IMDb user comments for
"Moonlight" (2007)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

118 comments in total

---

258 out of 350 people found the following comment useful :-
don't listen to the naysayers, 9 October 2007

Author: Lady_Kiara from United States

Most of the complaints people have about this show are from embittered Buffy fans. I love both of those shows, but the truth is that "Moonlight" is more my style, kind of like how the 1979 version of Dracula soothes my romantic senses much more than the version from the mid nineties. If you like more "realism" in your vampire stories, you will love "Moonlight." The main protagonist is Mick St. John, a vampire who was turned by his bride on their wedding night in the mid 1900's. Due to a change of heart and to the disappointment of his mentor Josef (one of the series' best characters), he turns to crime-solving. Unlike Angel, the demons he deals with are human rather than razor-clawed blue monsters. In the background is Beth, a reporter who remembers Mick from her childhood, when he saved her from the evil clutches of an old flame (in more ways than one).

Every girl I know adores this show. I mentioned it once in passing and now all my friends are eagerly tuning in on Friday nights to watch what happens. We like the more natural pace of the programming, the lack of wrinkled prosthetics whenever the vampires pull their angry faces, the cute chemistry between the leads. True, some of the series' success comes from the novels by Stephanie Meyers about a "calm" breed of vampire, but hey, if those terrifying fangirls manage to keep "Moonlight" on air for a season (and if the tremendous ratings have anything to say about it, it'll be here awhile), I can deal with it.

The plots are not too predictable and the show likes to pull the rug out from under us with bringing on revelations much sooner than other series have in the past. But the honest truth is, for a vampire fan like me, this has given me a whole new excitement for autumn programming. Long live Moonlight!

---

230 out of 309 people found the following comment useful :-
Fabulous program don't believe all of the critics, 21 October 2007

Author: BevHuth from USA

I know Moonlight has not gotten rave reviews, has been likened to so many other vampire stories but, it truly is different.

Mick St. John is a new breed of vampire with new rules, new ways of meeting his needs and, a new outlook on being a vampire. He sometimes jokes about being a vamp, admits even tomato juice makes him think of blood.

He loves Beth very much but, he knows that relationships with humans are difficult at best and, is forever concerned that she may, someday, see him as a monster which he cannot bear the thought of.

Not your typical vampire do gooder, he does try to be the good guy but doesn't hesitate to be the predator and, kill if he feels it's warranted.

Classic film noir style with flashbacks to the past and voice-overs in a modern Los Angeles, Ca setting. Wonderfully portrayed, beautifully wardrobed and the ideal actors for each role. Moonlight has hot babes, seductive hunks, even if he doesn't try to be one, and great storytelling.

Love it, love it, love it.

---

182 out of 267 people found the following comment useful :-
Why Moonlight is good!, 14 October 2007

Author: jasonking-3 from United States

First of all, if you're expecting Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Angel, then forget it. This is something like Forever Knight, but what makes this CBS series a standout, is the way it's shot and the fact there isn't a hellmouth in sight. Very beautiful cinematography and the way nighttime L.A. is captured is in keeping with the whole vampire mythos (fast forwarding to create an eerie atmosphere,etc). I've noticed a few comments being made that the stories are cheesy. Really? Were you expecting Mills & Boon? There are twinges of humour, but you need to look out for it.If you had bad actors, then yeah, that would be the case. But Alex O'Loughlin (who was so good in the last season of The Shield)makes a really convincing vamp PI with morals. He kinda reminds me a slimmer version of Gerard Butler's Dracula 2000 movie and is naturally broody without trying. It's also good to see the gorgeous Brit, Sophia Myles (aka Keira Knightley's more voluptuous, better actress friend) get a decent role where she does a very good American accent. Brian J. White, Kevin Weismen & Jason Dohring also deserve mentioning as they bring more meat to the table. Let's hope their roles develop and as Joel Silver is producing this, we can hope this will be commissioned for a second season - because it is that good & CBS is known for its quality output - (Hey, if Shark can be renewed...?)

---

172 out of 270 people found the following comment useful :-
Better Than Expected, 28 September 2007

Author: swusterb from United States

Okay, I've seen the promos pretty much all summer long. Our family is a Big Brother family and they touted this series continually. Honestly, I really figured I'd give it a miss. However, tonight I watched "Ghost Whisperer" with my wife, then she left the room and I was about to change the channel when two of my kids asked me not to change it because they wanted to watch it. Being a concerned parent, I stayed and watched.

Some of the plot points were easy to pick out, but I can say that about 85% of shows on television. What did keep me interested, however, was the lead character. He had a lot more depth than was portrayed in the promos. There were some neat complexities to him that I found intriguing. I also liked how they presented the reporter girl and the relationship established with the vampire. In fact, while plot was a bit been there, done that (again 85% of television), this show works well in the characterization.

I also felt things worked well in the last quarter of the show. The effects shots of the vampire's abilities were done well. I was comfortable throughout with my kids watching, which I'm happy about because I hope to turn them on to H.P. Lovecraft within the next few years. MY twelve year old son and I both agreed that this is a show we will definitely make the attempt to watch (however, we live in West Texas, I teach school, and the show is on Fridays...gotta warm up the VCR and buy some new tapes).

In summary: the show caught me off guard in a pleasant way. I take it for granted that you cannot do a vampire show without touching on ground already walked on, but the characterization in this show will keep me watching.

---

94 out of 149 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent, stylish, but VERY Familiar, 1 October 2007

Author: xindi005 from United States

I just caught the new supernatural series premiere of CBS's new show, MOONLIGHT. To be honest, I liked the first episode, but after seeing countless shows of this natural, it seems to repetitive.

Now don't get me wrong, MOONLIGHT isn't a bad show. It's compelling, stylish and has characters that are very interesting. I have to say I have finally found a show to replace the void left by STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE and STARGATE: SG1 and a show that isn't another CSI copycat. Even though the show is somewhat cool, it seems way to familiar to some of it's predecessors--Remember a show called FOREVER KNIGHT, or a more recent one ANGEL? In fact the first episode is a blending of some of the previously mentioned series' episodes. And the vamp-does-good thing is a bit old.

Well, the show may some its flaws, but it is a welcome addition to a night that is getting more boring and repetitive by the hour.

---

84 out of 140 people found the following comment useful :-
I tried, 9 October 2007

Author: SiegeofVader from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I tried to give this show a chance, keeping an open mind as I watched the first two episodes. But it was a sore disappointment. Here are my complaints: Firstly, the premise has been done to death. A vampire, opting to be a good guy, becomes a private investigator in Los Angeles. This plot rings a little reminiscent, doesn't it? The most recent example of this plot used is in the TV series Angel, which followed a vampire with a soul (a good vampire) as he becomes a private investigator in Los Angeles.

My second complaint is, this show doesn't embrace the hundreds of years of vampiric folklore spanning across different countries and cultures. I may be the only one who came to this conclusion, but I thought the creators of the show tried to become different from the likes of Angel so as to not be confused for them. So vampires, for instance, are allowed to be in sunlight, though it irritates them, which I suppose is why whenever the lead character is out during the day he wears sunglasses. A stake through the heart will not kill vampires, but will perhaps stun them for a few minutes, allowing their killer enough time to use one of the two apparent methods that would actually kill vampires: beheading them or using fire.

The writers of "Moonlight" also pass up opportunities to intermingle their stories with the supernatural element, which I suppose is another way to steer clear of being confused with Angel. In the first episode, the villain was some college kid belonging to a cult, who decided to mimic vampiric killings on young women in the LA area by using some knife. The second episode involved an old foe the lead character, Mick St. John, had sent to prison twenty years before, finally gaining his freedom. But an immortal with enhanced abilities up against two humans seem anticlimactic.

...And then they add the story of Mick St. John falling for a reporter who, it turns out, he had rescued in the 1980's when she was kidnapped (by his own ex-wife).

"Moonlight" tries so hard to be different while reusing the same old plot devices that it seems rather noticeable. I am not going to say whether or not you should give this show a chance or avoid it completely. But I think I'm not gonna give up on it right away...if the writing and story lines improve as the show and those involve become more comfortable in their positions, I can overlook Moonlight's faults.

---

114 out of 200 people found the following comment useful :-
Who are we kidding?, 6 October 2007

Author: mysticnox from Canada

I had a chance to see this show last night for the first time. I guess I missed its opening episode last week.

Its campy, predictable in some places, and we've seen it all before. But then, its television, we've seen pretty much everything before and nothing is a shock anymore.

It also resembles Forever Knight in almost every way (loved that show). I'm curious why they couldn't have chosen a different name for the main character than "Mick" considering that the first thing it does is bring us back to "Nick" on Forever Knight. Any vampire fan is going to immediately recognize where this comes from. The main difference between the shows is that La Croix was the star in Forever Knight (despite that he wasn't the lead), while in Moonlight you can immediately tell that the lead is the star.

Mick is charming, handsome, engaging and, frankly, I can't wait to see what he does next week. If he ever leaves the show, it will crash.

This show has the promise to become a cult classic if it can make it past the first season. Or its going to crash and burn because no show can repeat Forever Knight.

Wish they hadn't revealed he was a vampire so early to the reporter. But I guess they felt it needed a bang to get started.

---

89 out of 154 people found the following comment useful :-
Another detective, just as dumb, 8 October 2007

Author: David Reed from Colorado

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It seems that each detective show out there has some little quirk to it. The detective has OCD, they're a soccer mom, etc. But they all seem to be stone, cold stupid. "Moonlight", unfortunately, also falls into this category. Mick St. John (Alex O'Loughlin) is a vampire, but having been made immortal and, by the looks of his apartment, rich, he's not any brighter after being around for 90 years (60 as a vampire).

He tells us that becoming a vampire has heightened his sense of smell and sight and hearing, evidently not his analytical skills.

Let's consider....

Don't move around even though you might run into someone who might notice that you haven't aged. You can't count on everyone to have gone blind like your detective friend.

And when going to have your revenge on a recent ex-con, do so at his book signing, in a bathroom with only one exit, and don't even lock the door behind you.

And when you get home, wounded, and desperately in need of blood, don't shut the door behind you even though you've just been involved in a shooting and someone (like, say, the police) might want to ask you a few questions. Have a security camera at the door, sure, but don't actually shut the door.

These are just a few examples where, while watching, I slapped my forehead and thought, "Again, the networks think we're all idiots so they make the heroes idiots, too." Granted, this might be true for some, but I don't like to be pandered to and have my intelligence insulted.

As for spoilers, I don't think I've provided any. Then again, the silly little music video at the end of Episode 1 provided enough spoilers for the whole season. He'll bite Beth, she'll work with him, they'll be in love, blah blah blah blah. For my money, Josef (Jason Dohring) is the more interesting character but, like the rest, probably won't survive beyond the six episodes completed.

---

86 out of 152 people found the following comment useful :-
and then episode two and the idiot plot, 6 October 2007

Author: Nancy Drew from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The first episode was okay. It had a few problems but that's to be expected with a pilot. But then the second episode.

It's clear that the writer of the second episode has no understanding of revenge or police forensics. The only thing that allowed this episode to exist is that all of the characters in it acted like idiots (i.e. had no ability to reason about the events that they witnessed or participated in).

If you want to kill someone with some celebrity status, confronting them in a public place may not be a good idea. If you have a lot to hide, it's idiotic. If you want to frame someone for shooting you, they have to have fired a gun recently. The tests for gunshot residue really do work. If you're a vampire that has lived in the same city using the same name for decades, drawing attention to these facts and having only implausible explanations for them is incredibly stupid.

This show might have gotten away with some of this stupidity if it was spread over a season, but to cram so much into the second episode was for me the end.

I'm disappointed, I had hopes that this might be a smarter entry in the genre. Instead, it's the idiot entry.

---

19 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Sorry to see this show go., 20 May 2008

Author: chrisdpol-orders2 from United States

This show had an odd premise, but was quite a bit of fun to watch. The plots were a little thin, but the love triangle running through the show made it interesting. The triangle is Mick, Beth and the problem of Mick's being a vampire.

I predict that you will see a lot more of Alex O'Louglin. This is the most interesting man to hit any screen in a long time. The camera loves him.

He has just the right amount of sex appeal and sympathetic demeanor.

I am really sorry to see the show go. I think it should be given another chance. It is more fun to watch than a lot of shows that are clones of each other namely the numerous Laws and Orders and CSIs.

---

---

Page 1 of 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history