Operation Avalanche (2016)

Good start, but then it gets ruined

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

I've never been a huge fan of found footage movies. Sure there are a few that come to mind where it actually worked in favor of the story being told. But far too often the herky jerky motion of the camera being used works against the storytelling going on. The only times that works to the movies advantage is when it becomes a character in the film, a moving person holding a camera in an attempt to document what is happening with sincerity. Such is the case with OPERATION AVALANCHE.One of the biggest conspiracy theories out there is the Apollo moon landing. Did we or didn't we land a man on the moon? If not, how was it that we sat enthralled as a nation, as a world, watching the images on TV? How could they have competently pulled this off and not a single person revealed what really happened? Much of that is answered in this film, a faux documentary about how it all took place. In the early sixties the CIA recruited a number of bright and gifted young men graduating in the top of their class from several outstanding universities. This group was put to use coming up with various operations that would put their talents to use.When it comes up that there might be a Russian mole in the space program at NASA, agent Matt Johnson tries to convince his boss that sending agents in to pose as scientists won't work. He feels they'll be caught due to lack of knowledge. His suggestion instead is to send his team in posing as a documentary film crew shooting for public television. When he's told that no one would let themselves be filmed like this he points out that they've been shooting the discussion since it began. The team gets their chance.Going to NASA in Houston they meet everyone and explain what they're there to do, at least on the surface. Everyone is willing to help them and be open with them all. Using this to their advantage they plant bugs in nearly every potential area they can which provides them with a possible lead. Rather than allow them to carry on they're told to return and let another team follow up.Johnson, still ambitious to a fault, wants to be in charge of his own team. The secret they had learned was that NASA doesn't have the ability to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade, the promised time made by JFK in his famous speech. Johnson films a few things on his own and puts forth another potentiality: what if they staged the moon landing. The astronauts would be in on it, playing tapes made and put on the module before they left Earth. All of it would be shot by Johnson and his crew.The plan is set in motion and they begin looking for ways to accomplish their goals. When location shooting comes up short of delivering believable footage they visit the set of director Stanley Kubrik who is in the process of making his own film that will include footage on the moon, 2001. Again posing as a documentary crew they learn techniques he is using and apply them to their own film.But as with all good conspiracies it only works with the least amount of people knowing that it took place. Add to the mix the amount of paranoia that those involved would experience and before the movie ends more comes into question than just the moon landing.I've seen some criticize the shaky hand held look of the film but in this instance I found that to be a plus. These would not be dolly shots and the Steadicam wasn't invented yet. Hand held would have been the way it was shot. The story may leave a bit to be desired but the whole point of the film is a "what if" scenario rather than a here are the facts and we can prove it type film. The acting is not great but then from what I've read a lot of it was improvised, another plus in my book here. What is particularly amazing to me is the look of the film in what is being shown, how they've captured the world of the sixties to perfection. Okay, I've heard there are a few glitches. But most shots of cars, people and cities on display here reek of that time period and fantastically so on the meager budget this film was granted.Sure the movie will not be for everyone. It's not an action film or a Bond styled thriller from start to finish. But it does tell an interesting story and attempts to put forth the idea that this was what really happened. Is it? I'll leave that for you to decide.

at the 30:30 mark of the movie they have the NASA logo on a banner from 1992 - not the 1960's one.I find hard to believe that NASA went to the Moon. But hey, $50 billion a year in tax money is no reason to question things. I'm no 'scientist' obviously, just a humble reviewer, but the whole idea of rocket propelled travel in a vacuum is difficult to wrap one's mind around. The movie - Operation Avalanche, not the NASA moon landing movie, was enjoyable even though it was of the mumblecore genre.

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.

Do not get carried away by what these Jonny's say, the movie Has an average of 6.1, give it a try Regards Billy BobFirst of all the film is a FOOTFOTAGE (hence its austere aesthetic) DON'T CRITIC without understanding that it is a pseudo documentary on the Mission Apollo 11 (we will not walk spoiling) What starts as one Comedy is becoming more thick and sinister. Highly recommended For those who enjoy conspiracy theories and do not deny it That is not a Hollywood blockbuster.These lines are just to annoy Alejandro and it costs me an egg to arrive at 10 (which is the least they accept here), thanks googles translator and Pinitos03