The First Men in the Moon (2010 TV Movie) User Reviews

Fun but flawed, despite Gatiss's best efforts

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 25 July 2011]

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.

Decent adaptation

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 19 October 2010]

HG Wells' First Men In The Moon, previously visited in what is probably Ray Harryhausen's most lacklustre movie, gets a revised adaptation by, and starring, Mark Gatiss.

The adaptation is fine - both faithful to the original but with a knowingly contemporary air to it. Gatiss and Rory Kinnear, as the two main actors, are both very good.

The production is well staged, too, looking authentically Victorian. Only the lunar exteriors look somewhat stagebound (hardly surprising, perhaps), while the interiors are nicely convincing.

The CGI Selenites look very similar to Harryhausen's stop motion models - they both follow Wells' description - and the animation is fine, although the integration into the background plates isn't always successful.

But overall, this must be judged a successful and very welcome update.

Fly me to the moon

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 3 March 2014]

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 the direction does not help too much to make it more memorable.

slightly interesting

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 5 July 2019]

In 1969, everyone is looking to the moon for the Apollo landing. Young Jim gets lost at an English country fair and happens upon 90-year-old Julius Bedford who recounts his story as the first man on the moon. In 1909, struggling writer Bedford (Rory Kinnear) meets eccentric scientist Cavor (Mark Gatiss) who invented an anti-gravity substance.

The concept is a bit better than the execution. It's an adaptation of a H. G. Wells story. I'm fine with doing an alternate sci-fi. The designs are fine even if the CGI is lesser level. I don't find the characters that compelling. Bringing the present day to 1969 makes some sense but I wonder if bringing it to modern day wouldn't be better. It's a tall tale and that could fun. I really don't like popping off the heads and the story doesn't really have any great thrills. It's more interesting than compelling. It's slightly interesting.

The old-geezer make-up evokes memories of Bowie in "The Hunger". Not a pleasant sight, at all.

[fedor8 · 26 December 2013]

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.

Not a movie to be taken too seriously

[tangochan85 · 6/10 · 9 June 2012]

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.

Solid remake of trip to the Moon

[drystyx · 7/10 · 13 October 2021]

Thomas and Gattis do a nice job here in what qualifies as a remake of an oft told tale.

It's an engaging H G story of a quaint innocent trip to the Moon with quaint, innocent individuals.

The "romance" part is missing here, and somevother changes are made. Instead, we get the "bromance", and it works pretty well. Both characters are lightly likable, credible, have human faults, and human compassion.

At times, I think our director and writer try to do too much, but that's their prerogative. There's a nice blend of comic relief, such as when one character returns to Earth and in a daze tells a rogue about Gold on his craft.

This is a successful remake, and I may be lenient because the bar has been so much lower in the 21st century, but I think this one holds up on its own and will remain a solid film for generations to come.

A ponderous adaptation

[Fatboydim · 3/10 · 30 October 2010]

This adaptation seemed void of any dramatic tension and had very little comedy. It has it's moments, but I'm struggling to think of them having just watched the film. Far too often the characters would just ramble on and on, spouting exposition. Uncomfortably trying to shoehorn between Wells's original fantasy vision and the reality of science as we understand it today. Gatis wrote the screenplay and needed a strong editor. The direction and sets were equally uninspiring. Whereas the 1964 movie lives on in my memory - this version will be quickly forgotten. All in all it was like a bad episode of Dr Who. I also have to say the make up was appalling. Rory Kinnear's fake beard looked ridiculous.

Space travel for Edwardian adventurers.

[june17-875-666095 · 9/10 · 19 October 2010]

It's only been on for 15 minutes and I love it! Thankyou Mark Gatiss for finding this brilliant novel, and presumably the previous film version, and remaking it for today. Clever and funny and hopefully immensely sad ( haven't got to that bit yet.....)it tells of before we knew more than that the stars twinkled and other worlds existed, and chances were that aliens lived in darkest Africa. If you've ever loved Edwardian schoolboy stories, or looked for adventure in everyday happenings - or imagined yourself living in a time when there was no cynicism, Science was King, and literally ANYTHING was possible - then enjoy this. The acting is good too - it's like tome travel....

Lacklustre

[richard-90067 · 1/10 · 9 August 2022]

This is a forgettable experience with too much emphasis on emotion, not enough science and bad special effects. Mark Gatiss is playing the part of Mickey in the 'League of Gentlemen' and Iris Krell. Rory Kinnear is never going to match his father in acting ability. The poor special effects remind you of a bad episode from Doctor Who.

Wonderful

[zygonjon · 8/10 · 24 October 2010]

The First Men in the Moon is a delightfully slow-paced, contemplative science fiction drama with enough depth to keep the viewer intrigued for the full 1 hour 30 minutes. The CGI wasn't great but this didn't really detract from the story, and the cheap animation actually seemed to make it more charming - it certainly has a hint of Harryhausen, as a previous reviewer pointed out. There was enough in common with the 1964 adaption to satisfy aficionados but also definite refinements - the 'apple' Cavorite scene, for instance, was far classier than the same scene from the previous version (which involved a chair). There was also a wonderful sense of innovation and quirkiness throughout; the Le Voyage dans la Lune style dream sequence did seem a little disconnected but was a great touch, and very avant-garde. Overall, watching The First Men in the Moon is an enthralling and thoroughly original experience.

Nostalgia just isnt what it used to be.

[tomthompson-86458 · 4/10 · 16 May 2018]

This was an interesting sort of a remake,, I couldnt decide if it was a genuine remake or an attempt to turn out a brand new film for very very few dollars. I would strongly advise anyone to go find the original and watch it instead. Its so close in places that i watched to see if they had slotted new actors into old scenes , if thats the case it was quite clever , if it was all new ,, it was quite sad.

So much worst than the 1964 classic.

[demondave93 · 1/10 · 13 November 2010]

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.'

One of the better Hg Wells adaptations.

[SinisterCreep · 8/10 · 23 January 2011]

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.

The low budget isn't what hurts this movie.

[13Funbags · 4/10 · 9 October 2017]

I never read the book but this is vastly different than the original movie. I didn't notice that it was made for TV until now but that explains the extremely low budget. Even with a low budget, the special effects were better than in the original. The story itself though is equally bad. At one point a guy dreams that he is in a silent movie and it's very bizarre. It's clearly just an excuse to shoehorn Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton into the movie. The end doesn't even make any sense. Mark Gatiss does have an interesting take on the story though. This is definitely worth watching if you have seen the original movie, just to see that time couldn't make it any better.

Second Men in The Moon

[michaelarmer · 8/10 · 11 March 2020]

Because this is a remake of the 1964 film of the same title, that one had Edward Judd and Lionel Jeffries, both passed away now, this one has Rory Kinnear and Mark Gatiss in the same roles.

Its pretty much similar to the original, but with a newer look, the scenery on Earth (Hertfordshire) is not as good, but the acting is well up there, both actors bouncing off each other to make a better performance.

Again its the original HG Wells story that creates the quality. The special effects are better than the original but the images are a bit harsher, but nevertheless a good film, I would say that the original is slightly better than this but not much, I give this an 8, same as I did for the original, but this is an 8.0 where the original would have been an 8.5. Its that close, making this a successful re-make.

I was hesitant at first but I am glad that I watched it

[phoenixinvictus · 5/10 · 3 October 2017]

If you're expecting an action-packed movie of aliens vs. humans like the Alien franchise or the Predator franchise then forget about watching this. This is a family-friendly movie to watch with the family during a lazy afternoon. It was relatively loyal to the novel written by H. G. Wells. It discusses the dangers of imperialism and greed of the era and the pursuit of knowledge at any cost.

You have to give credit to Mark Gatiss who despite being in an obviously low-budget movie is able to entertain the viewer. I'm not too familiar with Rory Kinnear's work except that he played a great villain in iBoy and I like his work on the Bond franchise, but he played a great role in this movie too.

I have seen Sci-fi movies that have made me nauseous to watch them. However, this movie I believe paid a genuine homage to the 1950-60's science fiction movies. The one thing that I didn't like was the alien's appearance, which was a bit weak and could have used a bit more work.

What's the point in doing something much worst than the 1964 version

[MTonyS · 1/10 · 21 October 2010]

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.

Fun and faithful adaption of a lesser known work by H.G. Wells

[Maniago · 8/10 · 29 July 2012]

I had already read the original book by H.G. Wells, so when I found this movie for sale at a local store I bought it.

One thing I particularly liked about the movie is the fact it's faithful to the original story, only leaving out a few details (for example, in the book Cavor and Bedford get lost and start hallucinating after eating some of the plants on the moon before being captured) and not adding too much new material (just enough to explain why the moon has no atmosphere anymore). That seems to be a rarity for adaptations of H.G. Wells-stories, because the most well known adaptations of his books are either modernized versions of the story (War of the Worlds) or add a lot of new plot elements (The Time Machine).

The special effects are decent enough. It is a television movie after all, so you can expect it won't have the same production values as a Hollywood blockbuster. One thing the movie could have done without however is the short dream sequence Bedford has when he just escaped from the moon, which is filmed in the style of the old silent movie "A Trip to the Moon".

Overall, this is a movie that a fan of H.G. Wells' works should see at least once.