In the Shadow of the Moon (2019) User Reviews

Why stuff like this will never work.

[GatoMysterious · 6/10 · 28 September 2019]

There is a very good book "Time and time again" by Ben Elton which shows why these "time travel" kills in the past will not solve humanity's issues. You can avoid one war by killing some people in the past, but you will not avoid other wars and conflicts. And people will never be happy. Nothing will be enough. An idea of killing people in advance because they can do something bad is a first step to totalitarianism where a small group of people will decide if your future choices are good enough to let you live.

So, the time travel ideas were good. But the political/moral message is really disturbing.

Interesting thriller

[nicholls905-280-546911 · 7/10 · 27 September 2019]

It's refreshing to find a mid range budgeted thriller. The film is unafraid to attempt high concept storytelling and for the better part of the running time it works. There are some strong flaws, but if you can go with the film, you'll enjoy the twists and turns. Nice to see Netflix relying on these high concept to lure audiences, who are trapped by mega studios pumping superheroes at us. Not great, but I thought it was interesting.

Started out fantastic, the end sucked.

[jimhaney-12224 · 6/10 · 29 September 2019]

Very on edge suspense up until the 2006 timeline, then it got boring, then sick.

Usually the murderous guys from the future are the bad guys, but we are supposed to believe that murdering a pianist, a bus driver, a fry cook, and a party goer is all okay because it stops a war/genocide 30 years in the future?

By the way: If crazy assassin chick remembers events that are stopped before they happen, ie the explosion/scary event; Then: A. Events that happen are going to happen anyway, event can't be prevented, she murders like 10 people just for the hell of it... B. Things can be changed, she can be prevented from killing all the people in the past, and all the destiny BS on the beach saying she is dead anyway are false.

So she goes through with the suicide killing spree in the hopes that the future changes... great. >:(

Engaging & Imaginative Police Thriller with a Twist too Slow & too Expected

[TwistedContent · 7/10 · 27 September 2019]

The talanted horror/thriller director Jim Mickle (Cold in July; Stake Land) teams up with the rising star Boyd Holbrook & brings to Netflix his newest piece - the exciting and entertaining mystery detective/killer flick "In the Shadow of the Moon".

"In the Shadow of the Moon" starts like any other police thriller, introducing us to a duo of likeable cops, a damp city full of crime & a mystery in the making. Through equal amounts of engaging drama, energetic action and time skipping we steadily move forward to the solution of the mystery, accompanied by the obsessive detective Lockhart who's got some heavy burdens on his shoulders. Boyd Holbrook, whom I first saw on "Narcos" (as I'm sure many people did as well) gives a great lead performance as detective Lockhart & the supporting cast helps him out well, especially Bokeem Woodbine & Cleopatra Coleman. The revelation of the sci-fi twist & the point of the mystery comes a tad bit too slowly & doesn't quite have the impact one would wish for, but, nevertheless, while "In the Shadow of the Moon" left me wanting more, at the same time the ending felt right. The themes of horrors and wonders of humanity & family values are served well. We cannot forget that the movie also looks gorgeous, has a decent original score, well made action sequences & even features a few bloody scenes for the horror fans. In summary, "In the Shadow of the Moon" kinda looks like, feels like and plays out like a big-screen movie.

I think this movie could've been a little less convoluted, with a different, less straight forward mystery building structure, but the result is still engaging, handsome and thoughtful thriller piece. My rating: 7/10.

Good film

[brummieman · 7/10 · 28 September 2019]

So people are rating this low because it is alleged that it has a political message of 'wipe out an opposite view'? have they been hiding under a rock since cinema began? Most films before I was even born have been about one enemy wiping out another, morality has not been the premise of most films through cinematic history . This is simply an action film not based on real life, its obviously not a true story , the heart of it is simply the idea that if you were to, for instance, wipe out Hitler or his parents you potentially save millions of people from all different backgrounds. so do you wipe out the few or let the millions die? I suppose these films serve a good purpose in opening up the debate so I'll give it a 7 . Watch the film, enjoy it, its a good story , somewhat predictable at times but a good twist in the end.

Pay Attention and You Will See an Intriguing Sci-Fi

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 10 October 2019]

In 1988, in Philadelphia, Police Detective Locke (Boyd Holbrook) and his partner Maddox (Bokeem Woodbine) hunt down a female serial killer. Locke kills her in the subway and the case is closed by his chief Holt (Michael C. Hall) without identification of the killer. In 2007, similar crimes happen and Locke and Maddox believe in a copycat. However Locke finds that the killer is the same woman he killed nine years ago. Locke becomes obsessed with the case along the years and Locke believes she travels in time in the opposite timeline. When the woman reappears nine years later, Locke is waiting for her.

"In the Shadow of the Moon" is an intriguing and original sci-fi with a good story. The slow pace is a problem and if the viewer loses a part of the film, he or she may not understand the plot. But if the viewer pays attention to the details, he or she may have a good surprise. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sombra Lunar" ("Moon Shadow")

In the shadow of 12 Monkeys

[kongokenneth-56262 · 7/10 · 22 March 2020]

A Great movie to watch. Filmed with a really good pace to take you forward along the plot. IF you love "12 monkeys" You like this one.

Casting and performance is good with a excellent lead performance by Boyd Holbrook!

Massive Plot Hole Shadows This Film

[angelaie · 4/10 · 29 September 2019]

This movie was just okay. It was predictable and a lot of things left unexplained, but nothing unforgivable. That is, until the end of the movie. The movie logic contradicts itself within 5 minutes and expects the audience not to notice it.

First, the time traveler, Rya, tells the main character Thomas that once something happens, it always remains that way and there is no changing it. So since she was killed in 1988, she always will be killed in 1988..

Time cannot be changed, and the events will always remain the same. Then, 3 minutes later, it's shown that the apocalypse is reversing and thus never happened. Meaning time is not actually predestined and CAN be changed. So which is it, movie?!

Not only that, but this ending created a huge paradox that makes absolutely no sense. Again,the movie logic LITERALLY STATES that time is predetermined, so events will always happen. Rya will always come back to kill people, Thomas will always kill her in the subway in 1988. Which means Rya has to go back to prevent the apocalypse. Which means the apocalypse ALWAYS happens, because she got sent back. There is no stopping it. If there was no apocalypse, she never would have had to be sent back, would not have been killed, etc. This plot hole is so massive it makes my brain hurt.

an interesting mind bender

[ivko · 6/10 · 30 September 2019]

If you had a time machine, would you go back and kill baby Hitler? This ethical dilemma, which has been around since practically right after WWII, has been argued for decades. The core idea it explores is whether people who are destined to do horrible things are moral aberrations in an otherwise functional society who, like a wedge on the railroad tracks, twist the course of events off track with calamitous results or, alternatively, if people are the product of the times in which they live, which argues that killing baby Hitler would be a meaningless gesture, as someone else would simply fill the vacancy his non-existence left.

This conundrum is related to the events of the film, as witnessed through the eyes of a man exposed to a mystery that only becomes clear over the course of his life. It starts in the late 80's when a string of random murders rocks Philadelphia. The main character, an ambitious young police officer named Locke, is one of the first to respond to a number of strange homicides perpetrated by a young black woman whom he accidentally kills while attempting to apprehend her. Before her death, she makes a number of comments that indicate knowledge of events she shouldn't have access to, leaving unanswered questions in his mind.

Despite the aura of mystery, life moves on for Locke until nine years later when the woman suddenly reappears, once again killing seemingly random people before disappearing yet again. Locke begins to suspect the mystery can only be explained with supernatural elements and becomes obsessed with solving it, despite the heavy toll on his personal life it takes.

The story jumps forward every nine years to show a single day in Locke's life. By the end of the third jump a little past the half way point the movie reveals the basic outline of what is driving the mysterious events, though it reserves a few of the surprises more personal to Locke for the final act. This explanation also explains a brief ominous scene at the very beginning of the movie.

After a few more time jumps that fill in the last pieces and add an action scene or two, the movie brings things to a mostly satisfying conclusion that wraps up the mystery and personal issues of Locke's life. The ending is a tad anti-climactic since there is no "bad" guy and the big surprise is just that a relationship mentioned earlier in the movie is mixed race which, if they intended that to be shocking, would have required the movie to be made four or five decades ago.

The movie does it's best to sell an ending that's billed as positive, although I saw echoes of a much darker implication, unintentional and all the more scary for it. The way the movies sells its ending (spoiler warning!), people from the future using time travel to kill white supremacists in the past whose ideas ultimately spark a new civil war, is by having a character ask Locke "what if you could stop the civil war?" All those untold thousands of deaths, all that suffering, all that division, just snuffed out by identifying and targeting a few individuals that were the key voices behind the secessionist movement. One hundred deaths for 600,000. Provided you're not overly concerned about that pesky "freedom of speech" stuff it's a bargain, right?

Except when you stop to consider where we were as a nation before the civil war. Much as it seems fait accompli now, the prevailing attitude in the union wasn't actually homogeneously anti-slavery. Many deplored it, certainly, but many held beliefs somewhere in between and would have been fine with it's continuation so long as they didn't have to see it or enforce the practice within the borders of their state. The confederacy and the civil war crystallized and hardened beliefs; it forced people who might have otherwise preferred not to pick a side.

I can't say for certain that without the civil war, civil rights would have been set back by decades or more, but I think there is at least an argument to be made that it might have. No one likes suffering and destruction, but a thing cheaply won does not have the same value as that which has been paid for with, to paraphrase Lincoln, "the solemn pride...to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom."

So I found the end a little chilling, certainly not for the stated goals that motivated the characters, but for the way it championed the use of a godlike power without a true understanding of the potential cost of that power, and for the idea that it's presented as a good thing that a small group of individuals, however well meaning, wielded that power over the entirety of mankind as judge, jury, and executioners unbeknownst to those whose lives they impacted.

Then again, maybe I'm just thinking too much about a movie that's just a fun little bit of what-if science fiction.

In the shadow of the mehn

[xdeschuyter-01410 · 4/10 · 6 October 2019]

Even though the plot was pretty much clear from the start, the first part of the movie was enjoyable. A certain tension, a certain nostalgia. But then it all starts going downhill until it end in the sewers. The vague ethical elements never rise above kindergarten level, the science is preposterous and the "USA is the world" assumption is tedious. The acting is decent, so is the music and lighting. Too bad, as with nearly every movie these days, the plot didn't get as much attention.

weird one

[trashgang · 8/10 · 17 June 2020]

Picked this one out of the blue on Netflix. Not knowing what it was going to be, no research whatsoever to see whats it all about.

Glad that I have seen it, this was a hell of a ride. Starting as like a serial killer is out there this one turns into something like The Terminator. Excellent performances espescially from Boyd Holbrook. Great story that you can't see coming.

Nice to see Michael C. Hall again, been a while.

If you like your flicks weird then this is one to see. Not one boring moment.

Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 0/5

Worth a 10 just for annoying people

[BlockLike · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

Ok, film first.

Pretty decent script, good acting, pacing is a little off at times, but overall a not bad sci-fi.

Ok, now for the good bit.

The film deserves a 10 purely for the fact it has seriously annoyed so called 'patriots' and gun supporters that seem to be happy in ignoring the fact that what this film is about a mass terrorism event.

Yes, terrorist don't have to be a different skin colour or from a different country.

Wow that ending...

[ninjawaiter · 3/10 · 2 October 2019]

Even though certain elements of this film were quite predictable, I felt it was executed in a clever enough fashion to keep it entertaining and exciting. Right up until the ending, of course.

SPOILERS: As soon as I heard the serial killer was a young black woman I knew no one in PC Hollywood would dare make her the bad guy, so obviously all her seemingly random murders were going to be justified somehow. Honestly, I can't even blame Hollywood for that. Women are almost never serial killers, and because people don't understand statistics and population percentages, there is a general public perception that whites are the most likely to be serial killers. So when all the shiftless 'woke' activists with nothing better to do than protest learned there was a film featuring an evil black woman serial killer, they'd have burned the studio down (probably metaphorically). Hollywood exists to make money, and that's not how you do it. So yeah, the "twist" that she's actually justified was over before it even began, but that didn't really spoil the film. It was still interesting to see how it played out, and to try to figure out what the "justification" would be. (More on that later.)

The traveling backward through time was equally easy to figure out, right from the first sequence when we found out she had a bullet wound from a service piece but no one had fired a shot. (You have to ignore the plot holes here. They WOULD have run the ballistics, particularly on the guy who witnessed her death, whether they thought his gun had been fired or not, and they'd have figured out the ballistics matched. Moreover, that gun was the property of the PPD. When he quit or got fired, they wouldn't have let him keep it.) Moreover, the "I'm sorry about your partner," when it turned out his partner hadn't been killed was a dead giveaway that he was GOING to be killed, just in the next iteration.

There were other things, of course, but ultimately these predictable elements were still up in the air enough that the good writing kept the whole thing interesting regardless.

The problems were all with the ending of course. And not in a "I didn't like the ending so it's bad," sort of way. This film reminded me a lot of 12 Monkeys, which I coincidentally just rewatched. The ending is similarly tragic, in that the character knows how it ends and can't stop it from happening. Except unlike 12 Monkeys, where everyone knows from the start that you can't change the past, only learn from it, this film has the whole thing ass-backward.

The main character can't change the past of how things play out with the time traveling assassin, but the time traveling assassin CAN change the past of the terrible event she's trying to prevent. It's self-contradictory. Either the past can be changed or it can't. Even worse, in the assassin's timeline she learns who he is on her first trip back in time. All she needs to do in the second one, or the third, or even the fourth when it's all messed up already, is tell him who she is. But she doesn't, because REASONS. No really, there are no reasons. She just doesn't do it, because it would spoil the plot. Only the ending reveals that the plot is nonsensical for this reason, so... Yeah, that's just bad writing.

But it's worse than that. 12 Monkeys is tragic because the good guy fails, the bad guy wins, and the world as we know it ends. This movie is written to be the opposite, where the twist is that the guy we've been following is NOT the good guy- the good guy is the time traveling assassin who we have to assume succeeds in "saving the world."

But this is where it goes totally Watchmen on us. The assassin is murdering innocent people who might have somehow influenced someone else in a way that causes those other people to engage in acts of evil which in turn influence other people to engage in evil in a vicious spiral of horror. But don't lose the forest in all those trees. The assassin is murdering innocent people. Period. Full stop.

This isn't "going back to kill Hitler to prevent WWII." This is going back to kill Hitler's innocent music teacher who damaged his fragile psyche as a child by giving him a scolding that would have been beneficial to any normal child. And his innocent history teacher for instilling in him a sense of pride in German history. And killing some random radio announcer in England who said something negative about the Weimar Republic and got Hitler thinking, "I should overthrow this thing." The guy who created time travel in the film says exactly that. Anyone they have to kill to achieve their goal, no matter how innocent.

Make no mistake, these people are MONSTERS. In the Watchmen the big twist is that superheroes are just flawed people who don't always do the right thing or even agree on what the right thing is, but even in that morally relative story the real "heroes" do everything in their power to stop Ozymandias from murdering innocent people "for the greater good." They're just too late. Even then they can't agree on whether it's best to accept the atrocity and try to make the most of it or to expose Ozymandias for his horrible crimes, and to the writers' credit, the give the final word to the only guy who stands by his principles and the truth.

But in this film the hero arrives in time. He has a chance to stop the monster before all the innocents die. And he decides not to. In fact, the entire twist and tone are arranged as if we're supposed to be on the monster's side. Oh, she's murdering innocent people "for the greater good!" In that case, help yourself! Geeze, don't we feel like jerks for trying to save those innocents.

Look, moral philosophy is tough. There are no clear cut right and wrong answers or dividing lines. That's why great minds have been debating these subjects for as long as humans have been around. But if you came away from this film thinking, "Yeah, the time traveling assassin is right..." Well, I just hope you're never in any sort of position of power or public trust, because with that kind of thinking there is literally no atrocity you can't and won't justify. If you're not willing to draw the line at intentionally brutally murdering innocent people, where DO you draw the line?

So yeah, I this film was on track to receive a much higher rating until the very end when its plot fell apart with the whole self-contradictory time travel nonsense, and its tone went completely inverted with the "evil is okay if we're doing it for a good cause," thing.

I have dead people waiting on me

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 12 December 2019]

Thomas Locke (Boyd Holbrook) is a cop playing detective in Philadelphia in 1988. There are strange killings happening with people being injected in the back of their neck and their brains bleeding out through their nose. Nine years, he is a detective and it is happening again, even though the suspect was killed.

Plot Spoiler: This is a time travel, kill Hitler's parents before he was born type of film. The events happen every nine years as the moon cycle allows for time travel.

This is a decent Netflix film. It was well done , but nothing to get excited over. Clearly it sees the far right as a danger to the planet.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

Wish can go back n eliminate the fellas who propagated the idea of caste system in India.

[Fella_shibby · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

Nice thriller, supported by good start cast (Boyd Holbrook n Michael Hall) n engaging storyline.

Have enjoyed Jim Mickle's Mulberry Street, Stake Land n We Are What We Are. Good low budget horror films. Yet to see Cold in July.

The film starts with cops pursuing a serial killer murdering people with a unique weapon. Anything more will spoil the film.

Not what you'll be expecting at all

[verminhater · 7/10 · 27 September 2019]

Netflix have done it again with yet another well made and interesting movie. The trailer makes it seem like some kind of vampire film but that's a long way off the mark. The film is about a killer popping up at regular intervals with a very specific purpose and a cop spending half his life chasing them. It's no action film though, it's far better pigeon-holed as a thriller with the typical twist at the end. Once again Netflix procure a decent performance from the cast and crew producing a film that engrossed me. It's not fast paced and that will loose some viewers and it delivers a political message that will alienate those villanised (people who can't distinguish between free speech and hate) from enjoying it. It's notable that once more Netflix go for a thought provoking film rather than the more usual Hollywood action template and I applaud them for it. It's a fair way from what I expected and all the better for it.

A bit underrated.

[netmedia-1 · 7/10 · 9 May 2020]

Yes, the plot is a little bit already-100-times-done, but still it's a good soft-sci-fi thriller and does not leave you unsatisfied. Most of the actors are definitely a highlight, Holbrook nails it, like really nails it.

Starts off well, then steadily goes down hill

[facebook-17514 · 1/10 · 12 October 2019]

This movie starts off with potential and has excellent production values. The cast do their jobs competently and the direction is excellent. The problem is with the story. It begins as a thriller and then leaves us with a vomit worthy message that if you don't like certain ideas, then the best way to oppose those ideas is to kill everyone who holds them. Pathetic stuff. We now live in the age of stupid.

Decent

[mjb301086 · 7/10 · 27 September 2019]

Well worth a watch don't really get why it is rated so low. I have watched it twice now and I have to say I probably preferred it the second time round which is the case for me and a lot of films. Decent sci-fi.

Good beginning, but then starts falling apart

[Wizard-8 · 3/10 · 17 November 2019]

It's going to be difficult to critique this movie without giving out massive spoilers, but I will try my best. About the most I will reveal is that the plot of the movie revolves around time travel, though I think the majority of viewers will realize that is going on in the first fifteen or so minutes. Anyway, you have to be pretty ingenious to make a time travel story plausible, and while the movie thinks it's pretty smart, it really isn't. As other IMDb users have pointed out, once you have watched the entire movie and learned what is going on and why, it doesn't make sense. It seems to indicate that time travel CAN work and CAN'T work. Not only that, the screenplay also falls far short with the narrative of the obsessed police officer going through the years, not explaining fully how he learned so much between acts. Also, there are glaring plot holes elsewhere, ranging from why the high tech device found in 1988 is never analyzed, why witnesses are not fully questioned after incidents, and also why the time travelling woman needed an airplane. Though I admit that the movie was not boring, the lack of clear and proper explanation prevented me from getting enough enjoyment.

I enjoyed this.

[johnjkelly-36119 · 8/10 · 29 September 2019]

It's mid budget and reasonable acting etc. There are a lot of negative comments and some people are offended way too easily, perhaps some are looking into it way too much for faults and racism, it's fiction. There are a hell of a lot more offensive movies out there, I am 58 and white and I did not even think of any of the things that some of the overly sensitive reviewers on here so just enjoy it as the fictional movie that it is and not a propaganda movie with messages of hate.

Leave your logic at the door.

[marcintn · 7/10 · 10 November 2022]

In a nutshell a serial killer pops up every 9 years starting in 1988 and a cop, to the detriment of his family life and eventually his career, dedicates himself to solving the mystery. It's a good film if you're bored and in the mood for a time travel flick. Now, like all time travel films there are flaws, some you have to ponder over for a while. The ones I'm about to mention take little to no knowledge of science to call out. So the killer is sent back in time to essentially murder not only the originator of a domestic terror group before he can spread his message too far, but also key members of his Cadre who will apparently one day play a key role in attacks or the spread of his ideology in the future of 2024, even though at the moment of her killing them, they are seemingly innocent and ordinary. The method of killing is a three pronged device that injects an isotope into the back of the victims neck that can then be triggered from the future to liquefy their brains. First off, if the killer had used conventional methods to kill them, the police would have been interested, but not Uber intrigued by an isotope that didn't exist or a method of death that made ebola look tame. Also the killer didn't even actually murder them, just got close enough to inject the isotope, which was then activated in the future via a computer. Why the delay? Which brings me to the attacks. As shown later on when the main character digs up a person he suspects was a victim, the prongs go so deep they actually left holes in the vertebra of the neck. You expect me to believe someone went up, stabbed them with such force their vertebrae was punctured, and they just walk it off, think, "that was weird " and go about their normal lives telling no one, until the kill switch in the future was activated? The movie expects you to think so because the first three victims, a bus driver, a short order cook, and a concert pianist, all die having obviously been attacked at some point prior and none seem any worse for wear or concerned.

I felt the film was ok, but ultimately anticlimactic and unsatisfying. It's a diversion but if you want great time travel in a film, go watch Primer or even Timecop...it has explosions.

It's a 10! Except I'm deducting 3 for stupid plot holes, and 3 for dark evil messaging

[ed-503-465183 · 4/10 · 7 October 2019]

This one had enough plot holes big enough to drive a bus through, a train, cruise ship, and dwarf planet or large moon.

The movie basically lays out the premise that it's a deterministic universe, where time travel can't really change the course of history, BUT it's good to murder people to try to change that which can't be changed. The writer, actors, and director literally deliver that message. But you'll have to wade through the first, second, and part of the third act to get it. So, I'm taking 3 stars off for what otherwise would be a 10-star film.

Next, it's a dark message. To prevent a civil war in the future, which can't be prevented, we must kill enough of the right (literally) people, including those that inspire them. Thank God the murder is stopped in 1988 because I believe had the murderer not been stopped, she'd have kept going back to kill Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and the rest of the founding fathers. Because America is evil, and the founding fathers' crazy ideas about individual liberty are evil. Oh, and the liberal, libertarian, and conservative people inspired by such ideas deserve to be killed. You'll see examples of these 'evil books' containing these evil anti-socialist liberal ideas spread throughout the movie. So, I'm deducting another 3 stars from what would have been a 7-star movie for presenting such a dark and evil idea as good. What is wrong with Hollywood today?

That knocks this 10-star movie down to 4 stars, which it deserves for the great acting, and professional production value. But what an awful message.

Crime thriller with a twist.

[cruise01 · 7/10 · 28 September 2019]

In the Shadow of the Moon (3.5 out of 5 stars).

In the Shadow of the Moon is a pretty decent crime thriller film with a bit hint of sci fi concept and some decent action thrills. The plot starts out like a simple crime thriller. Police officer Locke (Boyd Holbrook) and his partner are investigating three murders at the same time and done by the same criminal Rya (Cleopatra Coleman). She escapes and confronts Locke at the train station that they ll meet again. Several years later, a few more murders happen the same away which drives Locke to trying to catch her. And years later on the same day, she is back and he is trying to figure out her motives.

The concept is a like low budget Terminator movie with a human time travelling and being an assassin to take out targets. The one question is why? The answer may not be as surprising or mind bending for a sci fi story. It does throw one character Locke into an obsession for years until he has wasted his life away when he missed out on his daughters childhood and being there for her.

Boyd Holbrook performance is decent. Cleopatra Coleman was also okay playing a mysterious assassin. The film does have a twist in the end which ties the characters story arc.

The film does have some entertaining thrilling action. Overall, In the Shadow of the Moon is a pretty fair film with some decent action and performance.

Ignore the triggered snowflakes...

[pckq · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

In the Shadow of the Moon is a decent flick. It was actually one of the better movies i watched this year. The story barrows a little from The Terminator here and there. But it's orighinal enough to stand on its own.

7/10 from me for this enjoyable action/sci fi drama. Do yourself a favor, ignore the triggered snowflakes.