MovieChat Forums > In the Shadow of the Moon (2019) Discussion > Hahaha ... who got a NetFlix recommendat...

Hahaha ... who got a NetFlix recommendation for this movie?


Another violent serial killer movie ... looks stupid and lame to me. Stop making this kind of garbage.

reply

The viewer reviews are pretty good so it looks like one of Netflix's better films.
I intend to watch it.

reply

Reviews where?

reply

When something interest me I look around for viewer reaction since I am mistrustful of "professional" reviews..
I found it. I bet you could too.

reply

So, you are not going to back up your claim of good reviews?

reply

You are on the internet. Use it.

reply

Exactly.

reply

I prefer to use the ignore button on the both you trolls.

reply

It's not my job. Do your own research.
You didn't exactly back up your own claim of it being stupid and lame by not viewing it or even bothering to research it, ...now did you??

reply

I believe the user "brux" has most of the posters here on moviechat on his ignore list.
You are wasting your time.


reply

I think he's a she..and I guess she hates everything.
If someone has to put someone on ignore for disagreeing with them then I'm indifferent to them.

reply

OP, I cant recommend the movie enough....Thought it was Great!

Although You and I probably arent the best Judges for this movie as You clearly seem to hate The serial Killer Genre and I love it....

so were both kind of biased here, I've always enjoyed the genre where theres a detective or person trying to catch a serial killer, Its clear by your post you arent a fan of movies like this, I guess the big difference is, I actually watched the movie and gave my opinion, You didnt...

So while, I completely admit, were both probably biased, I do feel since I've at least watched the movie my opinion holds more weight than yours...

So basically I'd have absolutely no problem with your thread if you had actually watched the movie and Then had the opinion "I just watched this, for me its just another violent serial killer movie ... it was stupid and lame to me. I wish they would Stop making this kind of garbage."

Instead, your thread comes off a completely trollish...


PS...The movie wasnt that violent, it wasnt stupid, It actually had a pretty cool concept, and so far The consensus of reviews and rating are "Its NOT garbage"..Its got a 62% fresh rating on RT and 6.3 rating on IMDB, While that Not consider Great, Its clearly above average and Levels HIGHER than Garbage

reply

THis is not the typical movie that some folks are assuming it is. I loved it.

reply

I don't think it counts as a spoiler to describe the first minute. They start off in an abandoned office tower in Philadelphia, 2024. There's rumbling and shaking, the camera pans over toward the smashed windows, we see buildings on fire in the distance. The city is obviously under attack. A strange looking version of the American flag flutters by outside. We get to the edge and look down on a bomb crater filled with burning cars. Then we jump back to 1988.

It doesn't take a genius to realize there's a connection to what we witnessed in the opening segment when people start dying in an unusual way. The question is, who are the bad guys - the hunter or the hunted? The overall plot concept may not be totally original but it was well executed. The characters were developed in a way that made them seem genuine, they handled these traumatic situations as real people might, you actually cared about their lives and wanted things to work out for them. And there's a reveal near the end you probably won't see coming.

The budget was neither low nor extravagant. They spent as much as they needed to make everything look good, and it does. I would definitely recommend this movie. Its implied warning is timely, considering the current political climate.

reply

So you're calling it garbage but you haven't seen it? Lame.

P.S. It was very good.

reply

it's quite good, I agree.

reply

It isn't really a serial killer movie. It is a science fiction story that just happens to involve a lot of killing... but honestly it isn't a very good movie. Funny they managed to get Michael C Hall in it and he used to do some good work but here he looks like he doesn't care... not that I would blame him this was probably just a pay check... Do yourself a favor and skip it.

reply

****************** SPOILERS ****************

I liked it in the beginning but then I started to lose interest when it seemed to be the same thing over and over and I thought it was a little disjointed. I skipped ahead to the ending and couldn't believe it. I don't know about you but I didn't like the message the movie seemed to be sending at the end. I've seen a lot of science fiction, horror and serial killer films and never was the message like this one - condoning murder.

It sounded like such a good movie and I was looking forward to seeing it but, for me, turned out to be a huge disappointment.

reply

Yes the final message was ridiculous as it could be used to justify killing anyone you might want to kill... Oh, I had to kill the pre-schooler because he was going to grow up to be a mass murderer. I could understand a scifi movie where they are going back in time to try and change events, but going back to kill someone for something they might say in the future that could start a war is far fetch as hell. That final twist really just killed the movie for me because it was so off the wall.

reply

Exactly!

reply

It was a morally ambiguous ending. Despite the mood seeming to condone what they did. Sometime years after that Second Civil War was over, the country still struggling to recover from the devastation, they figured out exactly which people could be removed from the timeline in order to erase the events leading up to it - thereby erasing the war.

Suppose twenty years from now the environment is collapsing, billions are on the verge of starvation, and you manage to pinpoint a key group of oil executives, lobbyists, and politicians who could be eliminated fifty years in the past and then decisive action to stop climate change would alter what's happening in the present. Would you do it? Someone existing or not existing is a simple binary choice. But what happens if you go there with evidence of the disaster and try to convince these individuals to help you instead of going on to create the problem? You don't know. People can react in all kinds of unpredictable ways. There may even be those who convince themselves a culling back of the human population would be a good thing in the long run. That way they can go on raking in money and rationalize their choice.

Trying to forecast what a group of people will do after being told the truth may well be impossible. Too many variables. Your plan is only workable because you're keeping it simple. Taking pieces off the board. You don't have to factor in feedback loops due to their subsequent behavior and therefore the calculations are tractable (although they still take every computing resource you can muster).

Is it ethical to kill a scattering of human beings without giving them a chance because it's the only feasible way to save countless lives and prevent untold suffering? The fact that most of your targets are greedy, not very nice, a few downright sociopathic, does that make a difference? Remember that the folks killed in this movie were closet white nationalist types, associates of the guy who wrote the manifesto that led to the war. Not exactly blameless innocents. She didn't murder anyone as a ten-year-old. They were all adults who had already gone down the path that would ultimately lead to their role in future events.

reply

If those things you mention could be pinpointed, and it was known before hand what was going to happen, killing the people would still not be my answer. Intercepting and exposing their wrongs to change the course of history would be what I would choose, not murder. Especially in today's hot and heavy climate, where people cannot seem to civilly discuss, debate, or come to any compromise in their decision making, I thought the ending was reprehensible. But that is my opinion and I'm entitled to mine as you're entitled to yours.

reply

At that point the only wrongs they've committed are belonging to a white nationalist group and probably visiting sites like The Daily Stormer. Being a bigoted asshole is not illegal. We don't arrest people just for that. By the time they start overtly saying treasonous sorts of things the movement will have taken hold and putting them in jail won't change what's coming. The idea is to erase the movement before it begins. Personally, I'd suspect that simply squashing this one group wouldn't be the cure-all depicted in the movie. Movements like this can only gain traction if there are underlying widespread societal issues that provide fertile ground for them. Another manifesto writer would come along and speak to the same grievances. You have to fix those underlying problems.

But what if you couldn't calculate the consequences of intricate alterations to the past? What if it was only feasible because you were contemplating taking out an insular, paranoid group of nuts who mostly associated with each other and their removal - at that stage in their lives - would have no real impact on anyone else? Free form, shoot from the hip temporal intervention would have lots of unknown, possibly unknowable effects.

Go back with all the proof you'll need to convince the authorities and sweeping new surveillance and anti-sedition laws get passed to deal with groups like Real America. The result: a dystopian future under the watchful eye of your Big Uncle. Sam, that is. So what if your only options were to leave the timeline alone, take out the core base of the movement, or try a more complicated approach to intervening with no idea what the end result will be? What would you choose? It's a moral dilemma. Absolutely refusing to harm a single person isn't necessarily the most ethical decision, you may be sacrificing millions just to avoid burdening your own conscience.

Of course you're playing god no matter what. People who died are alive again, a few people who lived in the original history don't, couples who met and got married and had kids now never meet at all, and those kids are erased from existence. The effects would be worldwide. Countries other than the US which may have done just fine while we were fighting each other suffer the same random shuffling of their populations, wiping out some and bringing others to life.

reply

Wow, you're really going into this too deep. It was a movie - a fictional movie that wasn't even that good and had a dangerous message. I will leave it at that.

reply

Oh come on. Half the entertainment value of time travel stories is exploring all this stuff. You're no fun! 😛

reply

Just a thought here...but the premise that the only dangerous hate group to the future was White Nationalist feels like a lot of tunnel vision to me.

reply

White nationalists are the most militant and potentially dangerous domestic terrorist threat now. And the war in this movie does happen in the near future. As for what new threats may arise further along, over the coming decades ... who can say?

reply

Citation needed.


reply

Citation needed? This isn't a professional journal.

White nationalists have been responsible for 73% of all domestic terror incidents in the years 2009-2018. They are the number one internal threat in the US, that's just a fact. If you want more details read up on it yourself - I am not making this shit up.

reply

To be honest, billions of people starving to death would be good for the planet. I fully expect nature to come up with some sort of virus to decimate humanity at some point.

A more plausible / immediate scenario may be that we will see government-imposed population control start happening in our lifetime.


reply

It won't be that many years before we're able to stop any virus in its tracks, even an emerging one totally new to us. Unless it happens fairly soon that scenario becomes increasingly more unlikely.

In the industrial world the population is actually declining, people aren't having as many babies as they used to. All indications are it will eventually stabilize at a lower level without any government intervention at all. The third world is where continued growth is happening. Higher standards of living tend to lead to smaller families. Yet full industrialization boosts output of harmful greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The answer, obviously, is a greener tech base spread more widely around the planet. Stopping population expansion and environmental destruction doesn't have to involve horrible numbers of deaths if we're smart about it.



reply

For the OP:

I'm guessing anybody was has Netflix probably got a recommendation! I get all kinds of recommendations that don't even come close to the kinds of things I watch but I guess that's Netflix's way of promoting a movie.

That being said, I went back and forth on whether to watch it. I generally find Netflix movies not to be as good as their series. But the trailer looked so interesting, I gave it a chance.

And I was happily surprised. It was actually quite good! The serial killings were critical for the plot and weren't just window dressing. And they weren't gimmicky. You find out later that there was a very clear reason for them. Also the plot was more in the forefront of the story than the killings.

If you don't like this type of movie, you probably won't like it. But for science fiction and/or crime show fans it was an interesting treatment of a time traveling serial killer.

reply

Wow. Judging before you see it.

reply

Wow ... WOW, wasting time before you think about it.

reply

Dude. Your OP was a waste of time. (geez....)

reply

I watched the first half hour and the read the rest on Wikipedia.

reply