Fearful that the Russians would continue their lead in the space race and be the first to put a man on the moon, NASA felt an enormous pressure to push the Apollo Program forward as quickly... See full summary »
In 2270, Earth is completely depleted and no one lives there anymore. Those that have money move to Rhea; but most of the population lives in orbit in space stations. Dr. Laura Portmann ... See full summary »
Anna Katharina Schwabroh,
Each crewman of Apollo 11 had made a spaceflight before this mission but never set foot on the moon. Apollo 11 was the first spaceflight that landed the first humans on the moon. This ... See full summary »
In the early 70's, Commander Nathan Walker, Captain Ben Anderson and Lieutenant Colonel John Grey are assigned in a secret mission to the Moon to protect the USA from USSR using detectors. Nathan and Ben land on the Moon in the Liberty module while John stays in orbit in the module Freedom. They collect rock samples and bring them to the Liberty. They also find footprints and the body of a Soviet cosmonaut on the moon. Soon they hear weird noises and they find that they are not alone in the satellite. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
(at around 18 mins) After the first resting period the astronauts are listening to 'Cheap Day Return' by British rock band Jethro Tull. Tull's third album 'Benefit' contains the track 'For Michael Collins, Jeffrey and Me', a song which refers to Apollo 11's command module pilot Michael Collins. In the song vocalist Ian Anderson sings about the feelings of the command module pilot, being left alone above while others get to walk on the moon, something which is also referred to during the movie. See more »
Various shots of scenes on the Moon are repeated during the film, but the positions of shadows do not change, which they should - even with the slow rotation of the Moon. See more »
Get it out. It's so cold. Get it out, Ben. Get it out, get it out! Damn it Ben get it out!
See more »
I think that the current trend of the "pseudo-documentaries" in the horror genre obeys to two main factors: first, it allows the addition of a stylish variation to all those rancid and stale formulas which seemed worn by such a repetition (like the masked killer, haunted house, "torture-porn", etc.), which acquire a varnish of innovation when they are disguised as "true events". And in second place, this trend allows the making of movies with an intentionally bad manufacture, something which is simple when there are not too many available resources. After all, why worrying about the illumination, the cinematography or the "mise en scéne", when they can simply put a group of amateur actors in front of the camera and call that "documentary"? Sure, there have been some pseudo-documentaries which took advantage of the opportunity to create something interesting (like Cloverfield and Lake Mungo); but most of those films take that as an excuse to lower the standards of the genre even more (Paranormal Entity might be the clearest example). I think that the film Apollo 18 is on some intermediate point between both extremes, because even though I found its screenplay absurd, repetitive and occasionally a bit tiring, it generally kept me moderately entertained because of the realism of its "verité" aesthetic and the attention to every detail shown on its production.
The screenplay from Apollo 18 is something like an hybrid of Alien, Sunshine and Moon, even though with all the fantastic elements reduced in order to increment the realism from the story. That might be the main reason why the film did not leave me very satisfied, and it even bored me a little bit during its most "exciting" moments. The trailers of Apollo 18 promised a horror film, but the truth is that it lacks of the necessary impact in order to provoke an emotional or even visceral impact. Even the "scares" feel forced in the documentary context (not to mention the difficulty of accepting the fact that the characters keep filming when any sensible person would have dropped the camera in front of the first sign of danger). Another problem is that the performances feel bland and not very credible. It was undoubtedly a good decision to pick unknown faces not to ruin the "realistic" premise, but I think they should have picked actors with more talent and charisma.
Having said all that, I have to give Apollo 18 a slight recommendation because of its solid recreation of the lunar mission. The version of the Moon presented by the movie might not be totally faithful from the scientific point of view, but it is more than enough for us to accept the premise and visually transport us to the satellite we had only seen in brief clips from the NASA and in sci-fi movies which had only showed various stones on a sandy field. I know that I should not be giving a movie even a slight recommendation only because of its special effects, but they are so good in this movie that I am going to make an exception, also stating the fact that the movie achieves a few good moments of tension during the first half. However, I regret the fact that the visual talent from this film could not adorn a better (and more terrifying) story.
36 of 52 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?