WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)<br /><br />Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.<br /><br />We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.<br /><br />Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:<br /><br />1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.<br /><br />2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.<br /><br />3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.<br /><br />4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.<br /><br />5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.<br /><br />6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.<br /><br />7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.<br /><br />8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.<br /><br />9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".<br /><br />10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.<br /><br />11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.<br /><br />12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.<br /><br />13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.<br /><br />14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).<br /><br />Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.<br /><br />In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing.