It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

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 Gatiss screenplay is uneven and the direction does not help too much to make it more memorable.

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.

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.