Capricorn One

Capricorn One

Charles Brubaker is the astronaut leading NASA's first manned mission to Mars. Seconds before the launch, the entire team is pulled from the capsule and the rocket leaves earth unmanned much to Brubaker's anger. The head of the programme explains that the life support system was faulty and that NASA can't afford the publicity of a scratched mission. The plan is to fake the Mars landing and keep the astronauts at a remote base until the mission is over, but then investigative journalist Robert Caulfield starts to suspect something. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechersSize
Download   Capricorn One720p4630929.81 MB
Download   Capricorn One1080p32361.9 GB

Capricorn One torrent reviews

Dayna P (fr) wrote: could be funny. this i my first time hearing of this movie

Brandon T (nl) wrote: One of the lamest Cirque productions I've seen, but then again, it is really just a jazz festival with some Cirque stunts thrown in.

Mark B (br) wrote: Lush, depressing, picturesque, Downton Abby-ish, British drama.

Wesley H (ru) wrote: It's the imperfect nature of this story and its lead that makes it so real, and makes the final revelation so powerful. The last shot of this film says so much without ever saying a word.

Nanping Y (es) wrote: one of my favorite movies forever

Lee M (de) wrote: This is one lame farce.

Cameron J (mx) wrote: No, I'm not quoting the Slayer song, even though it was almost a mere year younger than this film, so shut up. Yeah, I don't really have a passion for thrashin', although, as irony would have it, I can dig on some disturbing filmmaking, so long as it doesn't get carried always, and not just with the disturbances. I can't help but feel as though Lars von Trier played a part in starting the art filmmaking movement in which disturbing material is milked for all its worth, and yet the final product is still kind of dull, because filmmakers don't seem to know the expiration date on their artistic license. In case anyone is feeling that Lars von Trier stands to get a little more experimental with his filmmaking, well, here it is, and thanks a lot for it, you pretentious jerk. Well, maybe the film still stands to be a little weird, because I don't know just how extremely experimental this film can be for von Trier if it's Danish (Hey, he doesn't just make English-language films, only when he wants to actually make some money), but this is still so experimental that it is, in fact, about scientific experiments. You guys can call that statement lame, but it might be accurate, because this film can't be too subtle when it's about an epidemic and actually named "Epidemic". Yeah, I pick on this film because I know that von Trier ought to know better than this, which isn't to say that the filmmaker's style doesn't at least prove to be sharp, up to a point, at least. Most of the film's style is focused on establishing a documentary feel, so of course it's limited, but when it is, in fact, fleshed out, it's solid, with Henning Bendtsen delivering on cinematography that is consistently handsome in its tasteful mixture of subtly intense lighting and a refreshing black-and-white palette. The visual style is distinguished, yet not so artistically ambitious that you lose a documentary feel that, while detrimental to the subjective value whose limitations play a large role in driving the final product into mediocrity, is reasonably effective in selling a grounded feel, while a dramatic feel goes reinforced, at least at times, by what Lars von Trier does relatively well as a storyteller. Von Trier's direction is a little uneven and all but consistently dry for the sake of naturalism that is ultimately more distancing than immersive, yet there are glimpses of abilities that we all know von Trier is capable of as a dramatic storyteller, whose plays on a haunting atmospheric score by Peter Bach and on certain disturbing visuals prove to be near-piercing in their subtle effectiveness and immersion value. In all fairness, solid highlights in direction have solid highlights in material on which to thrive, for although von Trier's and Niels Vrsel's script is pretty messy, sharp occasions in dialogue and characterization punctuate a consistent genuine intelligence that makes audaciously thorough explorations of intriguing subject matter. Yes, no matter how messy its execution may be, the film's story concept is genuinely intriguing, both as a dramatization of scientific and human interpretations of great medical dangers, and as a study on classic human themes, with intellectual and dramatic elements. The interpretation of worthy subject matter is questionable, but I still stand firm behind a lot of von Trier's ideas, both when it comes to establishing the story and when it comes to telling the story, so much so that the film does, in fact, come close to decency. Alas, such decency is ultimately lost in the midst of overt artistic ambition, which is not met with inspiration enough for you to get as invested as you ought to be in a story that seems to deserve full attention. Thin though it may be, the film's narrative still takes more than a few layers that are both promising and, well, distancing, as they convoluted the focus of a film that is hard to get invested in to begin with, without all of the confusion which could have been settled down a bit if things were more organically fleshed out. As things stand, as draggy as the film is, it's still underdeveloped, saying the minimum about its characters and situations right off the bat, then proceeding to say only so much within gradual exposition that feels kind of lazy, reflecting where this particular art film's focus truly rests. The film seems to be pretty intimate with its undercooked characters, but make no mistake, this is a case of style being placed over substance, and I suppose I'd be a little more willing to get past that if the style wasn't rather questionable in a lot of ways. Lars von Trier chooses to approach this drama in a documentarian style, even when storytelling style seems to take a more traditional and subjective turn, and while such a decision is unique and genuinely effective in a lot of ways, the subjective value of this drama goes challenged by objective structural stylization, and the story concept is problematic enough on its own, and not just because f the convolution. I gripe about how the film gets to be confusing, but I have more of a problem with, of all things, the thinness of the story concept, which is driven by simple aimless chit-chat, often truly dramatic, and often dryly scientific, with little meat and little momentum that wear on the potential of the drama. Perhaps the film would have achieved relative decency if it wasn't so dull, for although von Trier's direction has its share of subtly biting attributes, it's uneven, and when it loses realization, momentum drops quickly under the overwhelming pressure of dry, quiet atmospherics that range from bland to near-tedious in their being so cold. The film meanders on and on and on, and while it eventually drags its feet to highlights, it's predominantly flat, even though it's ambitious to the point of being kind of pretentious, meeting inspired occasions with many a moment of convolution, undercooking, overstylization and dullness which cripple the final product just shy of decency. Once the situation has passed, the film thrives on highlights in technical style, dramatic direction and intelligent scripting almost enough to fulfill intriguing subject matter's potential for decency, ultimately lost in the wake of convoluted bloating, despite underdevelopment, in addition to a distinct placement of questionable style over substance whose thinness goes too stressed by a limp pacing which finally dulls Lars von Trier's "Epidemic" into mediocrity, with highlights, but not enough to transcend a combination of overambition and laziness. 2.25/5 - Mediocre

Paul D (ca) wrote: There are elements of fun from Herbie's continuing adventures, but the story is stale.

Henry W (ca) wrote: Thrilling, unsettling and disturbing yet strangely impactful.

Panos Y (kr) wrote: Well, it's a big alien spider rampaging through the city, so not much more to say there. Only as a background playing through dinner or a party.

Bobby N (es) wrote: Not Gerwig's best but still so funny, entertaining and stylist

Vaughan M (es) wrote: Unforgettable and hilarious, this Seth Rogen comedy is arguably his best with the exception of Superbad, which is saying a lot.

Ben L (ru) wrote: I enjoy stories like this where people with dishonorable intentions are turned to honorable actions because their conscience gets the better of them. This movie really hits the ground running by setting the scene and almost immediately putting the plot in motion. I think one problem with this is that I don't get much time to connect with the main characters and care about why they are committing this criminal act. As the film progresses the events make me like the characters more, but I think it would have helped if that came at the beginning. Once things get going I was a little confused over what was happening and what the plan was, but the movie went from confusing to straightforward as the plot progressed so I didn't mind too much. I like how the tables are turned on our protagonists and some of the mistreatment that they doled out is given right back to them. It made you question which actions are justifiable, and also the way the war in the Middle East was executed. Clooney, Wahlberg, and Cube were all perfect casting decisions because they can pull off selfish jerks at the beginning and also selfless protectors at the end. There was something about the pacing of the story that felt very choppy, though, and I didn't really enjoy that. I think it is overall a well-executed story, but there's some ineffable quality to the film that I didn't connect with emotionally. So when heavy things are happening (like torture) I felt strangely disconnected instead of impacted. I'm glad I saw Three Kings, and I think many people would enjoy it, but I don't think I'll ever seek it out again.

Eytan D (ag) wrote: Though the dialogue is at times implausible and Diana Scarwid's performance is not all that credible, "Extremities" is an interesting, disturbing portrayal of human violence that poses a question of where justification lies in revenge. The film adaptation, I think, is better than the stage play that inspired it. William Mastrosimone's script is most fitting as a movie, not as a theatrical piece. Where the movie works is in Farrah Fawcett's surprising performance. She is quite good, playing a victim with a quiet fear, and when she fights back and her would-be rapist becomes the victim, she lifts the movie up and adds a great intensity to the character of Marjorie. It is because of her that "Extremities" is better than it should be.

Tags and Keywords