Moonwalkers (2015) Poster

(2015)

User Reviews

Review this title
44 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Great fun !
acromegalix13 September 2015
Seen at the Etrange Festival where it won the Audience Award. One of the coolest stoner comedy with a - as always - fantastic Ron Perlman and a Rupert Grint who obviously wanted to exit from the Harry Potter era. Regardless of the subject, this movie was for me an enormous laugh from the opening credits to the very end. It was even better because I didn't know anything about it, in particular that it was a comedy. Ron Perlman is sent by the CIA to England to shoot a fake movie of the moon landing directed by Stanley Kubrick in case of failure of the Apollo 11 mission. Of course, nothing happens as expected. Don't expect Citizen Kane, but I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did.
74 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Laugh out loud hilarious!
Ramascreen14 January 2016
MOONWALKERS is the first funniest movie of this year even though we just started on 2016 but I'm confident enough to shout that aloud because it really is going to be tough for other comedy films from this point forward to top MOONWALKERS. It's so outrageously funny, you're going to be gasping for air from laughing too hard.

Written by Dean Craig and directed by Antoine Bardou-Jacquet, the legendary Ron Perlman plays an unstable CIA agent, he's a Vietnam war vet suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, but he's been assigned by the agency to locate and hire filmmaker Stanley Kubrick so that Kubrick would film a fake moon landing just in case America's actual moon landing fails. One unsuccessful rock band manager (Rupert Grint) and his confused friend (Robert Sheehan) see this as an opportunity. But things get complicated.

It's part con man comedy, it's part gangster comedy, MOONWALKERS is basically something that Guy Ritchie would concoct back in the day. And on top of that, the story is set in a psychedelic era, so it adds to how fun and unpredictable MOONWALKERS can get, you see these characters who are in way over their heads, and a war vet who's just aching to unleash his frustrations. It's a comedy that relies on mistaken identity, misunderstanding, and ignorance, MOONWALKERS doesn't try too hard to make you laugh because the characters themselves are already doing a fantastic job at that. Well-written, well thought out and well-acted, Rupert Grint and Robert Sheehan have excellent comedic timing, Perlman's take no-prisoner-approach is entertaining. I haven't laughed this hard since 2007's "Death At a Funeral," it's good to have that feeling back.
39 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Moonwalkers: an enjoyable flick.
niutta-enrico17 January 2016
Looks like an American film but is not: although shot in English, is a French-Belgian production on the script of English screenwriter Dean Craig.

It's a funny and ironic film, celebrating the psychedelic atmosphere of the swinging London (we are in June '69). You won't really laugh but you will have a good time watching: who doesn't like to watch magic mushroom-eating guys playing the good ones?

Everybody acts sensationally and the characters are so good that you will easily imagine a sequel. One word about the cast: Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint steal the scene but males will surely also notice beautiful Belgian actress Erika Sainte, previously unknown to greater American and British audiences
27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Argo meets Lock, Stock and Two Loaded Barrels. Via Hangar 18. On acid.
siderite17 January 2016
The film was fun, if anything. All actors play well. Ron Perlman is a delight as an old CIA operative that has the shakes from all his Vietnam missions and wants to kill everybody, Rupert Grint basically plays Ron Weasley without the wand and Misfit Robert Sheenan is great as an unreliable but fun druggie who is always wasted.

The plot is totally silly and at no time is this film in danger of being used as proof for conspiracy nutters that think we never went to the Moon, but the script is well done. I mean, all stories start with a crazy "what if" seed and then there is the actual writing. The writing was good. The seed in this case was that the Americans would hire Stanley Kubrick to make a secret film of a fake Moon landing in case the real one failed, all in 10 days. Yeah, right.

Bottom line: this movie teaches us that while the Americans were sending their kids to die in Vietnam, Brits were really cool and fun. The rest is history.
33 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I loved it!, Funny Laugh out loud for Kubrick fans especially!!
rebeccax518 January 2016
No spoilers, but if you are an fanatic Kubrick fan you will be well entertained.

I saw the film tonight on ON DEMAND on cable (just released there.) i've been waiting to see it, but it was much better then I expected!

Loved every moment of it. A wonderful tribute to Kubrick and all the Kubrick memes. There are other 60's related things going on. Great concept, great writing...made for esoteric laughs.

Besides constant Kubrick references, there are Antonioni and Hal Ashby nods. Hitchcock too.

The cast was terrific. Production values very good.
20 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This is a very funny but different type of comedy that many people will love, but just as many either won't like or understand.
cosmo_tiger22 February 2016
"If we've got a guy that can make things look like they're on the moon then doesn't it make sense to film a pretend moon landing, just in case the real one doesn't work?" Apollo 11 is about to launch and NASA is worried. If the American's don't make it to the moon the set back could ruin the entire space program and the Russian's will have the upper hand. In order to hedge their bets they ask CIA agent Kidman (Perlman) to travel to England and ask if director Stanley Kubrick if he will film a movie of men landing just in case. When Kidman meets Jonny (Grint) things get a little off track. This movie is hilarious, it makes you wonder and is very psychedelic. I really loved it and laughed a lot they entire time. On the other hand this is not a movie that everyone will enjoy. There is a little Oliver Stone (a la Natural Born Killers) vibe to this and I really enjoyed that aspect. This is a very funny but different type of comedy that many people will love, but just as many either won't like or won't understand. Overall, a movie that I enjoyed and fans of psychedelic comedies will as well. I give this a B+.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Funny, adorable and definitely worth watching
avibluestein31 January 2016
It's a Guy Ritchie vs Tarantino style movie with Ron Perlman doing a great job as a sloppy arrogant agent that manages to mess up a mission to fake the moon landing teaming with two idiots that fooled him. A fun movie with a funny plot done in a very convincing manner.

This only proves how a good script, good shots and good direction together with good actors that are not necessarily celebrities - can end up with a great result that does not fall short of the big pictures. Food for thought for big studios IMHO and Perlman here shows sides which I've never before seen him do.

Definitely worth watching. Amusing, not hilarious but fun to watch.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It won't take you to the moon but it will take you to just above the stratosphere.
Seth_Rogue_One23 February 2016
The poster, the cast and the plot made it seem like it could be an amazing movie, albeit it's far from amazing it's still entertaining.

I expected a more realistic approach on tackling one of the greatest conspiracy theories of our time, the one that is about the moonlanding in 1969 being staged (in order to beat the Russians to the task so they would still be seen as the most powerful country in the world).

A theory that I actually believe could be a true one but I won't dig too deep into that because if that actually did happen how it happen would most likely differ substantially from the plot of this movie as this one is solely about the comedy... and the action, which there was plentyful of, to the point that it might get too bloody for some sensitive viewers.

A lot of sex, drugs and rock n roll as well.

The acting is fine, Rupert Grint does really well in comedies as he's proved before with the slightly better 'WILD TARGET (2010)' which also got him entangled with gangsters.

Robert Sheehan I didn't even recognize as the bearded hippie-friend of Grint, despite 'THE ROAD WITHIN' with Sheehan being one of my favorite movies of 2015, so yeah he was good too.

Ron Pearlman does his thing as always.

Gets a little too druggy at times perhaps and the pre-credit montage was a little too much but overall yeah solid enough entertainment for sure.

Also the movie clocks in at 97 minutes not 107 minutes like IMDb lists it at.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Proper cult classic
shaunhanson-1654521 February 2016
This movie is hilariously funny and well made. It's got a bunch of wacky characters from all walks of life ranging from secret agents to hippies, all coming together to create a kind of mad cocktail comedy.

I'm a big Ron Perlman fan and he does not disappoint in this one - in fact I don't think they could of cast anyone better for this role, all the other members of the cast were really good too including Jonny (Rupert Grind), Paul (Kevin Bishop), Leon (Robert Sheehan) and a special mention to the gorgeous Erika Sainte as Ella.

Highly recommend you give this movie a watch if you have a good sense of humour. 9/10 for me.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Definitely underrated.
altersaege22 February 2016
While 8 would imo be too much, 6 is definitely less than what this movie is worth. Come on people what's wrong with you? When I see some ratings here lately I wonder how can those film get a 8 and this a 6.

The acting here is fabulous, the humour is in a right balance of dementia and intelligence. There are nice gags, a nice kind of surrealism, it even touches some political themes, and it offers more or less all what you may want, fun, action, drama, sexiness. So, don't hesitate.

Anyway I think that IMDb should urgently revisit its politic of "not enough lines" for reviews. People do not necessarily have to write the holy bible to review each single film each single time. (hopefully now I have enough lines).
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Once again, critics miss the mark spectacularly..
tom-297930 October 2019
This is smart and funny farce. These are the types of British comedies you don't see so much of these days, but that ONLY we can do well.

Remember the 80s comedy 'Clockwise' with John Cleese? or perhaps even Peter Cellars in 'The Party'.

Basically, it's one of those films where all the suspension of disbeliefand therefore the entire plot, premise and thus/hence all the comedy comes from the fact that instead of just coming clean or saying 'no' or walking away.. the main character decides to dig himself deeper and deeper into his hole... and we are so glad they do, because the results are hilarious,

It seems critics and newspaper reviewers forget entirely that they are watching a form of entertainment where the realism of personal interactions. the correct physics in space, the way systems ACTUALLY FU*kiNG behave, DO NOT behave that way on film at all.. because if they did, you'd have no Star Wars, people would never fall in love on film because they'd go home and watch Eastenders instead of chasing down that last aeroplane to Fiji containing your long lost love - or the last train to Manchester that leaves the station at a pace that not only allows you to give chase, but also hold a conversation for a solid 2 minutes while you run and your love leans out of the window waving her hankerchief at you.

What I am saying is that.. realism has its place. But in comedy, it sacrifices a million directions you could take your script.

If this film was simply about a guy that owed rent to someone that would break his legs, should he not pay.. he'd likely, get a loan and owe the bank, rather than a murderous criminal gang.

Or.. you know. Something sensible.

But no, instead, we end up at a mansion full of naked, drug fuelled hippies attempting to recruit a Stanley Kubrick doppelganger into filming a counterfeit sham Moon Landing... all while being chased by various American intelligence and Federal investigatory agencies.. but of course!

There are some classic lines, great cinematography, subtle slow-mo, good music choices.. Rupert Grint STUNNED me by not being a child actor that grew up a bit - no, his acting evolved right along with him and he is excellent. He is firmly my favourite and easily the best of the main three original Potter cast.

Grint4TheWin!

Anyway.. why all this huge tangent all just to say that the plot is amusing and the film is watchable.

Well, because in actual fact - the film is more than good, it's excellent as far as outlandish British farcical comedy goes, but what upset me was that (as I often do, the wrong way around) I checked the reviews and rating after actually watching the movie.

Have I read about the wrong film?

No.. critics are just tearing it apart in their usual 'this isn't a masterpiece of cinema, and therefore deserves no praise' type reviews.

Look, not every painting has to be a Mono Lisa, nor every statue a marble David.

I like abstract, I like budget, I like experimental... I LOVE it when it all just comes together with the right cast, they all care, they are clearly having fun and there isn't a single stuck-up multip-millionaire actor who believes that the lines he has been given to say are 'beneath them'.

I've seen Edward Norton give ABSOLUTE minimal effort in order to fulfil a contract. It was a comic book film too, so for fans of that particular comic - Ed basically said 'screw you'.

I would love to find out what Edward Norton enjoys, get a part in it then just stare into the camera for 45 minutes, ruining the entire show.

So, Robert de Niro also now has so much money, he can pick and choose any role, any time (Meet the Fockers.. weird - but arguably acceptable ).. No doubt he gets offered minor roles for BOAT LOADS of cash.

Take, for example, this upcoming new "Joker" movie, all he has to do is stand up and pretend to be a Game Show Host.. It's Wardrobe, Hair and Makeup department that did 95% of the work for him! All he has to do is say his lines words with some conviction.

They even colour-graded the film on computer to make it look like it was made in the 70s and shot like Taxi Driver... giving the audience a wink and a nod.

How much effort does he give? Clearly not enough to warrant me mentioning it here.

----

Bottom Line:

Moonwalkers is a god damn great time. Dare I say, I think it will develop a bit of a cult following in the future,

It contains actors that care about their roles, they are having a good time and are enjoying each day on set as it comes. They don't look like the only thing that matters is when 10 months of their hours and hours of daily work gets edited down into a 90 minutes attempt to impress critics. Those people that, quite honestly, never apologise for making or breaking careers nor should they have been assigned that much power in the first place. (I have no idea who listens to critics, but someone must do, because it affects ticket sales..)

It's a paradox of a career. You're supposed to love film, therefore find the best parts of every art piece put in front of you to judge. Yet instead, tear it to pieces and summarise in a sentence about how little you enjoyed doing your job for the last 2 hours.You still get paid though. --- List of poor reasons why you should review movies:

You have an encyclopedic knowledge of movies that other people think are good, or have either a copy of, or perhaps even read '1001 Movies You Should See Before You Die'.

You think subtitles qualify a movie as being extremely foreign and/or obscure'.

You've seen some black and white movies

.. etc.

You know.. basic things that are generally out of the realm of regular, popcorn eating movie goers..No, you're not edgy, or deep or 'into film'...

There are people on YouTube that are REALLY great reviews, God damn, some of them actually are spending longer than the entire movie breaking it down and why it's so well made... From just the basics of the script and actors to the lighting, camera lenses used, what camera is used and how its being held (tripod, handheld, shoulder mount), the cinematography.. (Hey - do you even know what a cinematographer does? In fact, next time you watch a movie.. wait for the credits and see how many people and their listed jobs are that you actually know what they do.

That'll give you more appreciation for film making too.

As a music producer myself, I have two ways of listening to music. The first is 'breakdown mode OFF' Where I will just pretend like I've had half a bottle of brandy and whether I want to sing along to or dance to the music.. does it 'work' as a song overall.

The other version of my enjoyment, which unfortunately, I have almost no ability to switch on or off - as I spend my days breaking down songs into it's component layers (layers of melody, drums, instruments, rhythms, time signatures) Similar to all of the jobs listed at the finale of the movie credits - the same number of jobs apply to making a song. Except that, thanks to technology, a single person can now apply for, interview and hire themselves to do ever one of those jobs themselves.

So, now I can write, produce, master, release and criticise my own music all by myself. Sadly, it has ruined my ability to hear any music without peeling it apart like a sandwich made of over 100 layers of bread drums and musical mayonnaise.

I've gone off track again.

What I'm saying is that.. this film doesn't need to shoot towards a pretentious level of "artistic perfection" seen in something like Japanese storytelling.. Abstract worlds that are visually stunning, like Pan's Labyrinth, for example..

Of course, if you do shoot for abstract perfection and have a stunning critical failure - then you find yourself stuck between the weird cracks of pretentious try-hard nonsense and you've spawned a self-loving ego stroke,

No, it does the job, gets it done - and you love it all the more for it. I don't need to have my visual cortex sent to the gym every time I sit down.

This is comedy, it doesn't need visually stunning landscapes or closeups of french kissing with a foggy background and slow exposure sweeps of light in the background.

Actually, there are some arty parts that fit really well in this movie..

I'm thinking of one in particular. I'm very content with the slow motion nudity featured during the use of the hand held near-floor camera sweep through the dope-smoke filled mansion being used as a squat - which sets the scene perfectly and introduces another character..

And as a meta film plot about filmmaking, it's actually incredible self aware in its restraint over excess.

I love this film.

Not only for the enjoyment it gives me watching it, it's a good laugh and the acting carries you along with the story.. but, if you made it this far, its given me a hell of a lot to talk about in terms of the invalidity of professional critics and their opinions, film in general and the job industry growing in film and shrinking in music.. strange that. There are more and more jobs opening up in movies due to the use of set building around chromakey inserted CG effects and hundreds of other technical details that now need to be interwoven together as technology continues to increase at a rate faster than filmmakers can keep up with the choice to use them (you can now make a film based on a new innovation rather than a script itself.. for example, the ability now to perfectly, photo-realistically recreate actors as the younger version of themselves. There is bound to be a movie that features that effect as the flimsy premise for an entire story - I'll bet that they use Robert Di Niro too - just to fulfil someones wet dream that he is the worlds most skilled actor (due to pointing at himself in a mirror and doing some acting).

Then, they can compare his present acting in a younger body!

TL:DR

Moonwalkers is great.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of 2015's best
AttilaGyulaBalazs24 April 2016
Competing with an array of films that changed the way Hollywood looks at the cinematic process, this underdog takes liberties bridging fantasy and reality, while also delivering a genre-bending comedy with a smidge of "the ultra violence." (quite appropriate as the movie alludes to Stanley Kubrick continuously) A story that is compelling and well paced with plenty of conflicts to get in the way. Rupert Gint, Robert Sheehan and company do an amazing job of portraying self-centered, egotistical artists of the Brit-pop era while Ron Pearlman comes in with his American stoicism to perfectly accent the absurd antics that propel this movie forward. The movie is littered with life wisdom's that are never preached. Controversial subject matter's that are far the norm of conversation.

A great watch for a great time, imho, one of 2015's best films. I can't wait to see more from Antoine Bardou-Jacquet.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Superb comedy for the right audience
baf-8989328 March 2016
I'm usually wary when it comes to comedies but this turned out to be far better than expected.

Forget the theme of the conspiracy theories of the Moon landings. This film is doesn't have much to say about whether there was a conspiracy or not so it won't offend either point of view. That's just a backdrop for a story that mixes up some diverse characters and puts a hardcore CIA killing machine with a hopeless band manager and a bunch of swinging sixties hippies.

The film reminded me of the 1987 film Withnail and I. It takes place in Britain and is set in the same year, 1969 and drugs and debauchery are major theme. The film juxtaposes a serious CIA agent against a great cast of interesting and contrasting characters, much of it set in wonderfully tripped out hippie commune. Like Withnail and I the script is great and for anyone who has experienced the British party scene first hand will probably appreciate the dialogue and general drug fuelled chaos all the more.

I really liked the characters in this film which all stood out in their own way and were superbly acted with a great script.

I suspect this will probably be enjoyed more by a British audience and particularly those who can relate to the hippie and/or party scene. For such people this is a rare gem not to be missed.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A must see comedy movie!!!
cekadah26 January 2016
It's all here in this wacky story set in 1969 Britian. A paranoid ex-Vietnam soldier ex-CIA agent with spells of schizophrenia, a wanna-be rock star, pill popping hippie love children, a Warhol like flower child movie maker, mafia types, lots of splatter, guns, guns, guns, and a conniving four star Pentagon US army general. And they all have a goal involving money and a trip to the moon in 1969.

These characters all comes together brilliantly directed by Antoine Bardou-Jacquet to keep this movie moving along and no sooner has it started it's over. A fast moving comedy that will have you wanting more. My favorite scene comes at the very end when everyone is gathered around a television in a small café in Spain!

If you choose to see this movie do not read the plot first. Just let it happen while watching!
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
MOONWALKERS totally ROCKS
sarine_voltage8 January 2018
What a fun and awesome flick! We were totally immersed-and cracking up almost non-stop-all the way through. I'm a multi-tasker, doing at least 1 or 2 other things while watching any TV (only way I can justify it-ha!), but Moonwalkers commanded my full attention start to finish (and that's a first). I'm on my 6th watch now (my roommate tallies up at close to 50) and it still hasn't gotten old or any less funny. (What?!) Seriously.

Moonwalkers is hilarious. Ron Perlman is the shit (can I say that? ...if not, let's say he's the bomb) and he'll have you doubling over with laughter in seconds. I know, I know, you're thinking Ron Perlman? the heavy? have me doubling over with laughter?? YES! He is so perfect for the role he plays and he plays it to a T, maybe even a Z. I'd go on to say that he steals the show, but, how can I with Rupert Grint and, of course, the hippie chick, and, well, every single cast member was oustandingly amazing and cast perfectly. Ron Perlman is the man and quite frankly, they'll just all blow you away.

Oh, then there's the story itself. It is hands down over the top hilarious while maintaining an incredibly believable as true fact feel. I think it's one of the reasons this movie has so much appeal-it's both unbelievable and yet completely believable at the same time. Is it based on actual events? Every thing that happens is so way out there. On one hand you're thinking it's just a comedic fantasy, things like this don't happen; then on the other hand-if your life's anything like mine, that is-it actually is believable and could be based on true facts. And aren't the funniest tales to tell the ones that are utterly true?!

Bottom line, this flick ROCKS and everyone needs to watch it at least once. Whoever put this together is on it. They've obviously set the bar and set it high for the quality level of what they need to reach to put their stuff out into the world. Which then makes you also realize just how sad and sorry the majority of the rest of what's being put out there is and just how low the bar has become for what's now come to be deemed acceptable by most. Hey, let's get everyone to set the bar at least nearly this high, how 'bout it?

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I would've given this a 9.5 star rating, but I couldn't find any half-stars.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Highly Enjoyable, Magical, and Maniacal B-Movie Farce
LeonLouisRicci6 April 2016
A Wild and Off-Beat B-Movie with very Broad Strokes and is All Over the Map with its Outrageous Plot about Stanley Kubrick Faking the Moon Landing.

Set in the Psychedelic Sixties it spares Nothing and No One with its Ultra-Violence and Over the Top Characterizations. It's a Colorful, Mad-Cap, Action-Comedy that Hits the mark most of the time and is an Entertaining Effort with an Abundance of Artistic Flare.

Ron Pelleman is Superb as a CIA Agent that is in the Center of this Whirlpool of Government Conspiracies and Gangland Comeuppance. Violent and Sleazy, it contains Nudity and Gore but the Impressive Production Design alone is Worth the Price of Admission.

Rupert Grint (of Harry Potter fame) is also quite Good as the "Loser" Rock Band Manager who Stumbles and Bumbles but Charms His way through Outlandish Situations. There's one Acid-Dropping Scene with Pelleman that is a Standout.

Overall, Worth a Watch for "Artsy" Types and Anyone who Enjoys Off-Kilter Cinema with a Good Cast, a Quirky Story, and the Talent to Deliver such a Maniacal Movie and make it all work.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
action adventure wit
joshlanewellness3 May 2016
it was fun, well directed, well acted they want ten lines but the first sentence says it all for me costumes were great some of the action scenes may have borrowed from Lock Stock and two smoking barrels overall it was great fun Ron Perlman did a very nice job great acid scenes great choice of songs funky Kingston by Toots and the Maytels great to hear it again the other songs fit in nicely as well. It's interesting that some really well done movies just seem to be released with little fanfare and not many people see them. Everyone has their own sense of taste and Moonwalkers was dyn-o-mite. well thats my ten lines I had fun with this movie Best Wishes, Josh Lane
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Groovy violence
voyou-703-6553503 February 2016
Did the NSA secretly pay a Frenchman to direct a British movie as a cover up about the CIA paying a German to direct a British movie for a 1969 cover up that only an American would still believe today, in an attempt to discredit the agency-coined conspiracy theories devised by the KGB, CID, DFS, RCMPSS, SDECE, MI6, BND, Supo and a few dozens more out of sheer jealousy for a world-class lie ?

Ron Perlman, whom I have enjoyed since he fell off a tree in 1981, made this film watchable until the end for me, despite the fact that it was not at all what I expected, and not as good. I've got the strange feeling that the hippies and the others come from two different movies, the former from a light spoof of the 60s, the latter from a classic British gangster romp.

I guess it's what the makers were aiming at, but it doesn't mean it works. For starters, the light comedy isn't funny. I early realised that the film couldn't be great. As soon as a turd was shown. That's one of the best signs right there. Strangely, there were no fart jokes after that. They were replaced with decapitations. The serious scenes are a tad gory indeed, if stylish. Not funny either, even for a lover of black humour such as I. Unless I missed some sort of dead black pan humour.

I almost forgot: I would have given 1 more point for the quality of the detail in scenes of this period piece, but I have to take it back for all its hairless hippies and shaved armpits. Back then, people had not yet been brainwashed by deodorant corporations and by the Californian porn industry into amputating their cooling system.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The Comedy isn't that Funny and the Bouts of Violence Don't Fit
brando64729 October 2016
Conspiracy theories are fun. Short of the JFK assassination, I suppose few conspiracy theories have gotten the same level of insane conjecture as the idea that the United States never landed on the moon. One of the more amusing theories out there is that the American government, impressed with the level of detail in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, brought famed director Stanley Kubrick in to record a bogus video to disseminate to the masses as proof of our "accomplishment". MOONWALKERS, an independent black comedy from 2015, decided to take this concept and have fun with it. The movie is set during Apollo 11's approach to the moon. The American government wants to cover all its bases and have a Plan B in the event that something goes wrong. The CIA sends one of its agents, Kidman (Ron Perlman), to England with the plan of hiring Kubrick for the top-secret project but, thanks to unfortunate circumstances, he's mistakenly introduced to the manager of a failing rock band, Jonny (Rupert Grint). Seeing Kidman's suitcase full of cash, Jonny lies and promises to deliver Kubrick (in the form of his perpetually-stoned friend Leon, played by Robert Sheehan). By the time Kidman becomes wise to Jonny's lies, the money is gone and time is running out. Now Kidman and Jonny must work together to create believable moon landing footage while under the watchful eye of the CIA and the vengeful crosshairs of a disgruntled English mob boss. Prepare for drugs, hippies, and gratuitous violence.

Unfortunately, the biggest sham sold to the audience isn't that the moon landing was fake but that MOONWALKERS is a comedy. I've watched it again only just recently and I can't bring a single moment to mind where I honestly laughed. Maybe a chuckle here or there, but never a laugh and rarely a smile. It's just not that funny. Most attempts at humor in MOONWALKERS goes for the low-hanging fruit. The easy laughs. Leon's too nervous to pretend he's Kubrick. What's that? He's hyperventilating into a paper bag? No, he's huffing glue. Jonny freaks out that he's getting high before their big moment and tries to rejuvenate him by literally shoveling cocaine up his nose. Then we have the easy "fish out of water" gags where the stern, no-nonsense Kidman is forced into a situation where he's surrounded by free-spirited hippies. It's mostly an excuse for loads of nudity and people acting dopey while Kidman glares at them sternly. The director Jonny scores for the moon project is a German diva named Renatus whose latest accomplishment is slow-motion footage of a fat man jumping on a trampoline. It took him three years to complete. See? Laughs galore. There's nothing really clever in the attempts at humor in this movie. It all feels like cheap stereotypes we've seen hundreds of times before. The "black" in this black comedy are the occasional bouts of graphic violence that pop up randomly to spoil the cheerful vibes of this hippie crew of fools.

You see Kidman suffers from pretty severe PTSD. The very first scene of the movie is a flashback dream of Kidman in the jungles of Vietnam. He suffers from hallucinations of his mutilated friends and enemies from the war. He's haunted by the fact that he's an incredibly effective killing machine. So where trouble rears its ugly head, Kidman is there to bash its face in with a shovel (or his fist or whatever he's got handy). This brutal violence feels incredibly out of place in what otherwise is a relatively harmless, light-hearted hippie comedy and it's a little jarring every time it comes to pass. It feels like MOONWALKERS doesn't know what it wants to be. The tones clash. For an example of this sort of black action/comedy done better, go watch American ULTRA. This one seems to take the safe route through the comedy while ramping up the violence with the occasional exploding head. If I were to call out a single scene that might've bored me less than the rest of the movie, it'd be the obligatory acid sequence. You can't have a hippie movie without someone mistakenly dosed with LSD and that someone in this case is Kidman. It's always interesting to see how the director visualizes an acid trip and, despite everything MOONWALKERS does that falls short, I actually liked this sequence. So if you've got low expectations and some time to kill, throw on MOONWALKERS to watch Rupert Grint stumble in his post-Harry Potter career and Ron Perlman collect a paycheck,
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
To the Moon!
ferguson-614 January 2016
Greetings again from the darkness. Provided you don't subscribe to a particular conspiracy theory, it can be ripe for comedy. So unless you are one who believes Apollo 11 did not succeed, and neither Neil Armstrong nor Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon's surface that historic day in 1969, you will probably find this wacky farce worthy of a few laughs. The first feature from director Antoine Bardou-Jacquet and writer Dean Craig (Death at a Funeral, 2007) seems to enjoy poking fun at the U.S. military, the CIA, the swinging 60's in London, movie directors not named Kubrick, and Brits in general.

The film opens with a vivid dream of PTSD-stricken CIA agent Kidman (Ron Perlman) complete with Vietnam flashbacks and horror-movie level visions of zombies. This is followed by an opening credit sequence featuring Monty Python's Terry Gilliam-type animation that certainly gets our hopes up for a different kind of movie experience.

Mr. Perlman's hulking presence is kind of a recurring punchline, and he's up for just about any gag as his character Kidman agrees to follow orders delivered by a slightly looney military officer (Jay Benedict), reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. This is fitting because Kidman's mission is to fly to London and convince famed director Stanley Kubrick to direct a "staged" lunar landing as precaution in case Apollo 11 goes awry.

When circumstances cause his meeting with Kubrick's agent to create a case of mistaken identity, Kidman is soon enough handing over a briefcase full of money to failed band manager Jonny (Rupert Grint) and his stoned buddy Leon (Robert Sheehan). As things progress, a mafia-type group is involved as is a trip to a drug-fueled stay at a hippie commune/castle run by a cocky movie director who took 3 years to film a fat guy bouncing on a trampoline.

Perlman is a pleasure to watch here, and Grint is working hard to shake off the clingy dust of the Harry Potter movies. Their scenes together offer plenty of laughs, but most of the scenes are hit and miss, and the film does lose some steam during the over-the-top violence and gore moments. Other Kubrick references include Lolita, A Clockwork Orange (the coffee table in Derek's office), and of course 2001: A Space Odyssey.

For full enjoyment, one must embrace the heavy stoner-comedy mode as well as a farcical look at London in the late 1960's. It easy to compare this to Barry Levinson's 1997 film Wag the Dog, but in fact, it probably has more in common with Laugh-in or some of the Peter Sellers comedies of the era (minus anyone as talented as the great Sellers). And beyond that, you best not believe the United States fooled the world with a fake lunar landing. "We didn't. Did we?"
17 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Funny Psychedelic comedy about the moon landing conspiracy
subxerogravity25 January 2016
It's the movie Buzz Aldrin does not want you to see!

I herd for years about the rumor that the government got Stanley Kubrick to film the moon landing of Apollo 11, but the movie flushes out the conspiracy and it goes right in the toilet for our own amusement.

Ron Perlman plays a stressed out G man who is assigned to go to London and get Kubrick to agree to film the fake space landing (just in case Apollo 11 does not make it), only to get conned by a rock band manager played by Rupert Grint to believe one of his stoned out clients is the guy whose directing Space Odyssey, and when the agent finds out, there lives depend on getting that footage made.

Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint where very good in this movie. It was an interesting contrast as I found humor in Perlman's quietness, as a man who just came back from a mission in Vietnam and is in real need of a break going out on another mission. Meanwhile Grint's life was more outrageous and screw ball that made for some violent outburst in comedy.

I thought it had some good gags and great jokes, which, along with the story content, made it pleasant to watch.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
retro conspiracy theories
dromasca17 November 2016
If you are looking for 90 minutes of uninhibited politically incorrect fun, if you like retro movies about the late 60s or maybe you have lived those happy times and now you want to laugh about them, then 'Moonwalkers' directed by Antoine Bardou-Jacquet (at his first long feature movie) is the stuff that you are looking for.

The year is 1969 and Apollo 11 prepares to put Neil Armstrong on the moon on live TV. They cannot fail as the moon race is above all a competition between super-powers and political systems (this IS true history, BTW). So plan B is put in place - get the best science-fiction film director (who else but Space Odyssey's Stanley Kubrik) direct a film moon landing which would be broadcast in the 66% (or was it 75%?) probability Apollo 11 fails. A Rambo-like CIA agent (Ron Perlman) with some psychotic trauma problems is send to do the job. Conspiracy theory meets retro films a la 'Austin Powers' in the crazy parody idea that triggers the film. Of course, many things will go wrong - the kind of 'wrong' that causes laughs.

The execution is far from flawless, but I guess it is not supposed to be either. The film has enough gags (an average of one a minute) to compensate the huge holes in the story, and the combination between the 'macho' military attitude, the psychedelic rock scene atmosphere, and the late 60s cinema nostalgia (including several Kubrik quotes) works quite well. There are enough gross characters to meet, clash, punch, kill each other and especially to make us laugh. Perlman delivers as expected in the typology of the brainless CIA gorilla agent, while Rupert Grint of Hary Potter's buddy glory is confused enough to become funny all along. Do not ask too many questions, after all this is (also) a conspiracy theories movie. It's the kind of film one needs to get into the mood and just enjoy.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't give a f*ck
deloudelouvain24 August 2016
Well to be honest I didn't expect much before watching Moonwalkers but I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised. I laughed a lot and to me that's what it is about when watching a comedy. The combination of a psychedelic environment and Ron Perlman as a brutal American CIA-agent was sometimes hilarious. The mixture of brutal scenes and then the more chill drug taking scenes worked perfectly. Also seeing Rupert Grint in something else then Harry Potter was interesting. The story itself, you don't have to take it too serious, it's a comedy, with a lot of subtle references to all kind of stuff, like Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut etc... Maybe some people might not like it, but I certainly did, it's my kind of humor. I truly enjoyed Moonwalkers.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Much funnier than I thought
marcia-varaschin12 August 2017
I really loved this movie. Much better than I thought. It is a mix of Tarantino, Guy Ritchie and Sacha Baron Cohen kind of movie. Can you imagine that? So funny. I would have given a 10, but acting is not all good. If they've chosen better actors it would be a blockbuster. Do not miss it if you have a chance to watch this one. At the beginning you might think it's not good, but keep watching. You will not regret.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A mixed bag but the good easily outweigh the bad...though it's NOT for all tastes.
MartinHafer19 March 2016
Rupert Grint will forever be known as the actor who played Ron Weasley...no matter how many more films he makes and even if the films are nothing like the Harry Potter franchise. Because of this, some folks might be a bit aghast at his latest film, "Moonwalkers", as he's about as far from Ron Weasley as you could imagine! Instead of the angst-filled teen, here he's an adult living back in 1969 and he hangs with a pretty wild crowd of weirdos. He and his friends take drugs, hang out at avant garde parties where clothing is surely optional and he's a bit of a crook! In addition, he's joined by Ron Perlman...a very strange combination to say the least!

This film is a strange sort of what if movie. The premise is that the US government isn't totally sure that they will actually be able to get the first men on the moon safely...so they have a back-up plan. A CIA operative, Kidman (Perlman), is instructed to travel to Britain in order to convince Stanley Kubrick (yes...THAT Stanley Kubrick) to film a fake moon landing...just in case the real one fails. That way, as a back-up they can claim that the mission was a rousing success. To get Kubrick's cooperation, Kidman has a briefcase filled with cash...and instructions to kill the famed director of 2001 should they need to use his footage in order to prevent the truth from being revealed. However, when Kidman arrives at the office of Kubrick's agent to discuss the matter, the agent is out and his loser cousin Jonny (Grint) is there and Kidman mistakenly thinks Jonny is the man's agent. As for Jonny, he at first tries to tell Kidman about the mistake but then realizes that this might be the answer to all his financial problems. After all, gangsters are already talking about emasculating him if he doesn't pay them....immediately. And, Kidman has a briefcase filled with cash. So, Jonny decides to have one of his strange friends impersonate the director and con Kidman out of the money. However, there is much more to this story and it takes many, many strange and unpredictable turns. I challenge you to guess where the film will go next!

While this all sounds like a comedy, and it is of sorts, I must warn you that the film is extremely violent and filled will all sorts of things your mother would not approve of...well, at least my mother! There's quite a bit of nudity, harsh language and heads exploding galore...and the movie clearly has earned its R rating. In many ways, the film plays a lot like an early Guy Ritchie film like "Snatch" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels"...it's funny but incredibly violent and not to everyone's taste. As for me, I really dislike 'ultra-violence' but can, on rare occasions, allow myself to endure it if the plot is good and engaging. While I wouldn't put it in the category of the two Ritchie films I mentioned since the story doesn't quite fit together as well as a Ritchie film, it was enjoyable and I recommend you see it...mostly because it is incredibly unique and, at times, fun. Of course, at other times, there are heads exploding, blood flying and boobs...so think twice before you consider seeing this one.

As far as the theaters go, this film came and went almost at the same time. While it was debuted in January, it's already on DVD and debuted on Netflix this week. I really think it's a case where the studio just didn't know what to do with the film or how to market it...it's that strange. It's definitely an acquired taste...but one I am glad I tried. With some excellent acting, a goofy script and some memorable characters, the good easily outweighed the negatives in this one.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed