Simply Perfect

Overrated

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

This movie serves as a classic ploy to "poison the well" of information ( though it may not have been created for that purpose, this does explain the peculiar high-level cooperation... ) questioning whether NASA successfully landed on the moon or merely orbited Earth and faked the rest. This question won't go away until NASA releases proof of the lunar missions, which they have not only not done - they in fact have behaved in a most guilty manner by covering up and hiding and recently "losing" audio tapes of the missions.... as well as the boast by ESA that they would end the controversial questions by releasing new images of the landing site of Apollo:esamultimedia.esa.int/images/smart_1/1888_40L_Hi.jpg...guess that ends that, eh? You do SEE the landing site, don't you?.... hello?..... ESA?.... NASA?... Hubble telescope? Can someone simply point a large telescope at the moon and snap a few photos showing some residue of the Apollo missions? Ask yourself WHY hasn't this simple action occurred in nearly 40 years hence? After all - there's a lunar rover parked up there somewhere, right? ... tire tracks all over the place, left-behind equipment... Imagine how simple it would be for NASA to put this all to rest for good... it really makes you wonder....The technique used by intelligence agency disinformation pros is called "poison well": ... adding a little false information among factual information.... later the planted inaccuracy is pointed to, the "conspiracy theorists" ridiculed, and for most of the huddled masses this instantly "de-bunks" the entire subject. This tendency results from "cognitive dissonance" and of course from most people's mistaken belief that the corporate news media is telling the truth.... which they are most definitely NOT doing. NASA cancels book rebutting moon hoax: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/ 2424927.stmNASA rebuttal of the alleged 'hoax": liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News- MoonLanding.asp ... having first watched "Operation Lune"... ( "Dark Side of the Moon" - video.google.com/videoplay? docid=3288261061829859642&q ) ...is this de-bunking satisfactory? It may seem to be a first glance, but are you truly thinking? Or are you being told what to think? Most importantly as always: what is being left out?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusationsxenophilia.com/zb0003.htmMoon rocks: the alleged existence of 842 lbs. of moon rocks seems to be a sacred piece of information that few challenge. Is this "fact" beyond question? Are any of these "facts" beyond question? Is it wise to place ANYTHING "beyond question"?Fake moon dust: science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/28dec_truefake.htm( keep in mind that it doesn't require a MANNED mission to retrieve lunar rocks and dust ... )NASA plans to return to the moon... perhaps by 2020... space.com/news/061204_nasa_moon.html... they admit overcoming the damaging effects of gamma rays beyond the Van Allen Belt will be the greatest challenge... Was light-weight foil enough to protect astronauts in 1969? How did they have enough fuel for the return trip? Where are the blueprints? Why did so many program insiders die a series of strange deaths afterwards? Why have all audio recordings disappeared? Why no picture showing the Lunar Rover on the moon in almost forty years? Why do the astronauts' photos look as if they were lit by huge spotlights in a studio? Why the tremendous secrecy in all aspects when a few strategic de-classified documents or a single Hubble photo could lay this whole thing to rest?The existence of a cover-up is the most damming evidence of all... I give this movie ten stars due to it's mind-expanding potential. I'd also ask each and every one of the readers to "think for yourself and question authority!".

I suppose I am more cynical than most but I'm still surprised anyone could be properly taken in by this film. I had my doubts from the very start but the jig was well and truly up after Neil Armstrong's bad jokes on the moon. I'll admit Kubrick is one of my favourite directors so I got the in jokes regarding the names Jack Torrance and David Bowman. Later on the documentary really enters into ridiculous territory! Basically I think it's a clever idea which was impossible to expand into a lengthy documentary. I didn't find the hoodwinking funny, just pretentious. The filmmakers obviously enjoyed toying with less well informed viewers like a cat with a mouse. I found it boring

Amusing, to say the least. Very convincing in the beginning, rather ludicrous towards the end. Contrary to popular belief this documentary does not state that the USA never went to the moon. It merely hints at the possibility that the pictures the world saw in 1969 were in fact staged. The documentary makes fun at the lunar hoax-theory, and cleverly, as mentioned before by someone else on this board, it could very well be a contra lunar hoax theory by the Government of the USA. What makes this documentary really stand out is the fact that top ranked officials speak uncandidly on camera. The viewer is left wondering why serious politicians would collaborate with a French documentary on a conspiracy theory? Maybe there is more to this documentary than the fact that it is meant to make fun of the lunar hoax theory. All in all, very entertaining.

A splendid, intelligent and very funny manipulation of the audience (at least this single piece of audience. ;-] ) I will to mention the plot and just applaud the way the film messes with ones feelings. It reminds me of the excellent Belgian pseudo-documentary "C'est arrivé près de chez vous" (1992) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103905/ which also made the viewer doubt his or her own judgement.What bothers me about this form is that facts are mixed with fiction so that you are left without a clue about which pieces of information to believe. But I guess that's a major point of the project...By the way, what an impressive list of interview victims (Kissinger, Rumsfeld, Haig, Kubricks widow etc. How did the director get these people to cooperate? Are we talking about a subtle counter-hoax from the White House to cover up the original conspiration and make it impossible to put forward this original conspiration theory in the future? ;-) The conspiration continues ...