Review: In 'Apollo 11,' the thrill of landing on the moon

ENT

Review: In 'Apollo 11,' the thrill of landing on the moon

2019-02-28 03:39 Last Updated At：03:50

The 1969 mission to the moon has been seen in many phases before but never with the shining, crystal-clear fullness of Todd Douglas Miller's extraordinary "Apollo 11," a documentary culled from archival footage and audio recordings that in heart-stopping, minute-by-minute detail, recaptures the propulsive force of man's most glorious feat, giving new resonance to those beautiful, headlong Mission Control words: "We Are Go."

Timed to the upcoming 50th anniversary of the lunar landing, "Apollo 11" was compiled partly from a previously forgotten trove of 70mm film that includes footage from the launch, the Cape Canaveral crowds watching outside J.C. Penny's and along motel balconies, and the astronauts' recovery. It features no talking heads or narration, just audio from some 11,000 hours of NASA audio recordings and, occasionally, the sonorous gravity of Walter Cronkite's broadcasts.

The clarity of the large-format and restored images is startling. So much of the imagery from the moon landing has by now flattened into iconography, but, here, the event is brought back to life. Miller starts on the cusp of launch as the enormous platform is moved by giant tracks toward the launch site. It could be a shot from "Star Wars" or any number of science fictions the moon mission birthed. Later we see Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins in their suits before putting on their helmets, and it's like we've never seen their faces — confident, with an almost mischievous glint — so well.

"Apollo 11" might not tell you anything you don't already know about the moon landing. But it will make you feel it, and see it, anew. Miller has condensed the eight-day expedition into an immersive thrill ride, from launch to return, that puts you in in the shuttle with the astronauts and in Mission Control's ear. It's the grandeur of Apollo 11 distilled down to its still jaw-dropping essence.

Much of the emphasis is on how the drive to the moon was so much broader than the two astronauts who carried out John F. Kennedy's 1962 pledge. Kennedy's words ("We choose to go the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard") hang over the movie with a kind of fervor and ambition that today sounds downright alien. Later, while the spacecraft is in mid-flight to the moon, news of Chappaquiddick and Ted Kennedy will play on NASA television sets while onlookers, drawn back to earth, momentarily gawk.

But it's in the thousands who contributed to the mission that the magnitude of the effort comes through. Their faces are seen in montages and their voices are heard, again and again, on NASA radio: a multitude who at every significant turn confirms that their department is, indeed, "a go."

We have, of course, been to the moon before at the movies. Most recently, there was Damien Chazelle's rigorous if overly brooding "First Man," which — despite its many fine attributes — looks all the more muted in comparison to "Apollo 11." More notable was Al Reinert's brilliant and similarly verite-styled 1989 documentary "For All Mankind," which also used NASA archival footage and a good score (from Brian Eno) to recreate Apollo moon missions.

But in 2019, as we are writing obituaries for the deceased Mars Rover ("He was 15"), "Apollo 11" feels even more like another time and another world. What was this splendid, sunny American dream and where did it go?

"Apollo 11," a Neon and CNN Films release, is rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America. Running time: 93 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.

Follow AP Film Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jakecoyleAP

Notable early reaction to Netflix's deal to acquire Warner Bros.

NEW YORK (AP) — Netflix's $72 billion deal to acquire Warner Bros. studio and its film and television operations drew quick reactions Friday.

Film and television industry entities including guilds and the lobbying group for movie theater owners criticized the deal, warning it would harm consumers and cinema owners.

In announcing the deal, Warner Bros. and Netflix executives touted the deal's benefits. Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said the deal “will ensure people everywhere will continue to enjoy the world’s most resonant stories for generations to come,” while Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said it would “give audiences more of what they love.”

Here's a roundup of notable early reactions to the deal:

“Netflix’s stated business model does not support theatrical exhibition. In fact, it is the opposite. Theaters will close, communities will suffer, jobs will be lost.”

“Today’s news that Warner Bros. Discovery has accepted a purchase bid is an alarming escalation of the consolidation that threatens the entire entertainment industry, the democratic public it serves, and the First Amendment itself.” — in a statement

“As we navigate dynamic times of economic and technological change, our industry, together with policymakers, must find a way forward that protects producers’ livelihoods and real theatrical distribution, and that fosters creativity, promotes opportunities for workers and artists, empowers consumers with choices, and upholds freedom of speech. This is the test that the Netflix deal must pass. Our legacy studios are more than content libraries – within their vaults are the character and culture of our nation.” — in a statement.

“Netflix’s $82 billion attempt to buy Warner Bros. would be the largest media takeover in history — and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike. One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem. Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake." — in a statement.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare. A Netflix-Warner Bros. would create one massive media giant with control of close to half of the streaming market — threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, while putting American workers at risk.” — in a statement.

The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent. The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers. ... This merger must be blocked.” — in a statement.

“Repeated consolidation in this industry has already cost so many film and television jobs, and any merger should be evaluated on its impacts on competition and employment.” — in a statement. Her district includes Hollywood and the areas where Netflix's headquarters and the Warner Bros. studio are located.

“If I was tasked with doing so, I could not think of a more effective way to reduce competition in Hollywood than selling WBD to Netflix.” — in a post on X.