MartinHafer I noticed that the other reviewer compared "Moonland" to Georges Méliès' film "A Trip to the Moon" (1902). This is a pretty fair comparison but I wouldn't say that one film necessarily better than the other--they are both quite good. However, I would say that "A Trip to the Moon" is a movie that was MUCH more ahead of its time when it debuted. For 1902, it was eye-popping amazing. "Moonland" is more sweet--and its effects, though generally better than those in 1902, don't seem all that advanced in 1926.The film involves a little boy who dreams that he and his dog go on a magical trip to the moon. There, they meet a few odd characters as well as the Man himself--whose head is disembodied! But, he's a nice guy and they talk. He gives the boy his boat to use--and gives him a warning. You'll have to see where it all goes from there.This is a very special film--exceptionally sweet and entertaining. However, it's way too brief and I would have LOVED to see this hashed out into a full-length film. Charming and made with a nice loving touch. I am not sure why this film isn't more famous--it sure deserves to be.

Theo Robertson MOONLAND is a 1926 film with two directors about a young boy who has a dream about visiting the moon . Where it probably exceeds is capturing the imagination of childhood where innocent fantasy and nightmare horror overlap . The trip proper involves the protagonist travelling through the lunar landscape and because space probes hadn't been invented yet there's a large amount of artistic license involved with landscapes very similar to something Salvador Dali had thought up Where MOONLAND fails is that there's a genuine lack of Wow factor involved . Compare this movie to LA VOYAGE DANS LA LUNE directed by Georges Melies in 1902 , a film that had audiences gasping " How did he do that ? " on its release . MOONLAND also lacks Melies grotesque sense of humour which means it was destined for obscurity . That said I have seen worse films due to university film classes