Rating: 
Summary: Suspenseful drama in a submarine
Review: This film is not easily forgotten for its intense suspense, stellar cast and engaging storyline. Many things happen and must happen in a submarine prepared for the worst when US is at a verge of war. Decisions must be made at the highest level of authority and it is no trivial responsibility. People's lives are involved. Must protocol be followed at the cost of good judgement? Must experience make way for prudence? What would happen when the two most senior commanders of the ship have differing views in a critical situation? The film deals with these issues in a compelling manner. The impact could not be more heightened by the brilliant performances of Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington. Their facial expression, movement and dialogues command our undivided attention. This is a film that stands repeated viewings. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: A serious, strange movie that raises some useful questions
Review: Another submarine movie with some suspense. Unfortunately, the situation and the relationships between the characters seem very unreal ; it is a bit strange and surprising that nobody knows what decision to make on borad a nuclear submarine !! I hope this sort of situation is not possible !! ; also I guess te Navy did not like this movie !! Finally there is a lot of aggressivity and tension between the captain and his first officer, and one might even suspect that race and/or generation might have been an issue as one character is an aged white man with a haughty, cold, dumb, stubborn type, while the other is a young, clever, sappy black male with good intentions. Finally the World is saved by Denzel Washington. The whole movie is not bad indeed, however, I hate the exaggerated depiction of an extremely dramatic situation, without the smallest hint of humor, and the mixing a lot of bad, worrying things at the same time : potential conflict of race, or generations at the top command of such a dreadful vessel as nuclear submarine.. At least, the good point is that this movie conveys some messages I guess. However, it is not entertaining at all (it is rather stressing).
Rating:
Summary: Training Day
Review: This movie was the training ground for Denzel Washington's "Training Day". He breaks away from "Pelican Brief" (calm, cool, collected but fast acting) and bares his emotional side -- to great effect. Gene Hackman does equally well, but that can be expected from an excellent seasoned professional. The suspense turns on a dime many times, making for a combination of "Hunt for Red October" and "Top Gun". The transfer to DVD is excellent.
Rating: 
Summary: A good movie
Review: I enjoyed watching this movie every few months or so. Hackmand and Washington are great, but that is an understatment. While I do have a bit of a hard time seeing how os of the events on a submarine could procede like this, I do understand that confusion like this can be anywhere. For those of you who may not think this is totally believable, think of it as not a story how confusion and the concept of not knowing can cause havoc.
Rating:
Summary: I Liked It but the Navy Did Not
Review: Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman are two of my favorite actors and also two of the finest players acting and creating films today. Mr. Washington is making his directing debut with, "Antwone Fisher", and there is Oscar talk all around the film. It should make it to most markets within about one week of my writing this. Mr. Washington also joined a group that is far, far too small, when as a black/African American (I do not know which he prefers) he took home the Oscar for Best Actor one year ago for, "Training Day". Mr. Washington said no to this film until they told him Gene Hackman would be playing the captain. In the piece I saw, he said he only needed to know this fact, for the opportunity to work with a man who is already a legend in film, whether he makes another film or not, was all the inducement he needed. It's nice to know a paycheck is not all that drives some performers. The film is outstanding as an action film, but I found it easy to understand why the US Navy would not participate. The scenes of diving subs were stock footage, there were not performed by the Navy for this film. The film is so good because of the primary actors already mentioned a script that was worked on by Quentin Tarantino, like the Star Trek banter, and The Silver Surfer debate, and also for a variety of faces that have become much better known since this film was made. The variations of mutinies that played out against other famous actors on the sea as opposed to below it will come to mind, Anthony Hopkins in the days of sail, and Humphrey Bogart on WWII vintage ships. The stakes this time are much higher and the directions the mutinies take are far more troublesome. Being faced with the order to actually launch a thermonuclear strike is a scenario that can easily justify a range of behaviors amongst the men involved, in this case on a submarine. And this is where the fifth star fell away for me. I certainly could understand the dynamic and the violation of a legal order that could cause the invocation of Naval Law. What I could not take seriously was the ease with which men who were serving with one another were willing to engage in deadly conduct against these same men, and to switch sides with such ease. If loyalty was so easily changed on a nuclear submarine, if so many top officers would violate Naval Law with such ease, I would guess horrific accidents would have occurred many years ago, and with disastrous results. The men that serve, and especially command, on submarines equipped with thermonuclear warheads are required to pass entirely different and additional levels of tests, that those who serve on submarines without such missiles. Sure this is only a film, so it should be viewed as entertainment. It also portrayed an event that could happen, events that have been nearly breached in our history, and it does so by portraying the officers and other men serving on this fictional boat in a very poor light. It is again completely understandable why the US Navy said no to the film. The whole film had an odd start and finish, when the reporter was reporting from a French Carrier and not a US one.
Rating: 
Summary: Watchable, interesting, but fatally flawed.
Review: First of all, let me say that this movie is worth watching and owning. The story is fascinating, fast-paced, and the acting by Hackman and especially by Denzel Washington is excellent. I thought the supporting cast was pretty bad. Or maybe it was the script. I still can't decide. This movie only rates 2 stars because it contains one intractible flaw: the crew of the Alabama is portrayed as being a bunch of amateurs. Not so: submarine professionals simply do not, would not, and could not behave as this movie portrays them. Essentially, this movie shows a billion dollar submarine being crewed by high school dropout comic-book readers (really!). It's just not so. The movie could have been done with the same plot without making this assumption. (By the way, I was never in the Navy--I don't have a dog in this fight.) Having the events in this movie occur among an accurately portrayed submarine crew of professionals would have made this movie ten times better, and a candidate for 5 stars. That is what Seven Days In May essentially did--it showed the military accurately portrayed from a character standpoint. But no. The movie dates itself with a shot of Bill Clinton. That's always a mistake, but Oh Well... Watch it, enjoy it, but don't take this movie anything like as seriously as it takes itself.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic
Review: This movie was fantastic. The plot and premise are both excellent and provocative. Hackman turns in one of the best performances of his career as Captain Ramsey. Likewise, Denzel Washington is outstanding(as usual). Nobody can give a hard, lip-biting gaze consisting of simmering anger, dissapointment, and self-control quite like Denzel. I know several people have already commented on the incredible lighting in the scene towards the end in the weapons room where you can see all the beads of sweat accumulating on Wepps' face--Scott does an incredible job of directing this movie and succeeds in creating an enormous amount of tension throughout. The first time I saw this movie, I actually found myself siding more with Hackman's Ramsey than Denzel's Hunter. Since then, my sympathies seem to alternate between each character with each viewing. And that is another aspect that makes this film great-both men are right and both men are wrong. Both men have valid arguments and there really is no villain(with the possible exception of Gandolfini's trigger-happy character.) Add a great cast(Hackman, Washington, Gandolfini, Viggo Mortensen, Rick Schroder, Rocky Carroll, George Dzunda, Jason Robbards, etc.) into the mix, and you have the makings of an phenomenal movie. Great plot+great directing+great acting+great soundtrack=A MUST SEE!
Rating:
Summary: Go 'Bama, Roll Tide!!
Review: In the tradition of other great submarine movies such as "The Hunt for Red October", "U-571", and "Das Boot", "Crimson Tide" provides non-stop action and thrills throughout. Gene Hackman stars as captain Ramsey, a 30 year vet of the navy who doesn't tend to do things by the book most of the time. Denzel Washington gives a top-notch performance as Lt. Commander Hunter, the ship's new X.O. A recent graduate of Harvard and Annapolis, he is the antithesis of Ramsey. He tends to follow protocol and standard procedure. This pairing of the two opposite officers eventually leads to all-out confrintation. Russia is engaged in a civil war, and the USS Alabama is dispatched to the region after the rebel Russian leader makes threats about launcing nuclear weapons against the United States. Ultimately, a message reaches the Alabama stating that the Russian rebels are indeed fueling their nuclear weapons to launch, so the Alabama is to launch a pre-emptive strike first. However, while under attack, another message comes in to the Alabama, but only part of the message is received. Ramsey wants to continue with the launch preparations, but Hunter wants clarification of the second message before finishing launch preparations. This confrontation leads to division between Ramsey and Hunter, as well as the crew. The rest of the film is loaded with action and reaction as Hunter and Ramsey struggle for control of the sub and the crew. I highly recommend this movie. The performances by the actors are tremendous, and the battle and underwater scenes are good as well. This movie is a must for action/adventure and submarine fans. Roll Tide!
Rating:
Summary: Good movie!!
Review: I liked this movie for many reasons: 1. Top notch acting from Hackman and Washington
2. The plot was strong and kept the movie going all the way through
3. The action in it was fairly good, but was more of a drama movie then action.
4. I could watch this movie more than once and not get bored
5. Shows the sides of the military and how hard it really is to make a command! Overall, I was really impressed with the movie. It didn't depend on special effects, the actors did great at their part, especially Hackman and Washington, and the movie didn't drag. Plus, it wasn't even two hours, like Lord Of The Rings, Titanic, Pearl Harbour and Gladiator, were all too long. But this was the perfect length for a movie, maybe 10 minutes shorter would have really done it, but give and take a few, this movie was really good, all is said and done, watch this!!
Rating:
Summary: Two fascinating performances.
Review: It is a cliche to dismiss/celebrate Tony Scott's films as being too enamroured of technology and military hardware to be very interested in character. But for me, the two main reasons to watch 'Crimson Tide' are two performances that work against their noisy surroundings. Most important is Gene Hackman in a stock role (the 'old school' sea-dog who despises the vacillation of newer, by-the-book men), who brings out his character's humour, perceptive intelligence, bravery and pathos (he has recently lost his wife) as well as his dangerous fascism. The film's best scenes are those in the first third when, under the guise of friendly initiation, he tries to psyche out his insufferably self-righteous second-in-command, played by Denzel Washington. Even when the film moves from a battle of ideas (about war, masculinity, nation etc.) into a predictable melodrama, Hackman survives the film's attempts to demonise him (horror lighting, racism) or worse, make him ridiculous, a kind of military Blofeld, plotting dark conspiracies as he strokes his beloved dog. It is this omnipresent mutt who crowns Hackman's character, piddling all over the ship, alert to his daddy's every mood, tenacious in warding off threats (at one point left to torture two of his captors in the officers' mess). The prop of the dog was probably suppposed to be a mark of effeminacy, decadence or misplaced/perverted priorities, but only people who never had a dog, like Washington's stolid do-gooder, could even think that. It's no coincidence that this apparent bad guy shares caps, cigars and attitudes with the film's creator, director Scott. In spite of what he says, it is Hackman who is complex and Washington who is simple and one-dimensional. The second, less obvious (at the time) pleasure is James Gandolfini's performance, already flashing brooding, brutal intimations of Tony Soprano, anticipating that legendary character's ease in tough male company, his colourful wit, his taste for ritual humiliation, and his warped attachment to a code of loyalty and honour. Like Tony, he is a cinephile, and rightly punishes a junior for ignorance of Robert Mitchum movies. This pop-culture patter that occasionally punctuates the film is the script's most dated aspect, and is the work of script-doctor-for-hire, Quentin Tarantino. The attempts to add a self-reflexivity to a Simpson&Bruckheimer macho action movie by placing it in the tradition of previous submarine movies is just a fudge, as the modes of the action movie are reinforced. However, this scene is a warning index of warped jingoism even at this early stage - Gandolfini knows about 'The Enemy Below' and 'Run Silent, Run Deep', but he's clearly never heard of a foreign film like 'Das Boot'. And it's nice to see a mainstream Hollywood film that acknowledges the life-or-death importance of pop culture. These two elements were enough for me. I found it very difficult to follow what was going on half the time, so much suspense was lost; luckily, I was watching the film with a Tom Clancy fan who was familiar enough with the jargon (he'd never seen 'Das Boot' either. Hmmm...) Shorn of its trendy Tarantinoisms, the script was solid and interesting. The introduction of characters was dispiriting - you know exactly who would take which side whenever crisis obtruded. But there was an excellent satiric thrust: early, faintly sickening jingoism is quite searchingly and cynicially questioned subsequently - a pattern of twinning Hackman and Washington makes the latter less clean-cut than he first appears (e.g. both are betrayed by friends); while Hackman himself is the image of the military, Kurtzian mind turned in on itself and gone mad - another paralellism, when he twice gives Viggo Mortenson a count of three to save a life, equates the word 'sir', and all the ideological baggage it brings with it, with something more appropriate to his dog. There is some interesting colour-coding too. One wag compared the film's Tarantino-inspired homoerotics to Fassbinder's 'Querelle'. A nice idea.
|
