Friday nights tend to be very boring. Moonlight while pure fantasy is well acted by up and coming Australian star Alex O'.I have seen him in a few movies and I believe that he will be with us for a long time. Sophia Miles is another one to look out for. As a big fan of Tristan and Isolde, her persona is one to have a future in whatever media form she chooses. As far as the show goes, it is one of my favorites. All the CSI's, NCIS.Without a Trace,Bones,and Criminal Minds have a great new neighbor. And it sure beats anything those silly game and so called "reality" shows give us CBS would be wise to keep Moonlight around for another season at least.
Add a Review
-
mec755112 May 2008
-
swusterb28 September 2007Okay, 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. -
xindi0051 October 2007I 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. -
chrisdpol-orders220 May 2008This 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. -
BevHuth21 October 2007I 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. -
KatharineFanatic9 October 2007Most 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! -
SkidMcCormick14 October 2007First 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...?)
-
SiegeofVader9 October 2007I 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. -
typeparticle18 November 2007Moonlight is a good show. Not great mind you, simply good. See I have two very big problems with it, the first being a little Fox megahit series called Angel, and the hundred or so years of vampire tradition thrown right out the window. The show focuses on Mick St. John (the title character played by Alex O'Loughlin) is a Private Investigator handling "unique," often occultish cases on the mean streets of LA. He has one trump card on his side; the fact that he is a vampire. Apparently CBS didn't get the memo that this story has already been played out with the Joss Wheldon series. Considering that WB is fronting the licensing though I think they are trying real hard to re-invent the same flavor without all those pesky Fox headaches. Let's compare the lead characters for a second and you'll see what I mean: Angel (played by actor David Boreanaz) wore a black long coat, drove an old brown convertible (1967 GTX,) was a PI in Los Angeles handling odd cases that cops cannot solve, and had a beautiful blonde love interest that he couldn't have - Mick St. John wears a black long coat, drives an old 1906's brown Mercedes Benz convertible, is a PI in LA handling odd cases that cops cannot solve, and has a beautiful blonde love interest he cannot have.
Seriously, has no one else recognized the pattern here? Take a long look at Angel actor Elisabeth Röhm and see if you don't get a real feeling of Deja Vu. The only real fresh element is Mick's friend Josef (played by Jason Dohring) - I actually really like his character though doubt he could survive his own series.
My second complaint with the show is the way it completely re-invents the vampire. This is like trying to re-invent air, unless you do something totally innovated you are not going to make headlines. While normally I am all for a different, creative approach to an old story, the way vampirism has taken the pop culture in recent years (no thanks in part to the prior Angel and Buffy series) it really makes me wonder what the creator was trying to do here. Mick St. John is almost a Disney character - he's dark, good looking, and has the prince of darkness aura going for him, but there is nothing about his character that makes me NOT want to be a vampire. I shouldn't want to be a vampire! I shouldn't want to envy every bit of his life and then hate him because he hates it - that's bad television. Its kind of like listening to rich people complain about taxes - whatever! Vampires are historically evil creatures, almost all literature makes people not really WANT to be one. So far, other than the pesky eating disorder (and who doesn't have one of those these days) I have yet to see ANY downsides to this lifestyle from the show. I mean come on - these guys can walk in daylight and anything short of napalm doesn't leave lasting scars. Also a lot of the pseudo-science that was built up within the Vampire culture doesn't make sense in this series - and the show fails miserably to explain those questions away. My favorite so far is the inability to reflect on silver, but being able to reflect on any other surface. Vampire Science says vamps are allergic to silver that's why it kills them - CBS vamps can be paralyzed by silver, but apparently the metal just universally ignores them every where else. If you are a fan of vampires this show will leave a coppery taste your mouth after you watch it (*<-- that's a vampire reference - author.).
I will give it some credit though - the show itself isn't bad. It does have some good points such as being a much more adult (yet PG rated) take on the whole business of being immortal. I suspect the network will build up the shiny happy image of Mick St. John before getting any really compelling story writing out - after all the network does broadcast into the bible belt. I do hope the dialog gets smoother (in episode 12:04 Beth (played by Sophia Myles) is having a painfully forced discussion with Audrey (played by Sarah Foret) that just makes you imagine the director holding cue cards out of frame.) And I foresee one huge problem that might be faced before even reaching season 2 - is there anything else evil out there besides vampires? You can't have a mystery series when the answer to EVERY SINGLE problem is "oh, he must be a vampire." If the director brings Drake's secretary (Aisha Kabia) back I'll watch every week - she's a hottie. Now that she's unemployed maybe she can work for Mick!
Seriously though, my advice here is simple - if you want really good vampire television go out and rent Angel. The characters, dialog, and action are far, far, superior. If you are like me and trying to survive the vacuum created by the good occult series being taken off the air then switch over to Torchwood on BBC - that is an amazing new series. I really do hope that Moonlight will get better as time goes on, but I already get the felling it has already begun to burn itself out. -
purple_wolf1328 September 2007With the t.v and movie genre getting bogged down with all of the new vampire flicks I thought "Oh great not another thrown together show that'll be canceled after the third episode." But after watching it, I was proved wrong. With me being a big fan of all and anything vampiric, I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, there are a few clichés here and there but I really enjoyed the first episode with the reference to the vampire cult case in Florida. Also, I absolutely loved the music from Evanesence. I'd say the only negative thing about this show is that the story line isn't that fresh. A P.I. and a reporter....it reminds me of Blood Ties on Lifetime. Maybe if the storyline was fresh more people would enjoy it. Though I did absolutely love the fact that they used the woman who played Isolde from Tristan and Isolde. I'm really excited about the future episodes. What can I say, I'm once again hooked.
-
MCL115029 September 2007As a fan of the Buffy/Angel tandem, I just had to check out "Moonlight". The lead character is Mick St. John: Vampire/Detective. In the opening scene, done in fake interview style, they set up THEIR vampire "rules". Direct sunlight sickens him, but no bursting into flames. Crosses and holy water can't hurt him. He flippantly states that that only flame throwers can do him in. And get this! A wooden stake through the heart won't kill him. I mean, if you're going to do a vampire show, at least stick with the classics! Certainly no one would have accused them of stealing THAT one from Buffy/Angel. And Mick is not now nor has he ever been evil, and they totally gloss over the whole soul / no soul good & evil thing. In fact, he's a self described do good kind of guy. Come on, vamps have ALWAYS been evil. At least Joss Wheadon creatively dealt with WHY Angel was a vamp with an, um, heart. As for the similarities, vamp Mick St. John can be stabbed or shot, but heals fast. He also does that quick disappearing act thing and can leap up or down a flight of stairs in a single bound. He even drives a cool vintage black convertible like Angel does. I was surprised they didn't at least give him a Saab or a Volvo! And they must have hired "Angel's" film editor because the flash transitions between scenes look as if they've been lifted from "Angel" itself. In fact, the flash transition thing was such an "Angel" trademark, I can't believe they so obviously "appropriated" it for a show that was already being compared to its well known predecessor even before the first episode aired. "Moonlight" even shares something with "The Rockford Files", my all-time favorite show. Both Jim Rockford and Mick St. John are professional L.A. detectives who take on cases that they don't get paid for! What do they do for cash? But while Mick has a very nice apartment, Jim live in a beat up trailer. Mostly, episode one showed no real purpose for the vampire angle. Angel/Buffy dealt with "actual" monsters, dark magic and the occult. "Moonlight" is really trying to be "Moonlighting". A detective show with the cute blonde and good looking guy, but it doesn't have the humor or great writing. My advice for viewers? If you're a Buffy/Angel fan, watch once for laughs. If you're one of the producers, write David Boreanaz in as a vampire cousin who shows up every episode with a certain blonde girlfriend in tow. And toss in Andy Hallett for little color!
-
I like this series...a lot. It's more grounded realistically per se than "Angel". This show has no werewolves, zombies, or other bizarre creatures; it just presents vampires more contemporary and in my opinion that makes the show work so well on so many levels. The first episode was kinda bland and didn't have that genuinely exciting buildup that other premieres had but it got better later on. Alex O'Loughlin gives Mick St. John a "modern-day Sam Spade" cynical edge to the character pure bliss along with Sophia Myles who gives the show a sense of heart and longing. And Jason Dohring is hilarious!! Injects the right amount of comic relief in dark noir atmosphere with brooding angst. Though I couldn't help notice the comparisons to Forever Night, for me, this show is fresh and more realistically gritty than what came before.
Great show with great stories to bite into (pardon the pun). -
L35L1330 September 2007After watching the first episode of "Moonlight" I have to say that I am definitely disappointed.
I was not too happy with a lot of the acting performances. Alex O'Loughlin was great. A complete newbie to the American audience, he piqued my interest and I was impressed and engaged by his performance. Sophia Myles on the other hand just fell flat. Maybe she was just focusing too hard on getting her accent correct that she just forgot to actually work at other things. For someone with credits like hers, I expected a lot more. Other casting choices that I completely disagreed with were Brian J. White as "Lt. Carl Davis" and also Tami Roman as "Maureen 'Mo' Williams" (Beth's boss).
However all in all, the major downfall of the show was the writing. The pace was completely off. The dialogue could have been majorly improved as well. The overall story just left me thinking that it was just too generic and could possibly do well with more originality.
I give the first episode 6/10, which is completely way too generous. Hopefully the show either gets canceled or gets a lot better. At this point I may or may not watch any upcoming episodes... with my leaning towards not even bothering with this drivel any further. -
dcreed8 October 2007It 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. -
lshantell27 December 2018I believe this show was before it's time and need a chance to be revived on a network that has teenagers as well as middle aged viewers to get the ratings
-
mysticnox6 October 2007I 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. -
esslynnmodel3 April 2020Was sad to see it go so soon. Very memorable even years later.
-
whiteroses00614 October 2007I really, really, really love this show. It is completely awesome, and it gets better with each week. I can't exactly tell you why the show is so incredibly addictive, just that it is for some reason. It's nothing like Buffy or Angel just in case you were curious, and if you've watched the first episode and thought that, you definitely need to watch the next episodes.
The great thing about Moonlight is that it gets better with every episode. Episode 1 was good, not great. It was really slow to start with, and I must admit I had my doubts about the actors. The biggest problem I've had were the lines. The script is probably my biggest,really only, problem with the show. It's got a few corny or unbelievable lines. Still it has some really cute and surprising ones too (especially in episode 3).
Anyway in every episode the stories get better, and it gets more action-packed and interesting. The actors have gotten a lot better too. Sophia Myles is great, as is her character, Beth Turner. Beth is so much stronger and interesting than I would have thought. She's definitely not weak. Well except when it comes to Mick probably. Who can blame her though? Alex O' Loughlin(sp?) is mesmerizing as the sexy vampire Mick St. John. Alex has those perfect eyes and a voice that could make any girl melt. Luckily though, he also is a really good actor that has done an amazing job with the part. I don't think any other guy could have done it better than him. I absolutely love him!
OK now that I've probably bored you to death, let me conclude. Moonlight is an amazing and totally addictive show. It has good stories, good actors, and is just plain good. It also gets better with every week. So if you didn't quite like the first episode I would definitely give it another try. Just be careful not to get too addicted because Moonlight always leaves you wanting more and a week is sometimes way too long to wait. -
gray1937-115 March 2009Why do networks expect good Sci Fi to draw as much audience and rating as dumb reality shows? Don't they know that most Sci Fi fans either are scientists or engineers or at least have that potential? Don't they know that we are vastly outnumbered by the beer guzzling, chip munching, brain dead couch potatoes that watch "Survivor Wherever," or "Biggest (fat ass) Loser"? This, like "Firefly" was a fun show, requiring a little intelligence and attention to follow the plot. It had an attractive cast, Alex O'Loughlin, Sophia Myles, Jason Dohring, and Shannyn Sossamon who played well fleshed out characters in interesting situations.
Yeah, it wasn't "CSI," or one of its clones, purveying fake science as well as fake roles. (Crime scene investigators carrying weapons and making arrests, now **that is science fiction**). CBS does a pretty good job with cop shows: "Criminal Minds," "The Mentalist," and "Numbers." If they won't give good Sci Fi a chance, maybe they should just leave it alone, rather than getting us hooked on something fun, then pulling the plug before it has a chance to build a fan base. Sixteen episodes -- no way. -
I'm biased because I like toothy things, but I really do enjoy this and watch it quite frequently. I like the characters and story lines, it's not entirely original but is enjoyable and likable and it's "vampire" enough without any added extras (black magic/werewolves/fairies/sparkles etc) and the vampires are actually true to the genre (except the going out in broad daylight thing). The acting is sometimes a little cheesy but I overlook that because I like it so much and how do you act "Hey I just found out vampires are real?" It's not like anyone has a frame of reference is it? Alex O'Loughlin is excellent - I don't think I'd seen him before this - and I'm now a fan of him in Hawaii 5-0, and it's always nice to see Sophia Myles (Underworld), a Brit in an American Series. Good music, stunts and effects, this is an easy to watch show. Given the rubbish that IS given a second season, I have no clue why this didn't get one although where it ended was really nice and rounded it off well. Many familiar faces putting in an appearance, but the story arc with the beautiful Shannyn Sossamon was a favourite.
A guilty pleasure. -
TheDyingGirl24 August 2019If you don't know this tv show well waste no time cause its amazing . Unfortunatelyit did not survive the writers strike and was axed too soon. In so many ways it was ahead of its time as if it had debuted in 2008 along with twilight, the vampire diaries and true blood it would have done so much better. At least it was not teenage angst drama!!
-
ahmayz3 May 2008it's a great TV show-and quite entertaining. personally, i like Moonlight better than Buffy the Vamp. At least, the lead actor is really, a likable guy.(Unlike David Borreanz of Buffy & Angel) On Episode 13:Fated to Pretend, i just had hoped that the show's producers should have made the time to expand on Mick's human side. They showed him eating, enjoying the sunlight, etc. Surely, they should have included a scene where after eating all that junk food, Mick rushes to the bathroom to take a crap. Now that demonstrates substance of the show! if the show gets canned, then i will be disappointed. if this is the final season--word to the producers, no cliffhangers.
-
bast71311 October 2007When you come right down to it, vampires have reached a place in popular culture where it's tough to do a weekly series and have it be completely original. So let's get over that. When we have 3 different CSI series, plus a dozen clones on it's really tough to throw stones on the basis of "originality." It comes down to this: Do you like the characters? Do you enjoy the stories the series tells? Do you care if these people find what they're looking for(love, home, the killer, etc.)?
I enjoy vampire fiction, I loved "Angel," and I remember seeing pieces of "Forever Knight" when it was on television. Whenever I saw the synopsis for "Moonlight," I must admit I thought it was going to be a clone of these shows. I misjudged it. I think this show has a lot of potential. I like the main character(Mick), and the contrast that he's a monster because he's a vampire, while the people he stands up against are monsters because of the choices they make and how they victimize others never gets old to me. He may drink blood, but he's so clearly cut as a good guy that it's tough not to root for him. I was delighted to find Sophia Myles playing the reporter he falls for, she's always just a joy to watch. They put an interesting twist for her being a internet reporter, I really liked it. But she's not Lois Lane. She's eager to solve these crimes, young, naive, and enthusiastic. And then there's Josef, Mick's best friend and a much older vampire. His droll humor and jaded nature I find hilarious, but I'm laughing with the writers. The series has it's serious moments, but never gets too depressing. I actually expect it to play out more like beauty and the beast. If you like vampires, and you like romance, this is worth checking out. I found it very endearing. -
zephyr-12320 November 2009I became interested in this show because I'm a Buffy/Angel fan and really like the vampire genre. I was hoping for something innovative that would take the place of two shows that I love that are now over. I missed the first episode and have seen two and three. I think that people who haven't watched Buffy/Angel may have a better chance at liking this show as there isn't the inclination to make mental comparisons while watching Moonlight.
I have basically a few problems with the show. The first is that I don't feel drawn in to the characters and what they are going through. The writers need to give the characters more complexity and depth. The dialog feels too ordinary for me. They need to be more unique and/or quirky than they are. In short, the characters need more character. Hopefully, that will develop as there have only been several episodes with which to judge.
My second problem is that in their attempts to do something different from Forever Knight (a show I haven't yet seen but will be getting from Blockbuster Online) and Angel, they have changed the traditional and old beliefs about the vampire legend. I'm 42 and every version I've seen on film a wooden stake through the heart and exposure to sunlight kills a vampire. . .immediately--period. The writer's attempts to change this for this show in order to make it more different, to me, is neutering the vampire legend. These are classic standards that shouldn't be messed with because it is removing the major obstacles, challenges and vulnerabilities the vampire character must face, thus creating a more bland ordinary character. According to Moonlight, a stake through the heart only paralyzes them--(???!) and sunlight will only kill a vampire after prolonged exposure. I found it irritating watching Mick cross the street holding a file folder over his face. It felt lame. It took hours of him in the sunlight to have any real devastating affect. I guess I like sharp contrasts. I like the vampire bursting into flames immediately. It has more impact to me.
The third problem I'm having with it (and like I said ex Buffy/Angel fans may have more problems with this than non) so far, I have seen three scenes that I have already seen on Buffy play out on here. The siring of Mick by his wife--very similar to Angel's siring by Darla. Mick says "You've turned me into a monster." Angel says "You damned me." Beth making Mick feed off of her because he was ill and that was all that would cure him. Buffy forced Angel to feed off of her because he was ill and that was all that would save him. Both scenes had the same kind of intensity but Buffy does it more realistically because after feeding off of her, he has to rush her to the hospital because of the severe blood loss. Beth isn't even lightheaded or dizzy as a result which makes the scenario less powerful than it should be. She simply bandages the wound and that's it. One scene which was kind of small but very similar was when Beth and Mick are leaning on either side of the door sensing each other's presence. I saw the exact same scene on Buffy when Spike did the same thing. I suppose it's unavoidable that there would be similar issues coming up in the vampire genre but I started watching Moonlight because I was hoping to see completely new stories within the same genre. I was hoping for more surprises. Unpredictability. So far, I'm not getting that. I've decided to at least watch the next episode because, judging by the previews, it appears to be their attempts at bringing more humor in. If I'm not hooked by then, I doubt I ever will be. -
andcold6 October 2007The 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.