I am reall surprised that no user has noticed that this Mars - or Moon - fake landing conspiracy topic has many connections with Pete Hyams' masterpiece CAPRICORNE ONE, where a bunch of men were targets from the secret service because they perfectly knew that the supposed landing on planet Mars was totally a fake. Here, the story is, of course, not exactly the same but admit that the two movies have many in common. And the BLAIR WITCH, CLOVERFIELD or REC concept is also in this unusual job. Not great but very worth indeed.

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.

Finally, the faked moon landing conspiracy nuts get their proof, and then some.Not only does "Operation Avalanche" tell the cold war truth of America's ridiculous claim to lunar escapades, but it's also a nifty espionage thriller, complete with gun play and classic car chases. A pair of documentarians, originally hired to sniff out a Russian mole, soon hatch a plot to film the impending (impossible) moon landing with some clever cinema magic. A tricky plan for sure, but when spy agencies heat up the cold war plans, our filmic nerds are in for the ride of heir life.Filmed on crackly old stock, old school, old film, "Operation Avalanche" captures the bizarro undercover adventures of the CIA, when the fate of everything America felt near and dear to her heart rested on conquering a barren, grey hunk of space rock.Could this found footage documentary be the real deal? You decide, and along the way, enjoy the greatest in-car filmed chase since "Bullitt".

Just seen this, and reading some of the poor reviews the film is getting here on IMDb, I just had to chip in.I've seen my fair share of 'found footage' films, and many are indeed quite horrendous. Most feel the need to really push the 'found footage' angle by waving the camera around to sell the hand-held aspect, which just tends to lead to motion sickness on my part. This is far more subtle, while believably conveying the director's intent. I think this film is a well thought out and decently executed picture with much to recommend. For the most part, the stock footage and new footage blend pretty well, as do the period set pieces.As an amateur film-maker myself, I know how much of a slog it is to get a low budget picture made, and it's very easy to casually criticize someone else's work. No, it's not a nicely edited package running from start to finish, with all the questions answered by the end, and I never assumed it was meant to be.As a side note, I work at Shepperton Film Studios, featured briefly here. It was interesting to note that beyond not showing any cars, the studios you see here, looks identcial in real life today. Knowing how busy the studios is, and the low-budget nature of the production, I'm assuming they were very limited in what they could do, and couldn't really make any period specific changes.If you liked 'Apollo 18', or the documentary 'The Dark Side Of The Moon', you'll likely get something from this film too.Top work!