this section?  Well, yes and no.  My dislike became part of the reason I did like this part of the film.  My reaction was not one of hating the film, but hating what was happening.  I became disgusted with the varying reactions of the family.  I became enraged at the transformation of Justine from mental case to rebel death merchant (or perhaps doom lover).  And then it ended.

A bit of a spoiler if you read farther, the planet does collide. The final moments of Melancholia brought tears to my eyes (from chopping onions of course) and made me realize that my level of disgust with the characters came to fruition by their final moments.  Justine became a victim of consequence that brought me back to a level of love for her character in all her imperfectness.  Her level of acceptance of her imminent death pay out so well in contrast to Claire (Gainsbourg) and John (Sutherland) panic.  What we are left with is a beautiful requiem that pushes viewers into a state of reflection.  And then it ends, without a bang or crash.  It just ends.

Sometimes I feel that I like Trier films just because they are different.  While they may not be he most well written films or best filmed films, I find that I accept that.  Melancholia is no different.  The idea of two separate films smashed together should turn me off, but I found that I didn’t care.  There were also other things that angered me about the film, but I just didn’t care.  While i would not necessarily recommend this film to everyone, I certainly enjoyed it.  It is not a big budget action filled blockbuster, it is not a well crafted romance.  It is instead, Lars von Trier.  It’s nice to think that hate it or like it, I enjoy that Trier is willing to go so far beyond convention (or ironically stay in conventions) instead of making a mainstream film.  Perhaps that’s my review.  Watch Melancholia, it’s just different.

I now have a new dream, one rekindled out of shame rather than fame. A dream where I would ride my bike once again. For some reason I had it stuck in my mind that my old bike would still be the beast I remembered, but there was once catch: I bought the bike in 1995. Count it up folks, that’s 16 years ago. At least 14 of those without any use. A lonely bike gathering dust in a basement. Yet I had dreams. Dreams of fitness. Dreams of a single track. Dreams of an old man (okay I’m not that old but you get the picture). Then, I pulled my bike from its resting place.

Before I could go for a ride, my tires needed air. Or more to the point, I needed new tires to put air into. This led me to find my good ole local bike shoppe. (Don’t worry, I will give the shout out later but I’ll resist here so I don’t lose you). No problem I said, a quick visit will have everything fixed. Two weeks later, my bike had been greased and lubed, cleaned and checked. Before you go off on the two week wait, it was actually not a bad thing. You see, everyone wants their bike ready for summer. I also had to wait an extra day or so on my tires, again not a problem. And then there it was, my bike. Ready for combat.

Let me stop here a second and explain that the Proflex 555 is a full suspension bike that uses elastomers for rear suspension. In 1995 it was an incredible bike, but things got better in the bike world.

Now on with the story. First ride was a dream. It was like I had never gotten off the bike. Well, except for the immense pain in my ass from riding and the fact that my endurance was non-existent. Four miles. Well, we all have to start somewhere. I prepared for ride number two (with a nice new pair of padded shorts). Everything was going good, six miles had been reached. And then, the beast was awoken. Or at least the tube of my tire was awoken as it popped and I was sent into a nice little slide. Bike 1, me 0. And here is the result of sliding your bike across the ground at around 15 mph.

A little road rash.

A trip back to my local bike shop and a new tube was ready. My knee was not. Getting older means many things including nose hair and grumbling about kids on your lawn. It also means that injuries take a bit more time to overcome. Undeterred, I was once again back on my bike. Five miles went by, six miles went by, seven miles went by, rear elastomers went bye bye. My worst fear had come true. One rear elastomer melted as you will see in the next image.

Cheesecake anyone?

Now normally this would be where I go back again to the bike shop to replace the elastomer. However, 16 year old bikes do not always have available parts. For this bike, the rear elastomer is typically the death knell. I was saddened by this turn of events and was sure that I would either buy a new bike or go running instead. But then I called Jim. Well, I called my local bike shop and Jim happened to answer the phone. I told my tale and we both wept at the impending demise of my beloved beast. And then I said those magic words, “I think I saw someone put a spring on one.” Jim had heard these wild rumors but something this time was different. Something had been awoken in Jim. Perhaps it was the sadness in my voice or his cavalier attitude, but Jim was not ready for my bike to pine for the fjords. Over a few calls we developed a plan. Okay, Jim developed a plan. The next day my bike visited Jim. And Jim revived the beast.

Jim

That is my bike, now with a rear coil spring salvaged from another dead patient. No, it shouldn’t work like that and no it is a bit crazy. However, what do we say to death? Not today! The beast is back, I’m just worried what the next trial will be.

If not for the fearless crew at Pedal Pusher Bike Shop, my beast would be slain. With their help I was able to bring it back to life and hopefully put many more miles on my old friend. Is it pretty? Hell no, but when is a beast ever pretty. So thank you Jim and Pedal Pusher! You saved my beast. Give some love to Pedal Pusher and Jim by giving them your business and /or beer. I will certainly be going back (hopefully for upgrades and other items rather than an ER visit).

My beast is back and I plan on moving forward in my goal. I’ll let you know how it goes.

The loss of Edgar Wright is palatable and quite apparent right from the beginning of the film.  Now I’m not saying that Pegg of Frost are not capable of writing and making a good film, but I get the sense that above all else, Wright is an excellent editor for the team.  My biggest flaw with Paul is that the actors just don’t seem to know when to end a joke or when certain dialogue isn’t working.  Various points of the film become less that acceptable simply because the dynamic is not there and the film either drags or loses my interest.  The hardest part for me was caring long enough for some of the payout of the ending, but even then I was let down.

The concept is not bad, alien that is not your stereotypical alien is discovered as he is escaping from the military by two alien/comic book nerds.  Hilarity ensues, or is supposed to ensue, as the group evades the authorities in an attempt to save Paul.  While the spin certainly keeps you involved (although it is safe to say that same spin made A.L.F. successful), the plot meanders so that the actors can demonstrate their humor rather than move along the narrative.  This only works when dealing with Ruth Buggs (Kristen Wiig), but even that aspect feels like a one trick pony.  We get her naivety but after awhile it does become grating.  Various other ensemble actors interject their own attempts at humor but most of those attempts fall off the radar.  Did I ever mention how much I can’t stand Seth Rogen (who voices Paul)?  Even when he does voice over work I find myself wishing he had something else to do aside from films.  (Don’t get me started on The Green Hornet.)

Overall this feels like a stop gap until the next great Wright-Pegg-Frost film and it serves its purpose by at once giving us a taste of the potential humor and being just bad enough to make us want that collaboration more.  This comes to light when you get to the end of Paul.  We get a typical Hollywood happy ending that feels more like the film giving up than important.  Did I cry?  Um, yes but only because I was sad that the film was simply not up to par.  Hopefully Paul will simply be one of those films that gets placed into the timeline of a career rather than the end.  I want more Pegg and Frost, but next time make sure the film also includes Wright.

The film is about Will Burton (Gaelan Connell), a teen that has suffered much ridicule and is finally getting a chance to break free by transferring to a new high school.  While Will is certainly the central character (though the trailers would disagree), he becomes merely a mouthpiece for the other characters.  It’s not until much later in the film that we see his character’s own problems appear.  Will serves as a catalyst for the uncovering (and much later the resolution) of Charlotte’s (Alyson Michalka) personal struggles with life and death and Sa5M’s (Vanessa Hudgens) struggle with being someone that feels it’s necessary to spell their name with a number in it.  Through this process we are given a small treatise on “cool” music and the troubles of being a teenager.  That does sound familiar, but in this case it’s a much more adult version where the “being a teen” aspect carries more weight than not having the right shoes or fitting in.   However, the films is still aimed at teens which means we the adult perspective is tinged with more angst.

The film does venture into sketchy territory with the way in which Will is portrayed.  He is the everyman nerdy geek that has been played out in many teen films.  We get it, geeks rule and make the perfect lead role.  However, due to the late arrival of his back story, I became a bit annoyed.  There was never the magical connection between the viewer and Will, at least until the very end when his issues become central and come fast and furious.  This says nothing of Gaelan’s ability, but speaks more to problems in character development.  Then we have Vanessa Hudgens.  While I am glad that she is beginning the process of moving away from high school musicals, the direct attempt to be the anti-Gabrielle just does not work.  Her performance lacks the punch needed for a character named Sa5m.  More surprising was the way in which Alyson Michalka drove the story.  Her acting was more polished and really captured the needed emotional attitude needed by her character.  But all of these pale in comparison to Will’s mom, Karen Burton (Lisa Kudrow).  Kudrow steals the film partly due to her perfect fit for the role and partly due to her ability to weave comedic skill into even the most emotional of moments.  Perhaps this comes from being a parent, but you begin to feel that she is the glue that keeps this film from running afoul.  Teen movies need figures like her to be able to address more adult topics and move beyond just being a teen film.

Bandslam is well worth the watch because like so many films dealing with music, you find yourself singing and dancing along.  This is a testament to not only proper music choice but the fact that both Vanessa Hudgens and Alyson Michalka can sing.  If anyone has seen Nine, you know how important good singing can be.  While not a revolution of filmmaking, Bandslam fills the gap between teen film and adult drama.  We are given an emotional level not found in many teen films, while still being able to speak the language of youth.

So why did you not see Bandslam?  Perhaps the same reason I almost did not see Bandslam.  It was marketed to the Disney audience brought up on Selena Gomez and High School Musical.  While I have no doubt they did see the film, they surely did not view it again and again.  And what teen would have any concept of the importance of CBGBs (which Will has to explain ad nauseum to Sa5M) or why in the hell a band called Wilco has a song on the soundtrack.  However, this film falls between the gaps because many adults were turned off by the same reasons teens would be turned on.   With Hollywood pushing megahits and award winners relegated to “only pushed during awards season” status, it becomes difficult for films that are neither.  That in-between status of a film like Bandslam leaves the distributors with a major problem, should they push the marketing towards the Disney crowd or towards the tweeners?  Sadly, this film suffered due to this dilemma.  But don’t let that scare you away from watching Bandslam, even those films that fall through the cracks can be good solid films.

The plot is fairly easy to describe, group of thirty-somethings go for vacation in an isolate snowy area that is being patrolled by undead zombies.  Hilarity ensues.  The group is made up of grad students on vacation, except Sara (Ane Dahl Torp) who decides to ski to the cabin rather than ride in a car along with the rest of them.  I guess skiing to the vacation destination makes sense in the context of location, but I knew she was dead from the start.  The rest act like grad students on vacation with some alcohol and bad jokes.  We learn from a gruff traveler Hertzog (Ørjan Gamst), that the area was home to evil Nazis that stole and killed the people and then ran to the hills after the war to hide their spoils.  No one saw them again, except there have been reports of those Nazis still roaming the woods.  I’m really not sure what else you would need to know except that the hottest actress (Jenny Skavlan) in the film has sex with the overweight film geek in an outhouse right after he has announced to the group how big a shit he has to take.  Mild disgust to involuntary gagging should be overtaking you at this point.  However, it’s the little things like this that make Dead Snow such a fun film to watch.

How in the hell is sex in an outhouse reflective of a fun film?  Mainly because it demonstrates the key factor in making Dead Snow worthwhile, it is self-aware.  While not a parody or even satire, the film recognizes that zombie and horror films have been using the same conventions over and over again.  Why not take those conventions and simply announce that the film will be following them while still playing around a bit.  In the vein of such films as the Evil Dead films, the humor comes from the tweaking of those conventions rather than anything being funny.  When the group first treks to the mountain cabin, the film geek Erland (Jeppe Beck Laursen) wonders just how many horror films begin with a group of people going to an isolate cabin.  Erland provides even more film references and quotes throughout the film, which are typically timely and add to the humor of a particular scene.  The film is not funny because it tries to be funny, it’s humorous because of the slight variations of conventions.  It does play like a straight horror film, but the self-aware nature creates a multi-layered romp through the zombie genre.

Then there is the obsession with intestines.  Dead Snow is certainly not for the weak of stomach.  While you are given the typical gore of a zombie film, you are also given so much more.  The end of the film is an entire smorgasbord of ways to kill zombies and cause as much blood to spread as possible.  Cut-off hand and various impalements later, the snow becomes a blank canvas for the Jackson Pollock-esque blood splatter.  No problem you say, I can handle blood and gore.  How about various scenes that involve the repeated focus on intestines.  How about catching your intestines on a tree branch?  Ever use an intestines as a climbing rope?  Motif, yes.  Disturbing repetition of intestines, hell yes.  We even get a discussion on how you can be alive and still watch your intestines being ripped out.  Which then actually happens.  I’m not sure if you can have your intestines ache, but I certainly am now more aware of the possible ways in which intestines could get me killed or saved.

Dead Snow gives viewers a fun trip into zombie filled woods where intestines abound and conventions become vehicles for humor.  While not being a particularly great film, it does vault itself beyond a bad film.  Or is it that the film is trying to be bad and therefore becomes a very good postmodern zombie film?  I think I will leave that up to you.  If you like zombie films (which apparently I do since I have now began classifying sub-genres of zombie films), you will find this fun and a less than serious stab at the genre.  If you do not like zombie films, go watch something else.  Not only will you be disturbed by the many uses for the intestines, the self-awareness will not make much sense.  Director Tommy Wirkola demonstrates his love of film and his ability to create a film that really could have been just another zombie film and takes it one step further.  He even names a character Hertzog, but that  in itself demonstrates why my enthusiasm for this film is a bit tarnished.  The same thing that makes the film watchable (being self-aware), can certainly come off as a bit of the egotistical film geek making a film vibe.  Future films by Wirkola will certainly prove which it actually was.

The basic story revolves around newly hired radio DJ Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) that has found himself in the doldrums of winter while still trying to bring his fierce anti-persona to the airwaves.  He assisted by his smart yet vulnerable producer Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) and his young just back from military duty technician Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly).  What begins as a simple day of weather related closings and community interviews (Lawrence of Arabia as a musical anyone?) turns into a potential world threatening cataclysm.  That is, if it’s not a hoax as Mazzy believes.  That hoax is quickly dispatched as the reality comes flooding in from first hand accounts and government involvement.  The twist is that these “zombies” are not zombies in the traditional sense.  Before you read the next paragraph, I am going to reveal a few plot points that may ruin the film for you.  So stop reading now and join us later in the review.

The zombies are created by language and feed off other humans to find another host for what I can only describe as a word virus.  Dr. Mendez (Hrant Alianak) describes this in the film as becoming infected when you truly understand a word, hence the zombies being attracted to people talking and their continued repetition of words.  In fact, you know someone is infected when they begin repeating a word.  Scary concept, yet made less effectual by the virus only working for the English language.  Had this film been aiming at a serious plot, I’m quite sure it would have been a bi-lingual virus at the least.  However, English virus it is.  The reason for English is never explained, but I would think it is either due to the fact that it came from a secret MLA test facility created by Grammar Nazis or someone has a big problem with English.  You do just have to overlook this in the film, but it did give me a bit of a setback for my enjoyment.  I kept thinking about Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash and how you can truly make words a virus.  While not a blockade to making Pontypool a good film, it did give me that feeling that the film missed a chance.

At this point, you can rejoin our discussion.

Pontypool had set itself up to linger in a B-movie hell, but then it rose from the ashes by providing viewers with acting and direction that elevates the film to almost A-movie material.  The characters of Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie) and Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle) work well to create a quirky and meaningful performance.  McHattie has the look of a man that has been around the block a few times (the cowboy certainly should remind you of another radio host).  His grouchy old man act gives the audience a great opportunity to experience the magic of casting.  Other actors may have run with the fear or desolation angle, but McHattie gives us the crazy element that opens the door for humor and seriousness.  Houle’s performance may not be wonderful on her own; but as a contrast to McHattie, she works well in providing his character with the needed grounding.

All of the characters work because director Bruce McDonald forces them into a bubble.  The confining nature of the actual set and his cinematography isolates them, eventually allowing the viewer to experience the zombie phenomenon on a personal level.  I was surprised that we are really never shown anything beyond the studio (church basement).  However, it works to enhance would could have been a simple slash and gash zombie chase.  It served as the winter prison where emotions and actions become desperate.

Pontypool never takes the viewer to the battlefield, only offering side notes to the greater story.  Yet, that’s what makes the film stand out from other films of this nature.  We are able to experience another side to your typical zombie film.  A side where helicopter weathermen drive station wagons and kill can mean kiss.  I found that Pontypool is entertaining and quirky, but that it will perhaps stay in a niche category.  Fans of zombie or horror  films may be disappointed, but this small little film does provide an entertaining experience.

The slow methodical pace of Moon harkens back to old school hard sci-fi where the science is really only a tool to a deeper understanding of human nature.  While we have moments of action, most of the film is about interaction.  Even when we venture to the surface of the moon, CGI is replaced with models that look more real than any computer generated futuristic rover.  The intent was not to wow the audience with glitz and glam, but wow them with substance.  Although this methodology works for the most part, it does take some time to introduce the core of the story.  By the time we get to the heart of the film, many viewers may have already predicted the twist.  While I will not discuss the twist here, I will warn you that the rest of the review has to reveal the twists so that the review makes sense.  So stop reading if you do not want to know the entire story.

The highlight of this film is certainly Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, HE3 miner on the surface of the moon.  He has a three year contract before he can go home.  Rockwell’s initial performance in the film is reminiscent of Tom Hanks in Castaway.  He is faced with no other human interaction and only has GERTY (Kevin Spacey), the stations artificial intelligence machine, to keep him company.  Volleyball compared to a self aware machine?  Perhaps Rockwell does have it a bit easier than Hanks, but the perfomance is still stellar.  All this changes when we meet Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell).  You heard me.  After a mining accident, we are suddenly thrust back to the station and see a more gung-ho Sam in a much cleaner space suit.  In a short while, the audience is rewarded with a rescue of Sam, by Sam.  Honestly, this is where Rockwell’s performance hits its stride.  He plays clones of Sam Bell that are reflections of the original Sam Bell (who may have never gone to the moon or may have died landing there) but at different points of their 3 year contract.  One who freshly sees the reasoning for clones and sets out to break free from the Sam cycle and one who has reached the end of his three year life cycle, finally facing the end and finding out the real story behind Sam.  The back and forth between the two Sams is humorous and serious, demonstrating that Rockwell is certainly an unsung talent.

The film works because we are essentially forced to reflect on what it is to be human.  By forcing the viewer into a relationship with Sam, we need to face the idea of our own mortality and the ethics of not only cloning, but human life.  Once you add the self aware and human-like GERTY, the question becomes what makes us human?  While one could point out other films that deal with clones (The Island and Parts: The Clonus Horror), Moon moves beyond the basic ethics of clone creation to a deeper layer of questioning of the basic principles of humanity.  When Sam is faced with the information that his wife has been dead, the clone reacts with sadness and grief one would expect of the real Sam.  Yet, these feelings come from implanted memories and not reality.  Moon works more on the level of Blade Runner.  The viewer is given the viewpoint of the clone (or possible replicant), which muddies the water of reality.  Are we human because of our memories?  Or are we human because of our actions?

Moon is a truly thoughtful film from a first time director.  Jones has realized that all the money in Hollywood only helps make a film pretty, it does not help the story.  While there may be some issues with the film with pacing and editing, they are easy to ignore.  However, much is left in the air.  Is the film good due to Rockwell’s performance or Jones’ directing?  There is certainly space for a sequel, once which I wouldn’t mind seeing.