Joel Swagman (Reviews / TESOL): Capricorn One: Movie Review

Why I Saw This Movie

So, as I just posted yesterday, I'm back from Tet holidays in the Provinces.

But the wife and kids are staying for one more week at the in-laws. Which means I have a whole week to myself at the apartment.

Which means, I actually have time to watch a movie.

I had, after all, just gotten done lamenting how I wasn't able to see any movies in 2022 because it was so chaotic with the kids. So, if I have some time without the kids, I really should watch something. Who knows when the chance will come again?

Now, how to find a movie to watch? We don't have a DVD player in the house. And I'm not sure where I would even get DVDs in Vietnam even if we did have one. We don't have a subscription to any streaming services. And I'm always nervous about getting viruses from illegal streaming sites.

So, I googled "movies on youtube" and found this Looper video: The 24 Best Free Movies On YouTube Right Now. Capricorn One was one of the movies listed.
I searched for it, and it is indeed on Youtube. The link is HERE. (Is it legally on Youtube? I don't know. It looks like it was uploaded 5 years ago, and it hasn't been copyright claimed yet. We'll see how long the video stays up.)

After confirming that this video was indeed up on Youtube, I briefly read the top comments on the video:

* Get your popcorn. Have a seat. This one's a nail-biting CLASSIC! Great cast, great story. WATCH THIS ONE!

* A timeless classic, never get tired of watching this presentation.

* That movie had me on the edge of my seat the whole time....5 Stars!

Et cetera.

Well, I was sold. So with no kids in the apartment, I curled up on the couch with some pizza, and played the movie.

Background Information

This is a government conspiracy thriller/suspense movie from 1978. I'd never heard of it before, but apparently it was a hit at the time, even though it was independently produced. It has a few twists and turns in it, so to say too much about it would be spoiling it. But the main premise is that the government is faking a landing on Mars. According to the Internet, this movie has since become a favorite among Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists, although I believe the producers of this movie intended it purely for entertainment purposes.

Some Random Observations

The 1970s Style

My first thoughts watching this was "Man, it's been so long since I watched a movie from the 1970s."

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I feel like we as a society have more or less stopped watching old movies. When I was growing up, there used to be old movies on TV all the time. But now I feel like there's so much new content available on streaming services and Youtube, etc, that people just don't watch old movies anymore. (As always, take my opinion with a grain of salt--I've been - living - abroad - for 20 years, so I'm out of touch with everything. What's your take on the whole thing? Do people still watch old movies?)

But watching this, I was immediately struck by how the style of 1970s cinema is so different than today's cinema. The music cues were so different, for one thing. Also, the style of dialogue and exposition was much different. The characters would talk longer, and go on in a style that reminded me more of a stage-play than a movie. I don't think any of that would make it into a movie nowadays.

And all the cigarettes that are all throughout this movie. You definitely couldn't have that in a movie nowadays.

As you would expect from a 1970s thriller, this one's a slow burn. A lot of talking, and, compared to today's movies, not as much action. So you've got to be in the right mood for it. And I was. So I enjoyed it for the most part. It's a completely different style of movie than we're used to now, but if you get yourself in the right frame of mind, it can be fun.

The only thing I couldn't get into was that airplane chase scene at the end. I'm sure it must have been very thrilling for 1978 audiences, but it just can't compete with the adrenaline thrills of today's movies. And I admit to being spoiled by today's movies. And so, I found myself bored by the climax. (During what should have been the huge action climax of the movie, my mind was wandering and I was thinking of other things.)

The Cast

A lot of famous people in this movie.

James Brolin--who is the father of Josh Brolin (an actor I've praised numerous - times - on - this - blog). I think this was the first movie I've seen with James Brolin, but it was interesting to see the distinct resemblance between him and his son.

Elliott Gould--My first introduction to Elliot Gould was on The Disney Channel in the 1980s, which used to replay those two-movies he did for Disney in the early 80s. But Elliot Gould has since become a source of fascination to me. I mean, he was such a big star in the 1970s. And then he just seemed to have disappeared after the 70s finished. (According to Wikipedia, he never stopped working. If you look at his filmography, he's definitely been in a lot of stuff over the years. But he stopped being a huge star a long time ago.) But anyway, Capricorn One is in 1978, so it's still when he was a star.

(For previous Elliot Gould movies I've reviewed on this blog, see A Bridge Too Far, Conspiracy: The Trial of the Chicago 8, and Ocean's 13.)

O. J. Simpson--Still well-known nowadays, although for completely different reasons. He gets a lot of screentime in this movie, but he doesn't have a lot of lines. (According to this video, the director didn't think O.J. had a lot of acting ability, but was forced by the studio to cast him anyway, so he just gave O.J. very few lines.)

And other famous people as well: Sam Waterston (from T.V.s Law & Order), Hal Holbrook (who I had trouble placing in anything, but he definitely has the look of someone I've seen before in other stuff.), etc.

...and the acting from this cast is really good. They all give good performances. Elliot Gould is really charming in his role. Hal Holbrook is suitably menacing, and also gives a couple of really good speeches. James Brolin's character isn't given a lot of personality by the script, but he plays his part well enough. Sam Waterston's character is also under-developed, but the few scenes he has, he plays well.

So the acting is definitely a plus for this movie.

The Plot Holes

So, without giving too much away, this is a plot that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. There are a lot of things about this conspiracy which just don't make any sense. (I won't go into all of them. The list is too long, and it would take too long to explain. You'll spot them easily enough yourself if you watch the movie.) But the principle logical problem is the bad guys just don't seem serious about getting rid of Elliott Gould's character.

It's clearly established that they have the power to make people disappear when they want to. (They disappear Elliott Gould's friend in a blink of an eye.) But instead of just disappearing Elliot Gould's character, they come up with all these half-baked plots to get rid of him, none of which seem serious, or have any follow through. (They shoot at him once, and then just seem to give up. They cut the brakes to his car, but then don't do anything else. They frame him for cocaine possession, but then allow him to post bail, etc.)

I tried to forgive this as much as I could while watching the movie, because I think this is a failing that is common to the genre. Almost all suspense movies have this problem. (To my mind, one of the best examples of this is a classic of the genre, North by Northwest, which is another movie in which the bad guys really should just quietly shoot the main character in the back of the head and have done with it, but instead they just concoct all these impractical ideas to kill him by other means. That's just one example, but this problem is all through the genre, right?)

Whose Story Arc Are We Supposed to Be Following Anyway?

One of the odd things about this movie is that there's no real identifiable protagonist, at least not in the first half.

Dogged reporter Elliot Gould becomes the protagonist in the second half of the movie, but aside from a couple brief scenes setting up his character, he's not really in the first half of the movie much.

The 3 astronauts are definitely the characters who are put in a dilemma that they have to resolve. But they are given so few lines in the beginning of the movie, and really no personality, that it's impossible to get invested in their characters.

Hal Holbrook's character gets all the best dramatic speeches at the beginning of the movie, but you can tell early on that you're not supposed to be rooting for him.

So whose story arc are we supposed to be following here?

On the one hand, this lack of an identifiable protagonist is a real weak point for the movie. But on the other hand, it kind of made the movie more interesting. Because I didn't know what the movie was trying to do, it made it really hard to predict what the movie was going to do next. Were the astronauts going to be killed of midway through the movie? Well, they might be. I mean, the movie seemed to have deliberately kept me from getting overly attached to their characters, so maybe they were going to killed off. Who knew?

By about the last third of the movie, things became a lot more predictable. But up until then, I really didn't know where we were going with this.

Also, there were a few characters and story arcs that were set up at the beginning of the movie, and then just abruptly dropped. That whole political arc, about the aggressive senator who wanted more support for the space program, and his rivalry with the vice-president, and the President's lack of support for the space program--all of that got a big set-up at the beginning of the movie, but then just got dropped. What was going on with that?

It's one of those things that increased my interest in the movie at the time I was watching it. (There seemed to be some interesting things being set up, and I was curious to see where they would go.) But looking back at the movie now that it's finished, the lack of resolution just seems strange.

And speaking of a lack of resolution...

The Ending

So, while I was watching this movie, I was thinking to myself that older movies usually have long drawn out endings. (Is that right, or am I confused? I feel like that's the way older movies usually operate.)

So I was fully expecting that after the climax of the movie, there would be several scenes wrapping up the loose ends.

But no, there were no scenes wrapping up the loose ends. The movie just ends shortly after the climax.

So, what happened to those other two astronauts? Were they killed, or were they just captured?

What happened to that guy from NASA that disappeared? Was he killed off?

Did the bad guys get their comeuppance and get arrested in the end? I guess we're meant to assume that they did, but I feel like it would have been more satisfying to see it.

The Dialogue

The dialogue can be cheesy in a few spots. And, as I wrote above, by today's standards, it seems to resemble a stage play more than a modern movie.

But, once you get into the old-style vibe of this movie, then the dialogue can be a lot of fun. There's a few great speeches that are given. Some of the scenes have a great snappy back-and-forth going on between different actors.

And as I mentioned above, the actors are all great at really selling this dialogue. So the dialogue in this movie is pretty good for the most part.