A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001)

Simply A Masterpiece

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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

If by some chance you haven't heard of or seen this "documentary", save yourself the trouble. It is merely a bunch of information presented in a biased and misleading way with the goal of convincing people that somehow, the Apollo moon missions of the late 1960's and early 1970's were faked for some mysterious reason. The "facts" presented in the documentary are all tired old clichés that have all been debunked many years ago, there's really not much to see. Bart Sibrel has no scientific credentials whatsoever, being an ex cab driver, ex TV cameraman, and part-time minister and radio host, and not a pilot, scientist, physicist, mathematician, or any other profession that would give his theories any weight at all. The fact is, he's wrong in his ideas, comically wrong, and this documentary is just an attempt to cash in on the craze for conspiracy theories in general, the theory being that persons amenable to one theory will be likely to listen and believe another, even if it's completely unrelated. It is not a mystery that so many of the people who buy into the moon landing hoax theories are also heavily invested in conspiracy theories involving JFK, 9/11, Oklahoma City, Area 51, or a host of others. The Apollo missions stand as some of the best documented events of the 20th century, as well as the greatest scientific achievements of that century, and this tawdry attempt to diminish their importance and the bravery of the men who flew on them is embarrassing at best, and insulting in any event.

this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened

I was very skeptical about the claims that Apollo program was fake at first. But a few pictures that is originate from NASA itself on their official pages make me wonder and raise my first questions, as they are so obviously fake on the very first sight: http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/gallery/apollo08_earthrise.jpg Hence I started looking out for more data and informations and with just few hours of research I manage to stumble upon some even more disturbing pictures. NASA claim that there is no artificial lighting used on the Moon, yet take a look there: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5872 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-82-11057 What are these? A stars? Why do they look like very much a classic studio spotlights? Hence I started taking these "Apolo hoax" guys way more seriously. And there come the movie - it answer most of my questions about why it was necessary to fake the landings. Since Russians are ahead in the space race and the war in Vietnam is all but lost, the USA is not looked like superpower at all. The assassination of JFK by "lone Communist sympathizer" Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963 was just another drop to the declining global leadership of USA. Hence a success was desperately need. When it was discovered that the Van Allen belts prevent the mission to be successful it become necessary to convince at least the public about this success. How? A TETR-A satellite, that was launched to simulate communication and data flow with Apollo crews it claimed to be used, as NASA lied about it "entering atmosphere" in 1968, since was well orbiting back in 1972... Take it with grain of salt, but take it. Worth considering.

Should you be afraid to make up your own mind, and prefer to take refuge in other's elaborate dogmas, then this documentary is not for you. It exposes several questionable aspects of the alleged NASA missions to the Moon in a straightforward fashion, using logical and understandable arguments. Not only does it focus on the original NASA documentation, but it also conveys reasonable motives as to why they could have lied.Personally, I had not earlier questioned the purported official NASA version, but after watching this very interesting documentary I found it quite probable that man has yet to set foot on the moon.If you are interested in more documentaries on the same topic, I would recommend "Opération Lune" ("Dark Side of the Moon" in English), which complements nicely this one.