User reviews

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madly hilarious, brilliantly dark, deliciously absurd - a real cult. To all conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theorists dedicated.

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.

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.

This movie is cinematographic very very beautiful. But then, it has this English feel and it's about drugs and girls laying around naked high.

The plot of the movie is really on the background and the finale is sortof a dud.

The visualizations of the trips were really well done, and brought me back to some "space traveling" I have done back in the day. Naked girls and the decors and everything is just very fine.

Yet, when I walked back from it, I only remember the two main characters as if I stood in a room with them. Some moments it felt very genuite and realistic others not so much. (why is big mr CIA guy so influencable by little meek English loser ? And why is an army of grunts able to just knock on the door and execute a fully armed CIA delegation ? Why was mr artsy so shallowly represented? All the project he didn't do anything it seemed, while he could be more flamboyant and funny.)

Get high, watch this movie. Then watch some youtube conspiracies and you'll love this movie. Watch this movie for the cinematics, which are perfect (mood, decor, visualizations, angles, sets,...). When you are in it for the plot, you'll grind teeth.

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.

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?"

No spoilers. Trying to explain what you might like.

I had doubts, but it seemed interesting enough. Better than expected. The summary does not explain enough nor do justice.

There is a little action: ass-kicking & explosions.

The plot is intriguing -- more than just a making a fake film.

Kinda funny to see 60s styles.

The round-a-bout way at getting the filming... (eccentric personalities & a UK mob group) -- that's the crux & _____.

There a few other plot-lines other than the filming of the moon landing.

Upon reading the reading a summary, you might think you know the conclusion. Not so, maybe!?

However, it's only OK, for my tastes, but worth watching. Although, I watched it at 30% faster video speed & did even stuff on another screen, but I do have ADD & a high IQ.

(Is my summary style of the best? Hitting pieces & particularly, paragraphs.)

"Moonwalkers" is a rather uneasy blending of the 1960s acid culture, exploding heads, and a moon landing. It doesn't always work, but there are some inspired moments of "black comedy". Ron Perlman is the perfect foil for Rupert Grint and his nice assortment of drug crazed hippies. I found the beginning and ending superior to the drug hazed middle of the film, which tends to drag. I see definite cult potential here, because the movie is up there on the "bizarre scale". Finding the right audience is key. There are some great 60s sounds that compliment the psychedelic era goings on. I'm predicting midnight movie showings might bring the most appreciative audience. Mainstream this is not. - MERK

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,

At the time the idea of a backup plan for a moon landing like the one in this movie could actually make sense. Everything else is fun and games all the way to that building with a front facia that nobody thought about unless they were on drugs!

As the poster says 'Moonwalkers' is actually based on a very popular conspiracy theory. The theory is, legendary director Stanley Kubrick was hired by the US government to film a fake moon landing. By doing this America would effectively win the "space race" and give them more time to perfect the Apollo missions. That's the conspiracy. To get a movie that is solely based around this idea had me very interested in the film. It also helped to have two good actors on board. Ron Perlman has already established himself as a great actor but the stand out is Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley). Who, following the 'Harry Potter' films, hasn't done much. After seeing this, I wish he was in more films. He was surprisingly great here. He essentially plays a loser. A manager of a failing band who seemingly can do nothing right. But when chance comes, he fakes being a talent agent to get a whole lot of money. Thinking that he can deliver the legendary director, Perlman willingly hands over the cash. Being a CIA agent Perlman finds out real quick that these guys were impostors and goes after the cash. From here the film goes in a ton of different directions but this is the main idea of the film. What I loved about this movie is the ideas it adopts from Kubricks work. In the first half of the film everything from the soundtrack to the production design has Kubrick written all over it. It was a nice little homage to one of the greatest directors of all time. I loved hearing orchestras play over action scenes and appealing, colorful design. This is all captured very well thanks to pretty good direction and cinematography. I got the feeling that they actually cared about making each shot interesting and unique. However the last half of the film is not this good. It basically forgets about the homages it's paying to Kubrick and devolves to standard, overused music. Not only that but it forgets about the characters attributes it sets up. One character has PTSD that attacks him early and often. It even makes him attack his living room in a daze. Yet, the last half of the film never sees this very specific trait return. Yes, the utterly randomized disease just goes away after taking a couple of illegal drugs. It's hard to get into a movie that forgets about nearly everything it sets up, but this film makes it even harder to get into. There are two or three action scenes in the film and every single one is unconvincing. I'm not sure if the director just couldn't handle it or the actors couldn't. But every single one is shot so you can't see anything or in slow motion. Doing this made these scenes feel distant. The film doesn't put you there. You aren't scared for the characters because you don't care and action isn't convincing enough to get ooos and ahs. By the end it is trying to do so many different things with its story that it loses track of what it's actually doing. The US government, some mob boss, a brothel, and a terrible band are all key aspects to the story by the end. And the film just didn't know how to balance them. It took the fun, quirky, and bright first half and did the exact opposite in the second. By the end the film had forgotten what it was trying to do and basically did everything else it could to hide it's own aimlessness.

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.

It's amazing how people manage to waste all that money and production opportunities, great actors saying the most inane parliaments with not even a hint of direction or knowledge of an overall story -- wasn't there really. Just truly awful, it pained me to see Rupert and Ron and this manure. The absolute worst is: having an actual woman as a piece of furniture. The women in this film were nothing more than decoration fetish objects. Only one woman has any lines in the whole thing (a too-young model-looking waif of a thing, love interest to... Ron Perlman??). She says about 7 different words. With an accent, 'cause the only way women may speak is sexy nonsense in a fake french accent. Gratuitous breasts everywhere, it made me actually uncomfortable and angry. This movie is the worst crap I have ever sat through. I kept hoping something would redeem it but then, another rape-y representation of a woman. Painfully unfunny. Not even the clichéd set ups were able to be paid off with awaited puns... just... nothing. Whoever directed this should never make films again and free money up for people who at least want to entertain an audience. I am INCENSED at this awful piece of excrement movie that stole time from me I will never get back. Everyone involved should be ashamed.