"Moonfall" is a sci-fi disaster film directed and co-written by Roland Emmerich ("Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow", "2012"). Starring Halle Berry, Patrick Wilson, and John Bradley, it ranks among the stupidest, most ridiculous movies to come from a director like this, and that's saying something.
After a mysterious force knocks the Moon out of orbit, conspiracy theorist K. C. Houseman (John Bradley) discovers that it is due to collide with the Earth in a matter of weeks. The news soon gets through to former astronaut turned NASA executive Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry) who comes up with a plan to save all of humanity from impending disaster. With time quickly running out, Fowler teams up with Houseman and her old astronaut colleague Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) on a mission into outer space to prevent the Moon from wiping out everyone and everything they love.
Aside from perhaps the first "Independence Day" and "The Patriot", I've never been a fan of Roland Emmerich's work. Like Michael Bay, I think his films are too reliant on mindless explosions and destructive forces rather than meaningful stories and properly developed characters. However, it seems there are a select few people out there who actually enjoy these types of movies as they provide simple popcorn entertainment that doesn't require too much thought process. While I can understand the need to turn one's brain off every now and then to unwind, there's only so much implausibility I can handle before it starts to get on my nerves. "Moonfall" is another example of what Emmerich's movies are capable of, and that is overcompensating for a lack of intelligent storytelling with as much CGI-filled destruction as possible.
What surprised me the most was that in spite of its ridiculously silly plot, the film never once had me invested in anything that was happening. Usually the cheesiest of films have at least one thing that can hold my interest but as I was watching I could never find anything remotely worthwhile following. It was at that point I realised what was wrong - I had already seen everything in this film years ago. The complete lack of imagination in the film's screenplay had it ripping off other Roland Emmerich films like "The Day After Tomorrow" with abnormal weather ploughing through cities and "2012" with huge tsunamis tossing cargo ships into buildings. Even with my disbelief suspended to the maximum, I still couldn't get past how shamelessly derivative and lazy the film was in rehashing every disaster movie cliché we've seen in the past 30 years.
Oftentimes I am willing to forgive a film's implausible story if there is a certain amusement factor to balance things out. The problem with this film is that I struggled to find anything fun or entertaining that's worth mentioning. Frequently I found myself rolling my eyes at how just many plotholes, inconsistencies, and convenient coincidences there were riddled throughout the film. Additionally, there's no feeling of suspense or tension whenever a character is placed in a dangerous situation. For example, during a lengthy car chase I didn't feel any excitement because I could immediately the main characters would survive merely because the plot demands it. Moments like this take me out of the movie since I can only sever my disbelief for so long before I tune out altogether. Because of this, within the first half hour, I was already bored out of my mind.
As for the CGI effects, they are mediocre at best. Sure, there are some decent shots of the Moon drifting closer towards the Earth that give off a sense of peril, but everything else looked incredibly unconvincing. For example, during the previously mentioned car chase scene, each of the cars looked so fake that it felt as though I were watching a cutscene from a PlayStation 2 game. This may have looked alright 30 years ago but this is coming from a film released in 2022. Perhaps I have simply become desensitised to all the much better looking CGI in films made by people who know what they are doing whereas almost everything in this one seemed unusually amateurish.
Very few people remember the cast members in a Roland Emmerich film and there's a good reason for that - they are written so one dimensionally that they never have a chance to leave an impression on the viewer. Halle Berry always seemed so distant from her character. She never once had me believe that she was the type of person who had crawled her way up the corporate ladder at NASA to become its Deputy Director. It's a shame because I think she is an otherwise talented actress who has unfortunately made a number of poor choices in picking roles since she won an Oscar. I assume she only did this film for the paycheck so hopefully she made some decent money from this experience.
Patrick Wilson tries to chew the scenery as a disgraced former astronaut, but I never once felt any sympathy towards him because his character is so bland and unlikeable. In the beginning they attempt to set him up as a fallen hero seeking redemption but most of the time he keeps digging himself deeper into despair. This man is intended to be someone the audience should care about so it makes no sense for film to constantly show the negative aspects of his character to the point where you pity him rather than feel any admiration. There's only so much self-destructive behaviour you can show someone inflicting on themselves before you lose respect for them and start to think that maybe they've earned their place at rock bottom.
The only character that comes close to having some dimension was K. C. Houseman, played by John Bradley. Although he is essentially a stock conspiracy theorist who turns out to be right in the end, Bradley at least looks like he's having some fun with the role. Maybe it's because he's the only one of the three main characters whom the audience can sort of relate to simply because he seems more like an actual person than the others. With that said, he's still very similar to other conspiracy-focused characters in previous Roland Emmerich films like Woody Harrelson in "2012" and Randy Quaid in "Independence Day", which again brings to mind how cookie cutter all these films truly are.
If I haven't made it clear by now, "Moonfall" is nothing more than another film to throw on the pile of Roland Emmerich disaster flicks that serves no other purpose than to show off as much mindless destruction and chaos as possible. It may not be as bad as "10,000 BC", but it's sure up there with the worst of his films. Then again, some people flock to Emmerich's movies for this very reason so I suppose it should fill that void for those craving their fix. As for others who may be forced to sit through it, you might as well play what I like to call "Disaster Movie Bingo" to pass some time until the credits. In fact, I'll even help you get started: Major landmarks destroyed? Check. Implausible science? Check. Nonsensical plot devices? Check. Forgettable supporting characters? Check. Incompetent Military? Bingo!
I rate it 3.5/10.
After a mysterious force knocks the Moon out of orbit, conspiracy theorist K. C. Houseman (John Bradley) discovers that it is due to collide with the Earth in a matter of weeks. The news soon gets through to former astronaut turned NASA executive Jocinda Fowler (Halle Berry) who comes up with a plan to save all of humanity from impending disaster. With time quickly running out, Fowler teams up with Houseman and her old astronaut colleague Brian Harper (Patrick Wilson) on a mission into outer space to prevent the Moon from wiping out everyone and everything they love.
Aside from perhaps the first "Independence Day" and "The Patriot", I've never been a fan of Roland Emmerich's work. Like Michael Bay, I think his films are too reliant on mindless explosions and destructive forces rather than meaningful stories and properly developed characters. However, it seems there are a select few people out there who actually enjoy these types of movies as they provide simple popcorn entertainment that doesn't require too much thought process. While I can understand the need to turn one's brain off every now and then to unwind, there's only so much implausibility I can handle before it starts to get on my nerves. "Moonfall" is another example of what Emmerich's movies are capable of, and that is overcompensating for a lack of intelligent storytelling with as much CGI-filled destruction as possible.
What surprised me the most was that in spite of its ridiculously silly plot, the film never once had me invested in anything that was happening. Usually the cheesiest of films have at least one thing that can hold my interest but as I was watching I could never find anything remotely worthwhile following. It was at that point I realised what was wrong - I had already seen everything in this film years ago. The complete lack of imagination in the film's screenplay had it ripping off other Roland Emmerich films like "The Day After Tomorrow" with abnormal weather ploughing through cities and "2012" with huge tsunamis tossing cargo ships into buildings. Even with my disbelief suspended to the maximum, I still couldn't get past how shamelessly derivative and lazy the film was in rehashing every disaster movie cliché we've seen in the past 30 years.
Oftentimes I am willing to forgive a film's implausible story if there is a certain amusement factor to balance things out. The problem with this film is that I struggled to find anything fun or entertaining that's worth mentioning. Frequently I found myself rolling my eyes at how just many plotholes, inconsistencies, and convenient coincidences there were riddled throughout the film. Additionally, there's no feeling of suspense or tension whenever a character is placed in a dangerous situation. For example, during a lengthy car chase I didn't feel any excitement because I could immediately the main characters would survive merely because the plot demands it. Moments like this take me out of the movie since I can only sever my disbelief for so long before I tune out altogether. Because of this, within the first half hour, I was already bored out of my mind.
As for the CGI effects, they are mediocre at best. Sure, there are some decent shots of the Moon drifting closer towards the Earth that give off a sense of peril, but everything else looked incredibly unconvincing. For example, during the previously mentioned car chase scene, each of the cars looked so fake that it felt as though I were watching a cutscene from a PlayStation 2 game. This may have looked alright 30 years ago but this is coming from a film released in 2022. Perhaps I have simply become desensitised to all the much better looking CGI in films made by people who know what they are doing whereas almost everything in this one seemed unusually amateurish.
Very few people remember the cast members in a Roland Emmerich film and there's a good reason for that - they are written so one dimensionally that they never have a chance to leave an impression on the viewer. Halle Berry always seemed so distant from her character. She never once had me believe that she was the type of person who had crawled her way up the corporate ladder at NASA to become its Deputy Director. It's a shame because I think she is an otherwise talented actress who has unfortunately made a number of poor choices in picking roles since she won an Oscar. I assume she only did this film for the paycheck so hopefully she made some decent money from this experience.
Patrick Wilson tries to chew the scenery as a disgraced former astronaut, but I never once felt any sympathy towards him because his character is so bland and unlikeable. In the beginning they attempt to set him up as a fallen hero seeking redemption but most of the time he keeps digging himself deeper into despair. This man is intended to be someone the audience should care about so it makes no sense for film to constantly show the negative aspects of his character to the point where you pity him rather than feel any admiration. There's only so much self-destructive behaviour you can show someone inflicting on themselves before you lose respect for them and start to think that maybe they've earned their place at rock bottom.
The only character that comes close to having some dimension was K. C. Houseman, played by John Bradley. Although he is essentially a stock conspiracy theorist who turns out to be right in the end, Bradley at least looks like he's having some fun with the role. Maybe it's because he's the only one of the three main characters whom the audience can sort of relate to simply because he seems more like an actual person than the others. With that said, he's still very similar to other conspiracy-focused characters in previous Roland Emmerich films like Woody Harrelson in "2012" and Randy Quaid in "Independence Day", which again brings to mind how cookie cutter all these films truly are.
If I haven't made it clear by now, "Moonfall" is nothing more than another film to throw on the pile of Roland Emmerich disaster flicks that serves no other purpose than to show off as much mindless destruction and chaos as possible. It may not be as bad as "10,000 BC", but it's sure up there with the worst of his films. Then again, some people flock to Emmerich's movies for this very reason so I suppose it should fill that void for those craving their fix. As for others who may be forced to sit through it, you might as well play what I like to call "Disaster Movie Bingo" to pass some time until the credits. In fact, I'll even help you get started: Major landmarks destroyed? Check. Implausible science? Check. Nonsensical plot devices? Check. Forgettable supporting characters? Check. Incompetent Military? Bingo!
I rate it 3.5/10.