Time travel movies are usually a mess. You know how it goes. Someone goes back in time, steps on a butterfly, and suddenly everyone has three heads or the Nazis won. It’s a tired trope. But in the shadow of the moon film, directed by Jim Mickle and released on Netflix in 2019, tries something way more ambitious. It’s a genre-bending police procedural that spans decades. It’s gritty. It’s weird. Honestly, it’s one of those movies that didn't get nearly enough love when it dropped, probably because it’s hard to categorize. Is it a serial killer flick? A sci-fi epic? A political commentary? It’s basically all of those things at once, and somehow, it mostly works.
The story kicks off in 1988 Philadelphia. Thomas Lockhart, played by Boyd Holbrook, is a beat cop with big dreams of becoming a detective. He’s hungry. He’s also about to have the worst night of his life. A string of bizarre deaths occurs simultaneously across the city—people's brains literally liquefying and leaking out of their ears. It’s gross. It’s also physically impossible. Lockhart finds a connection: a mysterious young woman in a blue hoodie with a strange puncture wound on her wrist.
The 9-year cycle that defines the story
The gimmick—and I use that word affectionately—is that the killer reappears every nine years. We see Lockhart in 1988, 1997, 2006, and so on. This isn't just a costume change for Holbrook, who puts in a hell of a performance as he slowly loses his mind and his hygiene. It’s a study in obsession. By the time we hit the mid-2000s, Lockhart isn't the shiny, ambitious cop we met at the start. He’s a conspiracy theorist living in a trailer, covered in maps and red string. He’s lost his family. He’s lost his career. All because he’s chasing a ghost that shouldn't exist.
Why nine years? The film ties it to lunar cycles, which sounds like pseudo-science, but in the context of the movie’s internal logic, it’s the only time the "bridge" is open. It creates a fascinating pacing. Most movies have a ticking clock. In the shadow of the moon film has a ticking decade. You watch the world change around Lockhart. You see the technology evolve from chunky payphones to sleek smartphones, while he remains stuck in the past, or rather, stuck chasing the future.
A breakdown of the timeline shifts
The movie doesn't hold your hand through the jumps. In 1988, the vibe is pure noir. Rain-slicked streets, neon lights, and that classic 80s grit. By 1997, things feel a bit more clinical, but the mystery deepens when Lockhart realizes the woman he thought he killed in '88 is back and hasn't aged a day. In fact, she seems to be getting younger.
💡 You might also like: Why Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Actors Still Define the Modern Spy Thriller
If you’re a fan of 12 Monkeys or Looper, you’ll recognize the DNA here. But Mickle, who also gave us the excellent Cold in July, keeps the focus on the emotional wreckage. It’s not just about "how" the time travel works—though we eventually get a wild explanation involving high-tech isotopes—it’s about the "why."
What most people get wrong about the ending
People got really mad about the ending of in the shadow of the moon film. I get it. It takes a hard pivot from a gritty detective thriller into a full-blown sci-fi manifesto. We find out the killer, Rya (played by Cleopatra Coleman), is actually Lockhart’s granddaughter from the future. She’s traveling backward in time to stop a massive civil war sparked by a radical white nationalist group.
The deaths at the beginning? They weren't random. Each victim was a "node" in a network of radicalization. By killing them in the past, she’s preventing a domestic terrorist attack that kills millions in her time. It’s a classic "would you kill baby Hitler?" scenario, but stretched across a century.
Critics argued it was too "on the nose" with its political themes. Maybe. But looking at the world in 2026, those themes of polarization and the "spark" of radicalization feel more relevant than ever. The movie posits that ideas are the real virus. If you can kill the idea before it spreads, you save the future. It’s a heavy burden for a character to carry, especially when she has to face her own grandfather, who is trying to arrest (or kill) her because he doesn't understand the stakes.
📖 Related: The Entire History of You: What Most People Get Wrong About the Grain
Why the practical effects still hold up
One thing we have to talk about is the gore. It’s not a horror movie, but man, those initial deaths are haunting. The "brain melt" effect was achieved with a mix of practical prosthetics and digital touch-ups. It’s visceral. It grounds the sci-fi elements in a way that feels painful and real. When you see a concert pianist suddenly start bleeding from the eyes while playing, it sticks with you.
The cinematography by David Lanzenberg also deserves a shoutout. He uses distinct color palettes for each era. The 80s are blue and orange. The late 90s are washed-out greens. The future segments—which we only see in glimpses—are blindingly white and sterile. It helps the viewer keep track of where (and when) they are without needing a giant subtitle on the screen every five minutes.
The cast is doing the heavy lifting
- Boyd Holbrook: He has to play a man across forty years of his life. His physical transformation is impressive, but it's the look of desperation in his eyes that really sells the obsession.
- Michael C. Hall: He plays Lockhart’s brother-in-law and superior officer. He’s the voice of reason, the "normal" guy who watches Lockhart descend into madness. It’s a subtle, thankless role, but Hall makes you feel the tragedy of their fractured relationship.
- Cleopatra Coleman: She has the hardest job. She has to be a cold-blooded killer and a sympathetic hero simultaneously. She plays Rya with a stoicism that only breaks when she interacts with the younger version of her grandfather.
Is it scientifically accurate?
Let’s be real: no. The science in in the shadow of the moon film is pure "movie science." The idea of a remote-triggered biological weapon that can be activated across time using "synced isotopes" is total fiction. But that doesn't matter. Good sci-fi uses a fake premise to explore a real human emotion. Here, the emotion is regret. Lockhart regrets the life he lost while chasing Rya. Rya regrets the lives she has to take to save the world.
It’s a tragedy wrapped in a mystery.
👉 See also: Shamea Morton and the Real Housewives of Atlanta: What Really Happened to Her Peach
How to watch it today
If you missed this when it first premiered, it’s still sitting there in the Netflix archives. It’s a perfect "Friday night with a pizza" movie. It moves fast, it looks great, and it’ll give you something to argue about once the credits roll.
Don't go into it expecting a hard-boiled cop show. Go into it expecting a weird, melancholic meditation on time and the choices that define us. It’s not perfect—some of the dialogue in the final act is a bit clunky—but it’s original. In a world of endless sequels and reboots, a standalone sci-fi film that takes big swings like this is a rare thing.
Actionable insights for your next rewatch
- Watch the background: In the 1988 and 1997 segments, look for small clues about the political group that eventually causes the war. They are there if you look closely.
- Pay attention to the wounds: The way the puncture marks are positioned on the victims' necks tells you exactly how the delivery mechanism works before the movie explains it.
- Track Lockhart’s watch: It’s a subtle recurring motif that highlights his obsession with time.
If you enjoy films that mess with chronology, you should also check out Predestination (2014) or Synchronic (2019). They share a similar "high-concept indie" vibe. In the shadow of the moon film stands as a testament to Jim Mickle’s ability to take a genre and flip it on its head. It’s a movie about the end of the world that starts with a single drop of blood in a Philadelphia diner. That's pretty cool.