Too much of everything

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Hur duh. This movie is stupid because we obviously landed on the moon. That's why it is garbage, not because I can't differentiate reality from fiction.1/10: we did land on the moon and if you like this film then you are stupid.

I've rated all movies I watch for years now, but this movie compelled me to write my first review. Mainly because of the disturbing amount of reviews of people who just don't seem to understand what they've been watching. Before watching this movie I knew nothing about it, just found it on the new releases on Netflix.Operation Avalanche is a low-budged retro styled (late sixties) found footage movie by Matt Johnson. Though it is a mystery-thriller movie, it also has elements of a documentary and even some comedy. The film aims to build a realistic, lively background story for the alleged filming of the fake moon landing footage. It incorporates some of the moon landing skeptics' (or conspiracy thinkers) most cherished arguments and theories. Like for instance the link with Stanley Kubrick. The use of stock footage from his sets of 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of my favorite moments in the movie. From Wikipedia: 'The NASA scenes were shot on location. To get permission, Johnson told them he was making a student documentary. Additional scenes were accomplished through liberal application of newly-permissive fair use laws.' That's what I call brave. Though I found Johnson's vision wild, yet well established - many have mocked this movie for basically not understanding it. This is not a conspiracy movie. This is not simple entertainment. It's a piece of art, historical poetry - albeit the history of the greatest conspiracy of all. Furthermore the movie uses all cinematographic tricks to warn us of those very same tricks. It distorts reality with realistic looking (historical) footage as a way to educate us on how we could actually be manipulated by films. Even halve a century later. Some blame the movie for being badly filmed. Or even amateurish. The handling of the camera is some of the best I've ever seen! That car chase scene must surely be one of the best in cinematic history. All in one single shot. The Cinematography by Raab and Apelle is one of the most noteworthy of everything I've seen in the last years. Showing how photographic images can be faked – in mere seconds. Showing us Kubrick's front screen projection technology and its use; just a background scene in this movie. Outstanding! The sets on which the fake moon landing footage is made in the movie are great as well. Everyone knows these classic shots from the original NASA moon landing footage. Lovely to see these shots recreated within the framework of found footage thriller. The acting, which is said to be the result of improvisation, of the directer himself and a small cast of unknown actors is lively. Standout in the found footage genre I'd say. It doesn't even look like acting, just like actual historical footage. Conclusion. By far the best and most relevant found footage movie ever made. Entertaining, educational and exciting – especially for those who really like the profession and technology of film making. It is also the best ode to the work of Stanley Kubrick in any film – and mind you, there are many such examples.

Many of us would have debated on either side of whether the man has ever set foot on Moon? Was the footage featuring Neil Armstrong and Co. staged? Was Stanley Kubrick who has just directed a near perfect space adventure involved in anyway? Was CIA involved? 'Operation Avalance' tries to answer exactly that using the found footage style of presentation that feeds on to the conspiracy theories surrounding this event.In the height of cold war and amidst the space race between USA and USSR, Russians are winning by sending a man to space through their Vostok program. John F. Kennedy made a promise to people that they will put a man on the moon by the turn of the decade. There is immense pressure on NASA to deliver. At the same time there is paranoia that Russia could have a mole within NASA to both steal the technology as well as know the latest status of their space program. Matt Johnson and Owen Williams are enthusiastic CIA agents who talk themselves into infiltrating NASA as documentary film makers to identify the Russian mole. During the process they learn that NASA doesn't have the technology to put a man on the Moon and bring them back safely. They come up with another outlandish suggestion to stage the event as an alternative workaround and even get it authorized. How this mission affects their lives, their friendship in a desperation to keep this a secret and inability to trust anyone else and a possibility that their lives could be in danger forms the rest of narrative.Though most part of the movie has an upbeat tone, there is one word that keeps popping in your head throughout - unconvincing. This movie is more of a fantasy that is built on top of the existing conspiracy theories and tries to justify how some of the discrepancies would have come into existence. Acting is natural and since this is all presented as a found footage, thankfully there isn't much scope for melodramatics. The cinematography is as if viewed through a camera from that era (doesn't make sense again since most of the documentaries at that time are done in b/w and this movie presents it in color). This is more of a geek's fantasy to have a closure on one of the most popular conspiracy theories of the past century but I look at it as an opportunity wasted. It neither goes in a comedy route nor as a serious version of the events and just ends up flip-flopping. The screenplay is repetitive and keeps circling back to the same place making it redundant and boring at times. The fact that CIA allows a rookie CIA agent to be at the helm of creating such a staged footage out in the open (even within the watchful eyes) already sounds ridiculous. And allowing to film the filming of this staged event is beyond ridiculous.Unconvincing take on a popular conspiracy theory with an undecided tone. Opportunity wasted!!

To be honest I am only reviewing the first ten minutes of the movie, because I couldn't stand watching it after ten minutes.It's really a pity. After I read the introduction on the back cover of the DVD, I was really intrigued and wanted to watch it.Unfortunately the movie is low budget and poorly edited. The camera is shaky. It's not that costly to get a steadycam to stablize the camera. I don't know about you, but it's painful to watch a shaky movie. They may have thought that since some shaky movies were successful, let's save some money and hire a cheap cameraman and editor. But the novelty has worn out for me.If they have a good story, then somebody please re-make it into a higher quality movie. Otherwise it's like cooking up a good dish and then pour hot pepper into it to make it "better" and end up making it unedible.