USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage (2016) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
202 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Should have been better, much better
tomsview30 July 2017
Years ago I read "Abandon Ship" the story of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis by Richard F. Newcomb. It 's not the book the film is based on.

In some ways that's a pity. Although Newcomb's book was first published in 1960, it is a masterly account of the disaster and recounted events that are not in the film. I always remembered his description of the strong swimmers who rode herd on their weaker comrades pulling them back when they drifted away until they themselves used up their reserves of energy and drowned - many of the bravest acts of WW2 were not necessarily in the heat of battle.

Somewhere along the way, much of the drama leaked from this film.

It's unusual these days to see a movie where the special effects are not absolutely dazzling. They might be a cut above the old Hollywood bathtub effects, but the limitations of the effects in this film draw attention away from the story.

But that isn't the key weakness in "USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage".

Although Nicholas Cage gives a fine performance as Captain McVay, and the ending does have some punch, the filmmakers weren't content with what really happened, and added some very predicable fictional elements. Was it really necessary for Craig Tate and Johnny Wactor's characters to duplicate the scene from "Titanic" where Kate Winslet saves Leonardo DiCaprio from imprisonment in the nick of time? It's the forced backstories that rob the film of stature.

There was no need to expend so much energy on the fake elements. Here is a passage from Newcomb's book describing what happened when Lieutenant Gwinn, the pilot of the PV-1 Ventura who first spotted the men in the water was taken aboard the hospital ship "Tranquility" and introduced to the survivors as the guy who found them.

"Men in all stages of recovery, some weak and hollow-eyed on their beds shouted cheered and whispered. Those who could, crowded around and thumped him on the back, laughing and jumping. Some merely turned their heads on their pillows and cried softly, and the quiet, reticent Gwinn himself broke down under the flood of emotion".

I think I would have had that scene in my movie.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not really that bad...
jmorrison-28 January 2018
Well, I don't think this movie was quite as bad as some reviewers are making it. I do agree that the direction left something to be desired. Some of the early part of the film was a little sloppy. There were short scenes that seemed to come out of nowhere, and didn't seem to have anything to do with the flow of what we were seeing. As a former military man, I was astonished to see a scene where Nicolas Cage wore a mis-matched khaki naval uniform. Never happen, folks. However, I thought the movie got a little better as it went along. I was very disappointed that race had to be inserted into this. There didn't seem to be any reason why race had to play ANY part in this story. I don't know why so many directors (& producers and writers) seem to feel the need to do this (well, I have my suspicions, but that's a story for another day). The scene of the cook spitting on an officers piece of pie was despicable, and I wondered why that was even included in this. It served absolutely no real purpose. This was, supposedly, a crack naval ship and crew, entrusted with a top secret mission, and a sailor is spitting on an officer's food? But the survival scenes were done fairly well, and it was clear the incredible suffering & tragedy these men were exposed to. I thought the movie started rather poorly, but improved as it went along. I think, perhaps, Van Peebles is lacking in experience, and bit off a bit more than he could chew, but, all in all, I thought it was a decent enough movie. Cage played a fairly stoic, controlled character, but I think that was a good choice on his part. The story was what needed attention, not some overblown character. He seemed to hit the right note as a Naval Ship Captain. The actors all did adequate jobs, and it wasn't exactly a terrible movie.
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Secrets, Survival, Sharks
3xHCCH25 August 2016
Set in mid-1945 during World War II, the USS Indianapolis, led by Captain Charles McVay (Nicolas Cage), was secretly tasked to deliver parts of an atomic bomb (which would later be dropped on Hiroshima) unescorted to a naval base in the Pacific. Back in open sea after successfully delivering their cargo, the ship was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine in the Philippine Sea. The sailors spent five gruelling days with minimal supplies floating on life rafts in shark-infested waters. Only 317 of the original 1,196 crew members survive the ordeal.

The first hour of the film was quite brisk and eventful. The main storyline was laid out within the first scene. The backstory about some of the young sailors were introduced, oddly not too much on McVay himself. The USS Indianapolis embarked on its mission, torpedoed and sunk all within that first hour. However, this meant that the entire second hour would only be dealing about the survival ordeal of the sailors among the sharks awaiting rescue. It got maudlin and repetitive after the first few shark attacks. This was definitely not the war action film people were expecting to see.

The actors all seem to have come from the Nicolas Cage school of hammy acting. The major side story was about two friends who were in love with the same girl back home. Another side story was about a couple of sailors, one white, one black, constantly at odds with each other. There was also another side story about an arrogant young officer and his despicable attitude. All these rehashed side stories just served to fill out the rest of the running time before and after the sinking. The best actor for me would have to be Yutaka Takeuchi, the Japanese actor playing court-martial witness Commander Hashimoto, who displayed dignified subtly in his brief role.

For its Philippine release, this film's subtitle "Men of Courage" was replaced with "Disaster at (sic) Philippine Sea." However, for Filipino moviegoers expecting to actually see some part of the Philippines or see Filipinos in action in this film, they will be disappointed. The Philippines was mentioned but was never actually shown except for scene labels to establish the location. There was an extra card interrupting the closing credits stating how the search for the wreck of the Indianapolis was undertaken in 2001 in cooperation with the Philippine government and National Geographic. That was all about the Philippines here, nothing more. 5/10.
43 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Skip movie, use Google
johnsaltas13 November 2016
The single scene in the movie Jaws where Robert Shaw scares the crap out of Richard Dreyfus as he describes the sinking of the USS Indianapolis and the terrifying shark aftermath, has more truth, terror, realism and great acting than the entire movie USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage. This film's amazing true story was hijacked along the way to make room for fictional back lines of power, love and racial tensions that all fall flat. Anachronisms abound--FNG is from the Vietnam war, the neon sign is not of the period, and Wayne Gretzky wouldn't make his "miss 100 shots you don't take" quote for another 50 years. It's like the scriptwriter used Google to write the script but forgot to use Google to fact check it. I wanted to like this movie, to pass along a great history lesson to my son watching with me, but from the first wobbly special effect to when we gave up and went to bed as the wrong shark species showed up, USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage never failed to disappoint. At least we know how it ends and at least there's Google to get it right and Jaws to tell it better.
162 out of 191 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh dear.....
oodyrejid-286029 January 2018
A truly poor movie, with fictional "back story" added in, for no discernible reason that I can see. Using a battleship to represent a cruiser is a ludicrous idea(the USS Alabama was nearly three times the size of the Indianapolis,) and the resultant footage is awful..... the actual story has been trivialised and misrepresented, and Mr Cage hasn't done his acting credibility any good at all. The whole story has already been done to better effect and on a fraction of the budget of this shambolic effort in the made-for-TV movie "Mission of the Shark" .If you want to learn all about the events of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, either watch that movie, or watch the five minute sequence in the movie "Jaws" where Robert Shaw tells the whole story, simply, and brilliantly. This latest film really isn't worth the time it takes to watch it.....
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor meets Sci-Fi channel effects and sensationalism
knifemagnet24 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Before I say anything critical of the film I have to admit; it's about damn time someone has attempted to tell this story. With that said, time to get a little critical.

First, if you are a Cage fan like me, this film does not get Cagey. Nor should it. This is a restrained role with Cage sharing screen time with many characters throughout.

I feel like this film has many components, or parts - some hurt it while others help it. It has the generic feel of Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor" to introduce the characters and plot; while I didn't care for that film I know many do - yet for me, this hurt. Second, many scenes with sharks are no better than a Sci-Fi Channel-made shark horror TV movie; it is sensationalized and way over-the-top (including the inclusion of great white sharks not even present at the actual event). A better way to have depicted it would have been to focus on the suspense of the sailor's predicament, the emotional impact, and the effects of exposure and dehydration. Obviously, this really hurt the film in my eyes. The last component I see in this film is that it does have elements that remind me of an Eastwood film - a la "Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters From Iwo Jima"; these reminders are few in number but do strike emotionally deeper - in particular the face-to-face between McVay and Hashimoto.

See, for me, unrealistic shark attacks and run-of-the-mill storytelling don't pique my interest - make me feel something and you win me over. This film scores a 4/10 on that scale and receives another 2 on top for even addressing the fate the USS Indianapolis and her crew - in particular the fate of Rear Admiral McVay.

Would this film have been worthy of seeing in theaters? No. But it definitely is worth a rent or having up your sleeve when other options aren't available.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A good story made bad through awful CGI and props.
moreirajf22 October 2016
I was really interested in this movie but oh boy, what have these people done? This is one of the worst CGI works I have seen in years, they simply destroyed the movie as a whole. The ship appears washed out, never matches the surroundings. Every action scene is CGI'd, in a cheap way. Scenes on the deck, when explosions happen are clearly fireworks!!! I could not believe my eyes. And some scenes are repeated! I never reviewed on IMDb but created an account just to tell others what a bad work this was. I was really interested in the movie but the lousy work that has been done simply could not pass without being noticed. Watch it and see for yourself. What a disappointment!
117 out of 140 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Bad-Worth Watching To Learn About the Navy's Worst Tragedy at Sea
airforcechevy15 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have been waiting for a long time for a feature film to be made on this tragedy (There was a TV movie, Mission of the Shark). My grandfather was one of the survivors so I have some emotional ties, but I will not let that sway my opinion. This movie is NOT as bad as a lot of these reviews make it out to be. I think people complain just to complain about movies and Nicolas Cage and they don't look at these films objectively. One reviewer mentioned all of the factual inaccuracies but fails to mention any of them. The movie was based on Doug Stanton's 'In Harms Way' and from what I know, it and the film stick to the main facts. The CGI was pretty bad in some spots, but that is a limitation based on budget. There were some unnecessary subplots such as the love triangle, which seemed to be a complete ripoff from Pearl Harbor. Some of the scenes were drawn out a little too long, especially when they were in the water, but I think they really wanted to demonstrate in a 2-hour film just how long these guys were in the water...four and a half days is a long time. All things considered, this film is worth watching for sure. Go into it with the attitude of learning about this tragedy and not expecting to be blown away with special effects and terrific acting. I think if people do that, they will appreciate the film much more.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This movie makes a strong case for reading books instead of watching film.
denvergrown30311 May 2017
The movie just doesn't do service to the real events. If you're really interested in the story just read the Wikipedia page. You'll learn more about the events and it'll save you from wasting 2 hours and ten minutes of your life to this awful movie.

I always expect that Hollywood will bungle the details in military movies and usually give them a pass for those. There are SOOO many anachronisms and inaccuracies in this movie though. EVERY scene has something wrong with it. The ship itself, the uniforms, the orders given, the weapons, the lingo, even the sharks. It's beyond distracting. The most glaring example is that they the used a battleship to represent a cruiser. You can have a movie like U-571, which is fictional, and they have more accurate depictions of the submarines and even a German destroyer. Mario Van Peebles is like "hey, the USS Alabama is located in Mobile, let's go film on that." "It's the wrong type of ship though." "It's only a film based on true events, accuracy doesn't matter."

On top of that the writers couldn't have stuffed more cliché, trite military lingo into this movie if they tried. The focus they have on the sharks is weird, and inaccurate. The captains speech made me groan out load. Nicholas cage don't ever do another war movie again! If you've seen Windtalkers you know what I'm talking about. Again, if you really want to know what happened to the USS Indianapolis, take 10 mins and read the Wikipedia or better yet go to the library and find a book about it.
88 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A story of real life courage
michaelRokeefe15 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
After delivering parts of the first nuclear bomb to be used in combat, the USS Indianapolis, without escort, was torpedoed and sunk by an Imperial Japanese Navy submarine. Most of the deaths in this tragic event was not actually from the heavy cruiser going down, but from shark attacks. Of 1,195 crewmen aboard, about 300 went down with the ship. Thus the remainder , including the captain of the Indianapolis, Captain McVay (Nicolas Cage), would face exposure, almost no food or water, dehydration and shark attacks while floating in not enough lifeboats.

This makes for a very interesting and dramatic movie; factual as can be...probably not. Is this a waste of time, definitely not.!

Mario Van Peebles directs. The massive cast also features: Tom Sizemore, Thomas Jane, Adam Scott Miller, Matt Lanter, Brian Presley, Emily Tennant, Max Ryan, Cody Walker, Yutaka Takeuchi and Currie Graham.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Laughably Bad
charlesmonagan31 October 2016
The true story of the Indianapolis is a compelling one of bravery, intrigue, unimaginable suffering and governmental cowardice. This movie never comes close to conveying any of that. It rushes through the set-up, never pausing for us to get to know any of the principals in any depth. The movie can't wait to get to the sharks, but when it does, it almost turns into a comedy of unconvincing action, gaps in logic, ridiculous dialogue and clumsy CGI. Poor Nic Cage is reduced to a near catatonic state, forced into unnatural situations and dubious decisions. In Jaws, Spielberg did a better job in five minutes with Quint's recounting of his Indianapolis experience than this movie does in two hours. A fiasco. McHale's Navy was more realistic.
111 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good for Historical Value
labombo-943469 December 2016
The USS Indianapolis was one of the Navy's older Cruisers and served with much distinction. My Ens. David A Jump was a crew member on the ill fated Indy. The movie story is pretty much the way we were told as to what happened to the ship and the crew. My uncle died aboard the ship with the 1st torpedo attach. The story about what happened to Cpt. McVay is very real. The Navy didn't let the families know what really happened so many people hated Cpt. McVay and blamed him for the loss. The movie has historical value. It is well documented that the Japanese Commander did testify at the trial and he and McVay did meet each other. The loss of the Indy crew should never have happened. The Navy should have had better contact with the ship and when it didn't arrive at the next stop, the SOS should have been looked at much closer. It was known that the Japanese sub was in the path of the USS Indianapolis.
30 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
History Finally told and an Injustice Corrected
rutzelb25 January 2017
This is based upon a true story

In 1945 the USS Indianapolis was on a secret mission to deliver the Atomic Bomb to Tinian Air Base in the Philippines. The ship was to go and return without escorts (to handle enemy subs). The USS Indianapolis was sunk on the return and the crew was in the water for 5-days without food, water and with hungry sharks all around before they were rescued. There is a court-martial afterwards. (Whaaaaat?)

Most of the movie shows the crew of the USS Indianapolis in the water waiting to be rescued and trying to stay away from the sharks and that was not all that easy. The CGI and camera work were spectacular and we found ourselves jumping more than once when sharks attacked. We see red in the water but there is nothing gory seen. (And that was a good thing)

There was too much screen time of the men in the water and let's face it there was too much repetition with these scenes. We could have seen more story in the courtroom later on.

I was surprised at the amount of water in those rafts and there was no effort to bail that water out. Maybe those rafts were built like that. Who knows? There were a couple mini sub-plots: two sailors in love with the same girl and two sailors fighting each other on land and need to learn to survive in the raft. But did we care about any of this? Of course not. There was no real character development as the emphasis was on the crew stranded in the water and later the court-martial.

Notables: Tom Sizemore as Petty Officer McWhorter; Currie Graham as Capt Ryan a lawyer at the court-martial; and Yutaka Takeuchi as the Japanese Commander Hashimoto who sunk the USS Indianapolis and he gave the best performance.

The acting was okay, sparse but okay and it got better at the court- martial (Whaaaaat?) To be honest I was completely surprised there even was a court-martial. The Nicolas Cage Impersonators didn't really have much to go on in here as Mr. Cage played it too straight. (As he should have)

The ending is very surprising and it may even make you angry. Watch the statements at the end to see what happened to some of the survivors and how an injustice was corrected. (7/10)

Violence: Yes.

Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Small stuff only and not much of it.
9 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Screenwriter totally inaccurate for 1940's
midge5621 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Fast forward past the shark attacks to the rescues & watch from there to the end. This is the only good part of the movie. Prior to that it is inaccurate & unwatchable shock value with 90's attitudes on 40's sailors. The screenwriter & director were clueless.

I saw a much better WWII version in the 70's & was horrified to learn about hundreds of sailors eaten by sharks for days until spotted by accident. Then using the Capt as a scapegoat so the gov't would be held blameless. Where was Truman's sense of propriety & honesty while this farce occurred? Not to mention the misguided families who believed the propaganda & cruelly made this innocent Captains life a living hell. He was also a victim in shark infested water as well as a scapegoat for merely surviving. Shame on the gov't & those ignorant families who stalked & tormented him to death.

This screenwriter had no business writing 40's dialogue & WWII behaviors. He was clearly writing with 1990's attitudes which didn't fit & ruined the movie with inaccurate BS. The blacks of the 40's did not behave like punks or taunt whites. Challenging would have been a death sentence. There was a separation between races in the military until Truman corrected it.

This movie has terrible dialogue, terrible characters & worse acting with bad story lines from the wrong decade. Stupid stunts like blacks spitting in food & harassing the whites, knife fights, fist fights, gang attitudes. Totally doesn't fit the 40's. Same with hispanics in the 40's. This scriptwriter & director couldn't even create believable behavior of stranded sailors in the ocean without food & water. All of these characters were right out of the 90's & unrecognizable for the 40's as were their side stories as portrayed.

The writer & director clearly had no Navy or background research either. The bell bottoms which were heavily starched were designed to create water wings when knotted in the ocean to keep the sailor afloat. This is true. Whether it worked in practical application is unknown. Even the life vests in the film were modern design as were the styrofoam floaters. This occurred in 1945. Not 1995. Clearly, no one did any research. They also forgot the ships were diesel not gasoline. But the director had the crew running around with multiple sailors on fire and explosions as if it were gasoline.

This movie tried to cash in on the horror & gore of a horrific historical event. They turned this travesty into a horror movie. Not even close to historical reality. Creative license on a true historical event is unacceptable.

Instead of focusing on gory scenes of fires, shark attacks & fictional 90's, the travesty of this horrific incident was the failure to escort the ship after it delivered its nuclear cargo; the failure of the Navy to report the missing ship & intercepted message; the loss of hundreds to sharks and the inexcusable persecution of the captain who later killed himself. Only after his death & the death of the Japanese sub commander who sought to clear the Captains name did they finally pardon the Captain & clean his record. After everyone involved was dead, it no longer mattered.

Now I learn the main scriptwriter was a foreigner & a neophyte who has no clue about US 40's attitudes since English is not his native tongue. The director was so spazzed at having Nick as his star that he couldn't function. While Nicholas was clearly not comfortable doing his speech to the ship crew, he obviously had no help from the director or the writers.

When one of the crew on the extras exclaimed how well they researched, I nearly fell over. Maybe the shark. The animatronics shark was so real I feared it might attract real sharks or they could mistake a real shark as fake. They should have filmed in a pool. As suspected, the crews main interest was in shark attacks not the story. They also could have saved the real seaplane by using CGI than losing a real one in the ocean. Especially an antique. They clearly chose an incompetent cheap CGI company to pocket more money. What loser idiots they were.

Cage was so uncomfortable as captain, he made all of us uncomfortable to watch him. I found myself waiting for Andy Griffith to start saying "Helloooo" over the speakers in a southern drawl.

Who would hand over $40 million for a limited theater release? That's why it flopped so grossly. It wasn't shown in most theaters except Philippines, Japan & a limited few US theaters.

They took one look at the extreme negative feedback & decided to eat the money loss than risk extreme damage to their reputations by distributing this mess. Honestly, would you want to go to the theater to watch a true story of a crew eaten by sharks. Fiction is one thing but the graphic deaths of hundreds of real sailors by sharks in a feeding frenzy is too much to stomach. It probably would have crashed & burned at the box office. The film & script were too terrible to fix.

This historical travesty should be known & seen but more as a TV movie or documentary about real life stories than the blood & gore aspect. The true travesty was the failure of our gov't to protect the ship & leave the crew to the mercy of enemy subs & sharks; then savagely convict the captain as a scapegoat to hide our gov'ts own accountability for this atrocious farce. No president corrected this outrage until over 55 years later after they were all dead.

Even on a well made movie this tragedy is difficult to watch. Between the sharks & gov't persecution of the scapegoat captain, those responsible should all burn in hell.
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wow, did that suck!
m-r-murphy-657-1980439 November 2016
Bad across the board. One of the few movies I would really want my money back from.

Bad acting, bad plot, horrible cgi, bad script. I really can not find anything positive to say about this film. Even at 128 minutes its was way too long for the lack of substance. There is a scene where McVay speaks to the Japanese Sub Commander. It was pretty schmaltzy, but it had a moment of decent drama when they just looked at each other.

I am embarrassed and ashamed that this pile of crud is supposed to reflect on what happened to those men.

You are better off reading the book "In Harms Way" to get some sort of feel for what they went through. Heck for that matter you are better off watching Jaws and having Quint (Robert Shaw) tell the story about his tattoo, and the story of why he will not wear a life jacket.
71 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
At Least A Decade Late, At Least It Got Made: A Good Movie That Deserves To Be Great
AudioFileZ13 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
In time past movies like this would receive the blockbuster push as well as budget. I remember, for instance, the movie Pearl Harbor which had a big release with the current young actors/actresses of the day. Maybe this movie was shelved or something similar which caused it to be delayed until now. I would have thought the film would have come out in the early 2000's on the coattails of the bestselling book "In Harms Way" which caused a spike in public awareness of the USS Indianapolis and it's saga. I just get the feeling there was some delay in the big screen story finally being made to which it is sometimes seen in the lesser than current state of the art CGI and even the choice of side stories.

In spite of the anything that may have been going on with getting a movie made about the USS Indianapolis I'd say it's better late than not at all. While the big things like the ill-advised decision to not allow a destroyer escort are depicted with truth and realism making the USS Indianapolis a sitting duck for disaster, I'm not sure if the fictional side stories concocted by the writers add as much?

All in all even with the lessened production budget I enjoyed watching this movie. Even though he's past his prime, perhaps, Nicolas Cage did an admirable job of giving Lt. McVay that air of a great officer put into an almost impossible situation. It's literally a miracle the ship made the first leg of it's trip to deliver what would be not just a war ending cargo but a new age in which all the world would be thrust into. The crew of the USS Indianapolis deserve a movie to remember their sacrifice and since this is what we have I say see it. It's good enough if not exactly what they deserve. It can't be stressed that the final act of surviving captain McVay was needlessly tragic: the Navy being responsible for one more huge injustice.
18 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprisingly not too bad
thereggie8 May 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly if you can overlook the 'totally amateur' CGI in this motion picture & some strange sequencing scenes, the movie isn't all that bad. As bad as the majority of the CGI is, the scenes involving the Sharks (believe me there are plenty) are 'the most realistic' I have seen. Overall I think the producers have done a creditable job in honouring the men who sacrificed their lives & also those who were lucky enough to have survived this truly traumatic ordeal based. The movie will also show you how the Japanese not used kamikaze pilots to fly planes into ships, they also used crew to steer torpedoes into ships. Cage's performance as the skipper although not shelf is still credible.

Tip: Watch until the end as you will be surprised by the outcome.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Sharknado 5
zalessky24 September 2016
Men of Courage is not meant to be anything more than a generic mid- budget war movie with sharks, but it underdelivers even if you keep your expectations low. The script follows historical events pretty closely, but writing has lots of flaws, and romantic storyline is disappointing. Nicolas Cage gives a sensible performance, but his character doesn't move anywhere from "good captain" cliché. The writers add lots of voice-over narration to add depth to characters, which makes things worse. The Japanese captain is reduced to ridicule near the ending, where the two captains burst into tears while saluting each other.

If you only look for special effects, war scenes and sharks wreaking havoc, this movie won't be any less disappointing. Warship effects are of acceptable quality (for television at least), but man-eating sharks are either roughly made CGI, or replaced with smaller sharks which are obviously harmless. Not a single scene shows sharks biting humans; edits carefully avoid that part. No attention is given to the actual details of shark species present on the site of USS Indianapolis demise. For a movie that closely follows actual events (and even includes documentary footage), Men of Courage has an unacceptable number of inaccuracies. It's also badly edited, with scenes interrupted and tied together in strange places. Two hours last like four.

The story of USS Indianapolis appears more fascinating when you read the sources and memoirs, and it certainly deserves a better adaptation than one made by this movie's screenwriters.
93 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This film is sunk by poor CG effects, not a torpedo...
joker-scar23 September 2018
To preface this review, I never read other reviews on a film before I write my own. This is a subject ripe for a film for decades. The film is worth seeing but not fantastic. Note: stating that the ship in question is sunk is not a "spoiler" but is common knowledge and if it is not, then pass the blame onto poor public school funding nationwide and not this review. We shouldn't compensate for stupid people, but raise the bar for everyone. Onward. Good story, good acting, nice little nods to the movie Jaws but also flawed on actual facts, ie. the sharks. Quint's famous shark story got it right, the sharks were Tigers not great white's as this film portrays. The directing was competent but there were many moments he missed getting real "movie moments" which in a more, I would not say experienced but "filmic" directors hands, would have elevated this film to a higher bar. For those of you that don't know what a "movie moment" is... basically it's those moments in a film everybody remembers, if not consciously, at least leaves the imprint unconsciously on the viewer. A director like Spielberg is a master of "movie moments" and that is why his films are memorable. And now onto the weakest link in the chain...the CG effects, or defects if you prefer. The budget of this film is $40 million, not a huge amount anymore for a Hollywood film but still a sizable sum. Perhaps it would have been wiser to cut down on the name actors in the film and hand that to the effects department. But Hollyrock producers still think that only name actors pull in the audience and not a good story. Some of the effects are really good, some good shark effects whether on set effects or CG, most are ok bordering on "iffy" while the rest are just at a student learning level of quality, that is piss-poor. Some of the ship de-fects would not even be up to video game standards. As a video game they are really good but for a realistic film...they really drag down the film like the great white sharks biting a sailor's leg.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Good God...what have you done? Geeeeeeeez
mhcaesar3 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The screenwriters, the producers, the entire cast of this schlock piece should be rounded up and escorted to the brig and interrogated one by one as to who ate the strawberries from the ships' ice cream stores. Oooooops. That is another movie entirely, The Caine Mutiny, a truly classic movie on every level. This movie. Oh God help us. This movie. This is quite possibly the stupidest movie ever made. I can see it now. Hollywood aging rat pack producers bang on Cage's mansion door and beg him to salvage this "treatment" of a script. "Please Nick. Please rescue us from this shipwreck. We'll pay you anything. We know your careers is in tatters. We know your desperate. We know you need the cash. Please. Please. Pleeeeeeeze! Nick stares at the ceiling from his lazy boy. "Sure, I'll do it, boys. But, you'll need to supply me with the proper amount of blow before I commit to such a venture" From inexplicable beginning to absurd end, the movie meanders like a deaf, dumb, blind man trying desperately to make sense of the senseless. They didn't even bother to get the CGI even close to real. Who cares? They didn't even bother to get the dialogue into semi coherent shape. Who cares? Gee whiz. They didn't even bother to press the uniforms. Anybody who spent two seconds in the military knows for darn sure that the anal retentive navy always has to have those damned uniforms pressed to a crisp at all times, even before they are right about to be blown to hell from a Japanese torpedo strike. Seriously, this movie is a direct insult to the hundreds of brave men who actually did die a slow, vicious bloody death in the waters of the Pacific after delivering the bomb. Their suffering and bravery gave meaning to the word, hero. And Captain Charles Butler McVay III, the actual captain of the Indianapolis who was made a scapegoat by the Pentagon and politicians saw his life destroyed after this tragedy at sea. He took those bogus court martial trials like a man, with quiet nobility. The families of the dead sailors mailed him death threats for decades after that. They repeatedly called him to threaten his life many times. He suffered quietly through all of that hell. Then one day in November, 1968, he walked out into his front yard, holding the doll of a toy sailor in the left hand, given to him as a child and a pistol in the other hand and shot himself. These real stories of heroism, nobility, and true courage are paid a deep disservice by this horrible movie. The real story of the U.S.S. Indianapolis is heroism at its finest and most legendary. You men will always be remembered by those who are committed to knowing their history and the truth.
21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not anywhere near as bad as these Transformer fans say.
dr-cheyno28 March 2018
Anyone that gives this movie 1 star in my opinion is an absolute fool. If people actually researched movies rather than just watch them, it might help this title. Most of the 1-3 star reviews are all crying about the horrible CGI.

THIS IS A LOW BUDGET MOVIE...WTF DO YOU EXPECT? As soon as i seen Mario Van Peebles was the director i instantly knew this would not be a AAA title.

I think this movie cops so much flak because half of the people reviewing it expect it to be transformers or a top notch CGI filled shark fest.

Just because Nick Cage stars in a movie, does not mean is a big budget movie. I'm kinda neutral when it comes to Cage, but i thought he honestly done a good job. He was given a role and he played that role like you would expect him to.

The story is pretty factually correct. Typical American government willing to sacrifice their own people with the purpose of hiding the damning truth.

If you're interested in the story and don't need your typical AAA CGI effects. This is a pretty decent movie and well worth the watch. Sure it's not a masterpiece, but it's certainly worth more than the 1-3 stars a lot of CGI idiots gave it.

For the budget these guys worked on, it was pretty decent. There are like 2-3 scenes in the entire movie that have horrible CGI and all of them were when sharks were leaping out of the water to attack. I got over it, i knew the budget & therefore it did not worry me.

People on this site really need to grow and learn how to review titles based on their merit. You cannot compare low budget movies with likes of the hobbit, which got a rating of 8 stars. Consider if you have read the book of the hobbit, how horribly they replaced the real story for a pathetic elf/dwarf love story with CGI going through the roof. Anyone who had read the books would not rate the movies more than 6-7 out of 10. Why does it sit at 8 or above? Because of all the stupid CGI addicts, that think CGI is preferable to a good story.

When rating a movie, please, please use your brains. Allow for a low budget or if low budget is not your thing. Just do not watch it or review it please. You guys are ruining reviews for the rest of us.

Focus should always be on A. The budget. B. The Story C. Music/Atmosphere D. Acting E. CGI

There are more aspects, but for now all you scrubs please stick to these 5 points. NOT just CGI..

This was a pretty good movie for the budget. Comparing it to Pearl Harbor really reflects the stupidity of some people reviewing the movie.

I knew it was a B grade movie and it was 7/10 for a B grade movie in my opinion.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible movie.
bhstokes6 October 2019
I am a 78 year old retired Navy Chief, with 20 years duty. This movie is so bad, that after less than fifteen minutes of watching it, I turned it off. It does not depict the lives of sailors of that era. The racism shown did not happen; we were respectful of each other. One of the worst historical Navy movies I've ever tried to watch..... do not waste your time.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much Better Tale Of Survival And Scapegoating Than Most Of The Reviews Suggest
sddavis6323 August 2017
Just a few days ago the actual wreckage of the USS Indianapolis was discovered on the bottom of the Pacific, 18000 feet below the surface. When I heard that, I decided that I wanted to see this movie that was made as a tribute to the crew and events. I was completely prepared not to like it and to be regretting my decision to watch it within a few minutes. But having watched it I found myself scratching my head over the number of really bad reviews and wondering where they came from. I thought this was a pretty decent movie. Some people are getting picky about the special effects, etc. - but I found myself wondering if the bad reviews aren't somewhat similar to a shark feeding frenzy. So many people are saying bad things about it, so more and more people just pile on for the sake of piling on. But as the movie progressed I was asking myself the question: "what's (really) not to like about this?" Historically, it's a pretty accurate telling of the story. The USS Indianapolis set sail for Tinian without an escort to deliver components for the atomic bomb that would be dropped on Hiroshima within a few days of the events depicted here. Having completed that mission, it was left unescorted and was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. The ship sank, and the crew found itself in shark infested waters battling for survival for days because the Navy didn't really bother to look for them. (It was a classified mission, after all, and the Navy didn't want to really admit that the Indianapolis had even been out there and didn't report the Indianapolis overdue.) The bulk of the movie deals with the attempts of the crew to survive (about 75% of them were either killed instantly in the attack, drowned, died from various kinds of exposure or were taken by the sharks.) I found the story compelling and - in the end - even emotional.

Once the rescue is completed, the story turns in its last half hour or so to the search for a scapegoat. The Navy couldn't admit that it was responsible for leaving the Indianapolis unescorted and for its refusal to launch a search, so someone had to shoulder the blame. The choice was Capt. Charles McVay, portrayed by Nicolas Cage. I find myself wondering if Cage's presence isn't the real reason for many of the bad reviews. For whatever reason my sense is that Cage is looked upon with more than a bit of disrespect, and even contempt as an actor. There's no doubt that he's made more than a few stinkers, but then again he's made a huge number of movies so there are going to be some bad ones. This, in my opinion, was one of his better ones. I found him believable as McVay. McVay ends up being court martialled for failure to give the order to abandon ship quickly enough (he was acquitted on that) and for not taking sufficient evasive measures to avoid the torpedo-ing (on that he was found guilty.) As a character, perhaps McVay could have been fleshed out a bit more. The writers chose instead to give us too much backstory on too many of the crew members, apparently to provide some romantic and racial melodrama that could play out unnecessarily all through the movie. That was a weakness. I would have liked to have learned more about McVay's background. What we do eventually learn about the Captain of the Indianapolis is that he was scapegoated - the only captain of a vessel sunk by the Japanese who was court martialled for it. In the end, McVay was stricken with guilt over a number of things - mostly, it was survivor's guilt because he made it but so many of his crew didn't. He was haunted by that, hounded by the press and blamed by many of the families of those who died. It was also suggested (and - whether there's evidence to back this up or not - I find it believable) that he was tormented by his relatively small role in the development of the atomic bomb. In the end, guilt overcame him and he committed suicide in 1968, only to be finally exonerated by a resolution of the US Congress signed by President Clinton in 2000.

I thought all that was pretty well portrayed. Cage was good in the role, and although the role was much more limited, I also thought that Japanese actor Yutaka Takeuchi was solid as Hashimoto - the commander of the sub that sank Indianapolis. Controversially called as a prosecution witness at McVay's court martial (the only time an enemy officer has ever been called to testify at the court martial of an American officer) Hashimoto's testimony was actually sympathetic to McVay's position, and Hashimoto later became involved in efforts to have McVay exonerated. Although fictional, I thought the portrayal of Hashimoto and McVay meeting and speaking after the court martial and confessing their regrets to each other was quite powerful.

My advice would be to ignore the bad reviews and give this movie a chance. It's not a blockbuster by any means, but it's a pretty solid piece of history and it presents a good story. (8/10)
23 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Pretty Good!
larry-222-59411427 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I really enjoyed it! Spoiler alert. It was as good as any most war movie out there, however the real after math is far more interesting and would have earned it 10 stars if they'd have played this angle - the story of a 12 year old boy who actually won McVay's exoneration from Congress and the President in the year 2000.

Read this to get an idea of what was left out of the movie.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
shocked at how bad this story was told.
anthonybratchet15 October 2016
An actual true story I was expecting an amazing film but wow was this hard to watch! The start is like something from a cartoon not a big budget film from 2016! some of the scenes looked like props from a school play. terrible acting from all. Look at the scenes from top-gun on the ship real very tense this was more like a local theater show. Completely ruined this story just awful. Id racked my brain to find some part of it that was at least watchable but its really bad the start is just unbearable. Cage is not 1 of my favs but this was a terrible part as its meant to be a tense film but doesn't come close it was actually embarrassing to watch the acting honest I've seen better effects and acting from Sinbad the sailor. I pray that its just me and every one else enjoyed it but not me I'm afraid
51 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed