Capsule (2015) User Reviews

Great idea, poorly told story

[bomopu-54573 · 4/10 · 26 December 2016]

I would have enjoyed this a lot more if it was not for the pilot being a bag of nerves, always panicking, losing his cool and nothing at all like someone who had an outstanding career in the air force and been selected to be the first pilot of the British space programme. It was just ridiculous, and because of this I never felt anything for him because he just annoyed me so much.

Fortunately I forced myself to put up with up with all that and eventually the story started to improve in the last 40 minutes. I liked the ending and there are twists in the ending which were unexpected.

It's worth a watch but try and put up with the slow burning start and the awful unrealistic reactions of the pilot and you'll see an enjoyable story unravel - eventually.

In Space, Somebody Can Hear You Scream.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 14 June 2017]

It's 1959. The film opens with a man in a space suit, Guy, (Kingsley) wearing a helmet with no face plate. He's alone in a tiny dark flight deck, strapped into his chair, and he's talking or shouting into a radio that keeps befouling his contact with his friend Larry back at the space station in Britain. There's something wrong with the ship. He's not sure what but the power keeps cutting in and out, like his radio, and his fuel is low and his oxygen down to 6 percent.

That's it. That's the whole movie -- one man in a space ship. The others are all voices, except for the twist ending that takes place within the surly bonds of earth. What a Twilight Zone episode this would have been.

Someone mentioned a stiff upper lip, but it must have belonged to someone else, or perhaps Guy left it back in England, because most of the time he's hysterical, sweating and stuttering with fear. "Larry! LARRY! Come IN, Larry!" Larry's friendly, reassuring voice fades into silence. Later, a Russian calls him and demands to know what Guy Taylor is doing in Russian air space. The Russians order him to exit Soviet air space at one, or else. "Get some sleep," says the Russian. Another long period of radio silence, during which Guy talks to himself, dreams about his loving wife Lotte, whose static-ridden voice appears for a few seconds on the radio, and he bangs senselessly on the instrument panel, which emits a series of irritated sparks.

Finally, the Americans call him. Like the Russians, the CIA knows all about his background. The CIA agent on the radio isn't particularly concerned about Guy's lack of oxygen. The CIA wants to know why he was talking to the Russians before. The agent shouts at Guy: "Don't you know we are all at WAR with the Russians?" When Guy demurs, the agent asks bluntly, "Are you a Commie?" At length they turn Guy over to an expert at Houston who curtly gives Guy explicit directions that will bring him down in the Atlantic Ocean, a spot where the US had already has a ship that will pick him up.

Then there is that shocking and improbable ending, which I don't think I'll go into.

There are no special effects to speak of. Few wondrous photos of the blue marble. And we get a glimpse of some unidentified white metal of his ship, Hermes, from the outside, but only a glimpse, and only an unidentified part, shifting and creaking ominously. We never see another face. There's just Guy, sweating, snapping at recalcitrant radio spooks, and thinking about home and Lotte.

It drags quite a bit at the beginning, before the Russians come on the air. There's at least half an hour of Guy chatting with Larry or despooling with worry or changing one magical module in the flight panel for another. But it's tense. I was about to switch channels when I convinced myself that there MUST be more to it than Guy suffering one annoyance after another. And of course there was. But -- an hour and a half? It would have made a fine episode on Twilight Zone.

terrible story telling

[alon-dar1 · 4/10 · 19 October 2016]

this movie will give you mixed emotions. the actor is good, he acts as he's told to act. not his fault that he is told to play an idiot. can you believe that a man is trained 5 (yes, five) years to ride a tiny space ship, with not as many electronics, switches, gadgets and screens as in today's space crafts, and yet has no idea how to replace a fuse, or that is not a spare fuse in a craft where there are only 4 fuses?! a well trained astronaut that for years was a fighter pilot in experimental American spy planes and panics from every sound on his transmitter? music is not bad, adds to the plot. 5 minutes of excellent photography near the end of the film. they account for 3 of my 4 points. worth watching if you are ready to be disappointed and not - at the same time.

is any one else bothered by the completely false assertions at the end ofthe film?

[[e-mail] · 6 January 2018]

Considering that the movie attempts to re-create faithfully the inside of an early space capsule, the list of factual errors about early space flight is astonishing.

and the clearly false end of the movie assertion that the movie is based on true facts, to me, was beyond forgiveness. It could be forgiven if voiced by an actor, but not using the convention which is by tradition honest.

as pointed out, there would be no "dinging" another space object as if it were an on the ground low speed bump and dent - even tiny space objects, the size of a spec of sand, could puncture a space craft, but a collision between any object even close in size to a space capsule, would lead to a catastrophic explosion, and the chance of a random collision, would be beyond infinitely small. And that a craft's trajectory could be modified to collide with another object in space, would be nearly impossible, at that time especially. Trajectories can even today be only modestly tweaked. That you could use a craft to collide with your nemesis, is absurd. Such a feat would have to be calculated from launch. The use of radio is absurd, the communication occupied one channel like a walkie talkie, and the astronaut would have been able to know roughly where he was, as the capsule I believe orbited every 90 minutes or so, and would have known where he was landing, roughly. The conversations made no sense, military style communication was the norm, with "roger" etc. etc. etc. it goes on and on.

The Wrong Stuff

[steveluck · 2/10 · 2 June 2018]

Cold War space disaster with an English astronaut who's clearly made of the wrong stuff. Intended to be a serious drama but with a bit more effort it could have been Mr Bean in space. After a few minutes of listening to him whining and swearing in an overly plummy accent you'll be willing him to pass out so that you get a break from the terrible dialogue.

A good old stiff upper lip Brit adventure.

[doorsscorpywag · 7/10 · 22 September 2016]

The British version of Apollo 13 deals with our 1959 mission to put the first man in space. We being modest & unassuming Brits we never bothered mentioning it.

Our astronaut,well played by Edmund Kingsley, got himself in a bit of a pickle and after losing contact with his controller managed to veer off course and end up talking to the Russians and NASA who were a bit miffed that Blighty had beaten the lot of them into space.

Kingsley did a sterling job carrying the whole movie and deserves a wider audience. This great bit of secret British History was something I never learned at school and we can be rightly proud that our man was the first into space. I am sure we never mentioned our moon landing in 1967 or our base on Mars but then that's the British for you. We are never ones to blow our own trumpet.

A nice little space drama, well acted and with a nice twist at the end. Even if you, like me, will probably figure it out before the end.

Bad movie

[gaston_senac · 3/10 · 29 October 2018]

Bad movie, bad acting and it's sci-fi at it's worst. The astronaut acting is not convincing at all, very amateur and unprofessional.

Watched with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised

[geoff-59604 · 7/10 · 23 October 2016]

I read the other reviews... a lot of hate here so I started with a low expectations.

Its odd, as I would never have watched this if I'd known that the film was mostly one person on screen or the duration of the film but actually, it held me. Kingsley's performance is strong and captivating. Unlike other reviewers, I get that his Hypoxia is what has rendered him vulnerable. The high emotion, the paranoia and the fumbling motor skills are classic outcomes of oxygen starvation.

The set design looks really great, and it creates an environment that has a feel of claustrophobia and isolation. Almost submarine like. I don't know how accurate the design is to what would have been around at the time but the little digs about the cutting edge tech are on point. Look at the sedans of the 50's and you'll have a great benchmark for what would have been regarded as cutting edge at the time!

At times I would have liked it if we could have seen the people we could hear but I suspect this would have challenged the low budget. But this was more than made up for with the end scene which is amazing. A single shot to unravel the plot twist. Its great and it feels so different to the rest to the film it kind of jolts you back to earth (no pun intended).

So, the film has its limitations but I enjoyed it. The story was good, the performance from Kingsley strong and the technical aspects of the film gave it a polished look. I really enjoyed the music and will probably end up watching it again to see if I can find the clues that the trivia suggest I have probably missed!

Inconceivably idiotic and boring

[marcleif · 1/10 · 18 January 2017]

Utterly idiotic and boring. Set in 1959, the film uses a Blair Witch premise of "found information" that follows a whining, whimpering, and apparently completely untrained and ignorant British test pilot sent into orbit in a secret British space mission to be the first man in space. Over the radio, Evil Russians convince him to kill himself. I'm not kidding. The idiotic film doesn't pay any attention whatsoever to any scientific or historic reality. As a result you have reference to NASA and Houston control which didn't even exist then. To say nothing of the fact that, in 1959, the British had no vehicle capable of orbiting a golf-ball, let alone a space capsule. (Theirs looks vaguely like a Mercury capsule painted white in the few scenes you sort of see it. )

The thing is an "Evil Russia" propaganda piece evidently produced by today's British intelligence MI6 for about $750. 99% of the movie is set in the cramped capsule until the ridiculous last 2 minutes, so in addition to being utterly stupid, it's completely boring. There's not a single redemption for this ridiculous movie. Not only should it not be seen, it should be destroyed. I would have given it less than a 1 rating, but IMDb has no 0. It makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look like Star Wars.

Wake up guy!

[Enthusiastic_Viewer · 7/10 · 17 February 2017]

I'm gonna give this movie a 7 out of 10. I've never really heard about this story before. I was pleased to find out it was based on true events, although I'm not sure exactly how loosely based it was.

What a roller coaster ride this was. Edmund Kingsley did a phenomenal job of capturing his role and making you feel as if you were right there with him. Just when you thought there was gonna be a horrible ending to a good movie, there's a twist that you may or may not have seen coming. I know I sure didn't. Good watch that I could see myself watching again

Not for Mature Audiences

[mick-lexington · 1/10 · 2 December 2017]

I was switching around Showtime when I came across this film. At first, I thought it was for kids, like the after-school specials I saw as a teenager. If you have a level of emotional intelligence above that of a 13-year-old this film is not for you. Way too many scenes where one has to suspend common reality.

Interesting Cold War Title

[LarryRossini · 8/10 · 24 September 2016]

I actually caught Capsule back in April when it opened the Sci-fi London film festival 2016 on the big screen.

I didn't know what to expect when i arrived, i had heard nothing much about the film but i was pleasantly surprised by it. Im a bit of a sci-fi and cold war nut so found it intriguing. Edmund is captivating as Guy Taylor, he keeps you transfixed as he tries to figure out what happened to him, being on screen for 85 minutes of the movie is a tall ask but one he pulls off. The supporting cast as radio voices add different layers to the cold war theme throughout.

I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck up in that space craft, being ex MOD engineer i know a few things about planes from this era, one word, unreliable.

The film is well crafted for the budget level, that is independent film for you. Some elements could do with refining and honing but i was happy i managed to watch it on the big screen.

If you like Buried, and contained thrillers for a smarter audience then this should be on your list to watch.

An Alternative Space History Tale of the Cold War

[spiritof67 · 7/10 · 10 March 2017]

I had a hard time tracking this movie down: it didn't get a theater release in the New York area as far as I know. I finally saw it on cable. It's hard to sell to most people a movie that has only one actor on-screen for probably 75% of the movie. That said, Edmund Kingsley does a yeoman job of keeping it interesting. I don't want to get into spoilers here: I will as I always advise that viewers actually WATCH THE MOVIE since there are nuances and mentions that require you to think that may otherwise be missed. There is also a running joke regarding the phrase "cutting edge British technology" which is risible to anyone who has experienced British cars and motorcycles of the period. The technology referenced in the movie is all appropriate and mostly correct, and the story is a good one with real-world roots. I like space movies and I liked this one. But if you're looking for a Michael Bay feature, go elsewhere.

Nothing goes logically in this movie, I wonder if the director researched anything!

[zhdcndmr · 2/10 · 31 October 2016]

Nothing is logical in this movie. It starts off with a guy waking up in a little probe. I wont say anything more about it then the fact that this guy is a Astronaout sent to space by Britain and gets lost. One would assume some genius and some logic in how they take care of this right? Britain, Astronaout, Russians (helps out abit) but somehow the conversation in this movie is like 3 20 year old talking over the phone when one is lost and the other two is trying to describe the directions without a GPS present. You wouldn't guess its a Astronaout talking to the space center of one of the most sophisticated techonological countries of the time. He doesn't even know how to change two circuits and gets stressed over everything. Don't they get years of training on how to handle this stuff, stress and technological problems? They've tried out something like Gravity but failed miserably because even though the guy can act the storytelling is amazingly bad.

One of the WORST movies of ALL TIME! A true WASTE OF TIME!

[tdub-32704 · 1/10 · 26 March 2017]

OMG! This is definitely one of the WORST movies of ALL TIME! From the Writing to the DIrecting to the Cinematography to the Editing this thing is absolutelyl HORRIBLE. It very much reminded me of something 5th grade students might create for a class project. The dialogue was so bad it was comical. The plot line is beyond weak and there is NO redeeming value in the movie whatsoever. DO NOT waste your time or money watching this disaster! I can't believe they managed to get this nightmare created, marketed and distributed. What morons would want to be involved with this absolute worthless piece of junk is beyond me. The ENTIRE movie is shot inside a dark capsule with but one actor in the shot. And his lines are so unrealistic and ridiculous I went from laughing to cursing the marketers for sucking me into renting this piece of garbage. AWFUL!!

Kinda Goofy, But Fun

[Philipe14 · 6/10 · 30 March 2017]

Secret files have been uncovered that reveal the British had a manned space program in the 1950s, and this film unveils the truth: the First Man In Space drank tea, not vodka or Tang. A British astronaut cooped up in a Mercury-style capsule faces a catastrophic malfunction and needs to make an emergency landing. The only way that can be done is for Mission Control to figure out when and where to fire his retro-rockets. The radio keeps fading in and out, messages get garbled, and you hear different voices talking to him, some of which sound suspiciously like Russians trying to convince him to take their advice. So is he going to land near a British ship in the ocean, or on the Russian steppes? There are some glaringly incorrect historical references, which could have been avoided with a little more time invested in background research. And there are the usual technical glitches that come with trying to simulate the lack of gravity, or the time delay in radio communications, but even big-budget flicks sometimes don't even try to appear authentic in that vein. Look at it this way: an "alternative ending" on the DVD could have Sandra Bullock come knocking on his door asking for help in getting back to Earth from HER doomed spacecraft.....

Poor effort, annoying more than anything else

[fahdshakir · 2/10 · 16 December 2016]

It's not well made. It doesn't have a sensible or even interesting plot. The soundtrack is overly melodramatic. The limited cinematography is annoying. The characters are terrible and sound like they're doing a reading for a school play. The astronaut is a jangled ball of nerves and might be the least qualified person to ever send into space.

In the opening scene the astronaut in the capsule is fiddling around with random bits of an unconvincing spacecraft while being annoyingly lit for way too long by an intermittent red light. That basically sums up the film - everything that's meant to evoke dread, just engenders annoyance instead.

Good acting, mediocre story, fiction presented as fact.

[Arkatub · 6/10 · 23 September 2016]

Set in 1959 the British put the first man in space with a capsule called "Hermies", however the Russians trick the pilot into colliding with a US mercury capsule and landing Russia which kills the pilot, the mission is covered up.

99% of the film is just looking at the pilot sitting in the capsule, he does things like replace faulty electronics & closing valves to malfunctioning systems, its pretty boring.

Can't really recommend this movie, the only good thing is the acting.

Some facts: Britain had 2 space worthy rockets: the Blue Streak & the Black Arrow, these weren't developed until the late 60s early 70s, nor would they be able to lift a capsule as large as the one depicted in this movie.

If your looking for a fictional "first man in space" movie try "Wings of Honneamise".

91 Minutes of Snivelling

[Sondo · 3/10 · 3 August 2017]

Bowie's Major Tom whining "Here I am, sitting in a tin can" is more realistic.

Any test pilot/early astronaut would be earnestly working with mission control to remedy his crisis. Instead, here we have a constant coward, sniveling, "Just get me down!" and banging on his "dashboard."

Have the writers seen The Right Stuff or Apollo 13?

Shameful.

Sad/Awful

[rsimonreeves-09329 · 1/10 · 10 January 2017]

What a waste of time, good performance wasted from the principle actor. Sad propaganda rewrite of history, there is so much history to tell that it is sad that anyone would resort to a purely fictional story. Uncountable people died in the race for space, people of all nations from slave laborers, rocket attack casualties, technicians, designers. Could have been a promising film career start but turned into a sad political statement. The director maintained a good pace to the film. As a single handed performance it is very smooth and easy to watch which is a tough task for any Director or Actor. A great effort defeated by a mean political spirit. Go hang your head in shame

Worth Watching

[ajpadden · 8/10 · 12 September 2016]

I picked up this film with a load others to watch over the weekend. Having just watched The Martian and Gravity I was interested to watch something else space based.

I had heard nothing about this film prior to seeing it on the shelf so didn't know what to expect.

The film opens up in space with the main character just regaining consciousness and realising he is running out of air and fuel. He has numerous broken up communications through out, some questioning his intentions and some trying to help him.

I would recommend this film to all as it manages to build suspense and that can be hard with solo performances but Edmund Kingsley does it

Like watching paint dry... in space!

[dafoat · 3/10 · 27 August 2019]

Want to watch a man fidget in a chair and hyperventilate for an hour? Then this is the movie for you.

It's possible to make a compelling movie about a single person alone in a tense situation. All is Lost (2013) follows a lone sailor on a sinking sailboat. Locke (2013) is just Tom Hardy talking on the phone in his car. This film obviously wants to be a claustrophobic thriller in that vein. But it simply doesn't know how to build tension.

The low budget forgives some of the unconvincing effects (they can't afford to show objects floating in zero g, so they just never show Taylor let go of anything). But the real weakness is the writing. Taylor never seems like a real, sympathetic character. The movie tries to explain his erratic behavior by saying he's hypoxic. But we have no baseline to compare it to. He's disoriented and agitated from the word go. So we have no sense of whether he's losing it due to lack of oxygen, or if he's just inept.

The ending is supposed to be a shocking twist, but it just feels like a cop out. The movie forces us to spend over an hour in a cramped space with a single character, then kills him off screen and explains what happened in some stilted expository dialogue from a character we've never seen before.

And finally, I'm sure most sensible people know this, but the British didn't actually put a man in space in 1959. Yuri Gagarin was the first human to go into space, in 1961.

10/10 for effort, 0/10 for results.

[marc-895 · 1/10 · 9 December 2016]

It's hard to write a review of capsule explaining why it's bad and yet not giving too much away that might be regarded as a spoiler. To this end, I'm going suggest that there might be a spoiler here and leave others to judge if there isn't (best be safe and all that - I hate spoilers even for films that are several years old.) This is, ostensibly, a low-budget film but budget must never be an excuse. We're quick to judge big-budget films on storytelling but somehow we let low-budget off the hook. A BBC reviewer described my first short film (made for practically nothing) had interesting effects but lacked a story. 40 years on those words stay with me because they are the truth.

Capsule has a terrible case of a great idea that's been stretched beyond its own meagre abilities.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW: From the get-go, we're asked to believe that the Brits. had managed to get a guy into space before the Americans or Russians. This is patently ludicrous because it's never really explained how (even in the 1950s) a a tiny country could build and launch a rocket of sufficient power to get a guy into orbit without a single soul noticing.

It's tough to suspend that sort of disbelief because, while it's central to the wafer-thin plot, it's too close to home. We allow for aliens, spaceships and time warp in science fiction because we have never seen them. We have seen NASA put men on the moon and we've seen the size of rockets used to put even small payloads into orbit.

If we allow the filmmakers that one - and the awful systems design - there is worse.

Kingsley's character hasn't got so much of the Right Stuff: he's got all the wrong stuff. The man is a weed: a bag of nerves who I wouldn't trust to change a fuse or fly a remote controlled plane, let alone go solo into space.

Now if that sounds harsh, it's important to realise that we're being asked to imagine a seasoned pilot who is not only skilled but brave. This character is neither and no attempt to explain it away with the effects of hypoxia is going to convince me otherwise.

The "twist" isn't so much a twist as an explanation of why this entire convoluted plot unfolded as it did. In effect, what you have here is a fairly run-of-the-mill short story that's been stretched out to a full-length film. I think Hollywood Verge, in describing it as "a gripping tour de force" must have been watching a different movie!

The responsibility for this dire affair rests entirely on the shoulders of the writer/director and especially the producers It would be unfair to criticise the actors or crew. For a low-budget film, it's skillfully crafted and shot. That it doesn't look amateurish is probably what saved it from being savaged by other critics. Little wonder this went direct to DVD... and mine is direct to eBay.

"Actor Fails To Overcomes Emploding Script"

[lawrencebucher · 3/10 · 19 June 2018]

Great acting. Visually strong. Goddamned one of the worst, most cliche'd writings in cinema.

Great Idea but not the truth

[pilot1009 · 4/10 · 10 November 2016]

As a pure Sci Fi movie on a lowish budget, not too bad an effort but the story was spoilt by manifest dumb script and factual errors (even allowing for the fact there was no Hermes by Britain.

The pilot was definitely not the right stuff, I could not believe that any test pilot of whatever nationality would behave like this whimpering sole. Most test pilots (read a few books on the subject) are very strong in emotional and business like even in crisis aka Apollo 13. We didn't see any panic and emotion there.

So not a bad effort but a bit long winded and not really one I would watch again.