Fresh and Exciting

The first must-see film of the year.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

In terms of submarine movies, nothing will light your fire or get your pulse racing quite like Tony Scott's Crimson Tide (well maybe Das Boot, but that's another story). Scott just has this way with hyper kinetic tension and a knack for causing whirlwinds of propulsive energy in his work, and even when the material is more melancholy there is still a rousing climate to every frame. Pair his visual skill with Quentin Tarantino's sterling (and uncredited) ear for dialogue and you've got one simmering package. Not to mention the actors and the blood stirring score from Hans Zimmer which is one of the composer's best and richly orchestrated works. This is the second time Tarantino and Scott have done the writer director duo, albeit the lesser of the two films, it's still a stunner. When lunatic Russian extremist Vladimir Radchenko (Daniel Von Bargen, RIP) goes off in a huff and threatens nuclear warfare, the Yanks get nervous and send in an ace in the hole submarine loaded with warheads of it's own, cause, you know, 'just in case.' The vessel is captained by an intense and corrosive Gene Hackman, backed by a more reserved and introverted Denzel Washington. The two clash right off the bat and its obvious that fireworks of conflict will erupt between them once the schit hits the propeller. It soon does, in the form of a command order that is partly lost in translation. It could mean go ahead and fire the nukes on Radchenko. It also could not. Hackman, that spitfire, wants to engage and eradicate any chance of action on the extremist's part. Washington insists on holding back, terrified by uncertainty. This troublesome personal disagreement eventually leads to flat out mutiny amongst the crew, in more ways than one. The crew has no concrete leader to direct their devotion to, and that's a dangerous thing aboard a military vessel. Hackman and Washington are pure electricity as opposite sides of the same coin, facing off in a claustrophobic arena where one wrong move could end up in cataclysm. Along with internal disruption concerning the crew, there's also the fact that they're on a submarine miles below the surface to contend with, and it's one whopper of a suspense cocktail. Viggo Mortensen is terrific in a conflicted supporting role, and watch for solid turns from Danny Nucci, George Dzunda, Matt Craven, Ryan Phillipe, Steve Zahn, Chris Ellis and a fiery James Gandolfini. Ooo and Jason Robards in an uncredited cameo, which he's also done for Scott in Enemy Of The State. It's pure movie bliss, but what can you expect from Scott other than the cream of the crop? The guy gave us pure gold for decades, bless his soul, and this is one of his best.

Excellent acting by Gene and Denzel, but... Mild spoilers ahead...Starts out well as you feel the tension of their mission ahead. But about 30 minutes in, it totally goes into the realm of lunacy. How any captain of a nuclear sub suddenly goes into the insane act of wanting to launch warheads without even knowing if there's a war , is stretching any sense of realism to the film. And add on top of that, not one but two acts of mutiny is the span of 20 minutes, that is totally ridiculous. It became just a total farce. If they just stayed on the psychological battle between Gene and Denzel's characters and not the over the top nonsense, it would of been so much better.

There is a lot of ritual in the American military movies from the 90's. More than usual, that is. Crimson Tide is the story of a nuclear crisis when a crippled US submarine receives orders to fire nuclear missiles, then another partial message just before communications fail. The hardass captain (Hackman, of course) is countered in his desire to obey the launch order by the intellectual XO, played by Denzel Washington. And you have ritual in this as well: the speech before submarine launch, the wooden drills that have to happen "just so" with specific phrases and actions to reassure people they are doing the right thing. It's akin to religion and, by the very nature of the film, it makes you understand it was designed as such, transforming people into unthinking and uncaring machines.In truth, there isn't much to this movie in terms of story. The nuclear scenario is not really believable while the individual ideas in the film are simple and few. What makes the whole thing stand out is the great cast and their performance. There is some food for thought, though, because as far as the plot went, they really did receive a nuclear launch order when in all appearance, there was no need for one. That they recanted afterwards is of no relevance and perhaps a movie about that side of the story would be very interesting. Also, the ending shows that, as closed societies and fraternities often do, when a failure in their process or beliefs is found, it is quickly hidden under empty words and dirty bribes. Because even if they try to show the integrity of Hackman's character, the ending of the movie was just that: a bribe for a cover-up.As a conclusion, it is a classic film already, something that is worth watching for the sake of remembering the names of the actors in social situations alone, as James Gandolfini's character proves at the beginning of the film, and it also makes one think, if one is willing. What I found chilling is the joyful exuberance of the submarine troops when destroying the Russian one or the fanatic desire for some to follow the launch order. As Sting said, Russians love their children, too. So often in such movies, this element is completely ignored. That is what starts wars.

First off, id like to say that if you know nothing about the military (or you hate it) you will like this movie. If you know anything about submariners, its an absolute joke. NO WAY ANY OF THIS WOULD EVER GO ON IN A NUCLEAR SUB! I was never in the military myself but I have many friends who were and I can tell you that if you bring up this movie around them they will go on for hours about how silly and contrived all the scenes in the movie are. Denzel was in his usual semi-racist (but not too racist) role. Not to mention Gene Hackman playing his usual role of the "conservative" American who is nothing more than the worst human being imaginable. Arrogant, cocky, and of course, stubborn as a mule. Has anyone else noticed that he almost always plays the same character, just different situations? Bottom line is this movie is nothing more than Hollywood liberal propaganda, using the "manly-man" Gene Hackman as their fall guy for the stereotypical evil conservative who just needs to be re-educated (and usually is) in how to be a good little socialist. If you want to see a good submarine movie, see "The hunt for Red October". Otherwise, avoid this tired piece of liberal propaganda.