Friday, October 14, 2011

Apollo 18

CAST:  Warren Christie (Lunar Module Pilot Captain Benjamin "Ben" Anderson), Lloyd Owen (Commander Nathan “Nate” Walker), Ryan Robbins (Command Module Pilot Lieutenant Colonel John Grey); DIRECTOR: Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego; SCREENWRITER:Brian Miller, Cory Goodman;FILM PRODUCER: Ron Schmidt, Timur Bekmambetov;GENRE:Science Fiction & Fantasy, Horror;CINEMATOGRAPHER DISTRIBUTOR;Weinstein Company;LOCATION:Vancouver, Canada; RUNNING TIME:96 minutes

Technical Assessment: 2.5
Moral Assessment: 1.5
Cinema Rating: For viewers 18 years old and above     


The film says that there were actually 18 Apollo missions to the moon although the US government declared only 17. The video footage of Apollo 18 surfaced on the Internet and the film is said to be its edited version. Astronauts Benjamin Anderson (Warren Christie) and Nathan Walker (Lloyd Owen) were the ones sent by the US Department of Defense to the mission. What is supposedly a routine scientific exploration turns out to be a revelation of something unknown and dangerous as they start to discover mysterious entities on the surface.

Apollo 18 is an attempt to revive the glory of the found-footage-horror genre in the tradition of the box office success of The Blair Witch Project. However, Apollo 18 fails in one important respect – making the audience believe that the entire film is taken from an actual footage and that the video footage is for real. The moment the film loses the audience’s suspension of disbelief, it loses its audience entirely. From the dragging beginning wherein nothing’s really going-on but the audience only sees a glimpse of the astronauts’ life, to the supposedly horrific ending that turns out to be more laughable than horrifying, The audience is made to watch characters whom they won’t really care about. Apollo 18 failed as a mission and it fails as a film as well.  

The message of the film is even ambiguous. At one point, it simply tries to expose a US government anomaly, then it shows how a man turns into a beast for survival. The “what’s going on?” question turns into “what does the movie really want to say?” As an expose, it failed to reveal much and investigate further. Making the entire look of the film more fictional than real. Again, the moment they fail to sustain the audience’s suspension of disbelief, they lost whatever point they want to convey. But looking at the film as a fiction, it does not say anything much except the moral dilemma faced by the characters and theUS government whether to keep them alive or not despite their acquired infection. Can a person’s right to life be sacrificed for the sake of national welfare and safety? In the same light, is it acceptable for the government to conceal information that would reflect badly on them? The film posed more questions than answers given its questionable credibility that is ruined by improper handling of the genre. But then, the answers to the questions are still worth pondering.