metta1 I totally agree with the 2005 review by the man from England. There were so many holes in this plot, if it even had one, I fast forwarded through the violence at the end as it seemed the most senseless thing in the whole movie. The men who were looking for the boy to get their drugs out of him "literally" seemed no different from the one who simply shot him and walked away in the opening scene! I am surprised he lived as long as he did with a teenager treating his bullet wound with a bandage! (and then he was running around!?)

przgzr It's nice to find an European movie that takes some American basic ideas but develops it completely differently. It is typically American to mix crime/action and romantic story, but the ratio of the contents and the style of mixing doubtlessly shows it was made light years away. The movie starts with drug dealers who use a young Middle-East teenager to bring them new supplies. And very soon there is shooting, blood... almost American, but with almost no words, and this parsimony in dialogue persists during the whole movie.But in the next scene we see a young girl coping alone with her first period. This scene is much longer (and rather slow) and we understand that the girl is a real hero of the movie. In few minutes her life will be disturbed and changed after meeting the boy from the first scene. Though we don't see her as loser (especially not compared to a boy) she obviously thinks the other way: she is adopted, her foster parents have more successful professional than parental careers, she lives in foreign country in very modern house but, due to noise of nearby airport, her parents are selling it, she doesn't seem to have friends... so she immediately finds herself in charge of his fate. The rest of the movie we see how far is she ready to go to hide him (not only from perpetrators but her parents as well) and help him recover. Unlike similar movies coming either from USA or European authors who accepted American style (expecting either better commercial results or invitation to Hollywood) Paula van der Oest keeps crime part of the plot a bit in the background, however not letting us to forget it: everything that happens to the heroes is interrupted by those who chase the boy (and, later, the girl as well). And here we come to the main difference between Moonlight and ordinary American movie: in movies coming from USA action scenes are following one another and rare romantic scenes seem to be used only as a short rest to get some air, while action scenes in Moonlight have less tension, they are shorter, separated by other content and never look as if they are the reason why the movie exists at all.There are several other things I liked in the movie, photography being surely one of them. The fact that the movie was shot in Luxembourg gives it a special charm, because this is a very rare occasion to see this interesting country on a screen. The plot, however, doesn't depend on the location or its beauty, a lot of it is made indoors, but the camera work does a perfect job, and sometimes, unobtrusively, we are awarded by some really marvelous pictures.After so many good things that I wrote about Moolight people might get the impression that I am fascinated by it. Ufortunatelly, the movie fails even before its beginning, with screenplay. There are too many things that are hard to believe for a movie that – despite being artistic and romantic – tries to be realistic. I created a list of illogicalities that I've found in only 18 opening minutes, but because of space restriction you can read it on Message boards if you want.*** MAJOR SPOILERS ***Later in the movie illogicalities become less frequent, but again return in last several minutes. First, when Claire and boy make love and he dies during the same night. If his wounds were that severe, how was he able to do all those things before (only while running he shows signs of moderate pain), if not what suddenly got worse and killed him? It wouldn't surprise us at all after first 20-30 minutes, but now? And if his health was so bad to lead him to die, how was he able to make love? With his stomach wounds it wouldn't be easy even if he was recovering. Or, maybe, it wasn't their first sexual experience, so they knew how to get over all the problems? Also, we can imagine the very final scene as the act of revenge and mercy, but how did the girl know how to drive a van good enough to perform it? And why did she go to the van at all, what was she planning to do – never to return home, and why?But the thing that bothered me more than anything was the use of drugs. Not that I don't believe that kids take drugs (I live in a real world), but them? Claire isn't Christiane F. Coming from hopeless social background – did she have experience with drugs at home, with their rich and rather unusual parents? So, from an innocent looking girl who saves a boy she suddenly becomes his dealer? And the boy who was abused and almost killed because of drugs now doesn't know better than taking them, becoming almost no better than his abusers? This way the authors send us a very, very bad picture of their heros and consequently their generation. Such a pity for a movie that could have been so good...

Carlos Martinez Escalona Even when what you will see is like a smorgasbord of usually very trodden plots, Moonshine is definitely one of those films that sticks like fly-paper to your senses and mind. The story -an impossible for American films, is all sounds and visuals. Dialogue is kept to the utmost minimum. So, the many usual attractive and not-so-convincing plots employed throughout the film, mesh up perfectly.I'd like to point out how important it is to know what you're doing when using so many clichés already used by others: here, even when you know what will happen -somehow, at least, the captivating lack communication between the main rôles and the hyper-psychological use of sound with some of the most stunning visuals I've seen simply using light and lenses the way they should be used, do the part to have you riveted to your seat.The inherent beauty of the two kids who play very adult rôles in this coming-of-age-per-force film make it even more palatable. The music is outstanding at making your nerves spike instantly or sharply contrast with the visuals. I'd use this film to teach a thing or two about "eye- lighting" and "the importance of the way how you tell a story instead of what you tell to convey it"... the virtual absence of dialogue may be one of the most amazing feats of this film. Two thumbs up!

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre 'Moonlight' is (so far) the only movie I've ever seen that was shot in Luxembourg, but I fervently hope it's not a typical example of Luxembourgeoise cinema. This movie is a lot more arty-tarty than it needs to be. For starters, the title is nearly irrelevant: some of the action takes place in a house named Mondschein ('moonlight'), but that name is completely arbitrary and unrelated to the plot.SPOILERS COMING. 'Moonlight' is the first movie I've seen that's directed by Paula van der Oest, and (again) I fervently hope this is not a typical example of her craft. In 'Moonlight', she shows a penchant for camera set-ups that are distracting and serve no useful purpose. When young Claire feeds her dog, van der Oest plumps for an overhead shot as if we were watching a Busby Berkeley musical. Later, Claire and the fugitive boy break into a house during the resident family's absence, and then attempt some sexual fumblings in the parents' bed ... only to be caught in the act when two people walk in. Van der Oest uses a very contrived camera set-up to make us think that the arrivals are the parents, then uses a reverse angle to reveal that they are actually the family's son and daughter. The switcheroo serves absolutely no purpose except to disorient us. Elsewhere, Claire tells the boy that she's a foundling: is this true, or is it a lie told in a childish attempt to impress him? We never find out. Either way, it's irrelevant to the story.'Moonlight' could have been a straightforward thriller. A boy from an unnamed country (apparently Turkey) has arrived in Luxembourg as a drugs 'mule', his digestive tract packed with condoms filled with narcotic contraband. When he fails to excrete them quickly enough, a drugs runner shoots him and leaves him for dead ... but stupidly doesn't bother to check. The girl Claire finds the boy and helps him, but oddly she never tells her parents about him. (If she's a foundling, they must be her foster parents.) Very implausibly, she runs away from home with the boy, having no clear destination in mind. Are there no police in Luxembourg?The film places some emphasis on pubescent sexuality: Claire experiences her menarche just before she finds the bleeding boy, and there's some attempt to equate her bloodstained knickers with his bloodstained gut. Later, there's a deeply implausible sequence in which the two runaways enrol themselves in a girls' convent school, where the nuns accept them without question. Claire introduces the boy as her sister: he is very clearly male (even while wearing a Communion dress), yet all the nuns and at least one priest automatically accept him as a girl. Speaking of girls' clothing, I could have done without the shot of the Down's Syndrome girl stripping off to her bra and underpants.Obscure joke: Claire's dog is named Quick, and at one point the dog seems to have a stunt double. I couldn't help wondering if the stunt double's name is Flupke. (Americans won't get this reference.)This is one of those movies in which increasingly contrived events keep happening ... and AFTER each one occurs, we realise that it didn't really happen after all: Claire seems to be turning more and more hallucinatory as the film proceeds. At the end of the film, Claire commits suicide by an extremely implausible method. Or ... DOES she? Sheesh!I well and truly wanted to like this film. When director van der Oest puts aside her arty crotchets and she sticks to the story, she shows some genuine narrative talent despite the increasing incoherence of this plot line. In the lead role as Claire, young actress Laurien Van den Broeck is extremely pretty and personable, with significant screen presence. I wish her good luck elsewhere in other projects.If you watch any five consecutive minutes of 'Moonlight', you'll mistake this for a brilliant film. If you watch it from beginning to end, as I did, your response will likely be similar to mine: namely, "HUH?" I wish that all this talent and these resources had been devoted to a more coherent screenplay, and I regretfully rate 'Moonlight' only 4 out of 10.