Crimson Tide (1995) User Reviews

Very well made military drama

[mstomaso · 8/10 · 28 May 2005]

The suspense is relentless in this believable, tense and superbly acted war drama. One of the best modern war movies I have seen, Crimson Tide is a story about strained loyalty, respect, command, discipline, power, and military practice. Hackman and Washington are perfectly cast as an older battle-hardened nuclear submarine captain and his younger, less experienced but highly educated executive officer, caught in a crisis of potentially world-threatening proportions. Pursued by an enemy submarine, the USS Alabama has nuclear warheads aimed and ready to fire as a pre-emptive strike against a Russian rebel commanding his own nuclear arsenal. The Alabama is commanded to launch, and begins preparations, but the enemy sub attacks, knocking out all communications just as a second command is being received. The nature of that second command and what to do about then becomes the key problem that the Captain and XO have to deal with. Suffice to say, they do not agree on how to proceed, and the remainder of the film is a struggle between the two men and those who support each, in a crippled but still lethal sub, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.

What's is amazing about Michael Schiffer's story is its plausibility. The basic scenario upon which the script is based could happen. The cast - all of them - are spectacular, and the directing is masterful. Although some of the behavior of the men aboard the Alabama seems improbable at times, given the military realities of chain of command and discipline, the sheer performance power of this film's cast and production team make it all seem very real and extremely compelling. the characters are HUGE, complex, and real. More than just a cautionary tale, this is a very human drama about who people become under extreme conditions, and how they work out problems to reach solutions, or fail to do so. If that final sentence sounds cryptic, then let it entice you to see the film so you can figure out what I mean for yourself.

Intense!

[SmileysWorld · 8/10 · 29 January 2006]

I love this film for it's intensity,particularly the intense relationship of the characters portrayed by Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington.They are two men at odds in the worst of situations;the possibility of war.It all involves an incomplete transmission.It could mean war,it could mean nothing at all.What do you do?You could strike your enemy before he strikes you,but would the strike be uncalled for? It's the not knowing that creates the intensity.Hackman and Washington are excellent actors,which goes without saying since they are both Oscar winners,and they play off of each other extremely well in this film. This fact alone makes it a must see,but the film's content is equally as impressive.

1.45 hours training in submarine command language.

[fikamugg · 7/10 · 15 August 2011]

Denzel and Gene are the perfect choices for the leads. The score is simply amazing and deserves the Oscar. But anyway during the after texts i felt relief. 1.45 h of submarine command language can take its toll and be pretty indigestible.

The only thing that prevents me from putting a solid 8 out of 10 for this effort from Tony Scott are the totally unnecessary racial remarks made by Hackmans character captain Ramsey at the end of the movie. The Lipizzaner dialog could easily have been replaced with something else. It was very irritating and ridiculous simply because if Ramsey had preferences in skin color, he wouldn't have chosen a black man as an X.O. in the first place, right?

The served purpose was of course to help the viewer to take sides in the conflict but the audience had already done that. The audience had already understood that Ramsey associated Hunter with Harvard and military school theory and that he thought of him as a softy. The moment Hunter takes control of the conn, the sympathies lies with him.

Ramsey with his happy trigger-finger and "shoot first ask questions later" attitude was the stereotype perhaps needed to push some moral points about the problems with blind obedience and the ever recurring need of critical thought (especially amongst men in control of nukes). The audience got it, but to make sure the viewers didn't have any sympathies for the old commie-hater he must be throwing some racial epithets too. The choice in making characters over explicitly bad is quite common in Hollywood though, but more often than not the drama itself suffers from this practice. Characters made more shallow and one-dimensional, who wants that except the studio bosses? If they dumb it down and keep it within the stereotypes maybe they think it's easier to go break even, who knows? But in the same way as the US military can be saved from personnel like Ramsey maybe a well educated middle class one day can save the world from risk reducing studio bosses by demanding a dismantling of the stereotypes we all cherished and consumed for too long.

Wish Gene didn't retire

[rongall-38791 · 9/10 · 27 May 2023]

I saw a picture of 93 year-old Gene Hackman the other day riding a bicycle. He still has the youthful energy. I'll bet he could act if he still wanted to. We lost Michael Caine to retirement this last year and Jack Nicholson hasn't come back either. Three of the best to ever do it. Well...make that four with Denzel Washington. Hope he goes for many more years.

We don't appreciate these guys when we have them. I was a kid when this movie came out but I remember the fight between Hackman and Washington like it was 10 minutes ago. I've never seen a more intense scene. It might even be one of the best square offs in cinematic history and there's only one punch! Two of the greatest actors to ever walk the Earth and in the same scene. What a climax. Thank you Denzel and thank you to Gene Hackman. I hope you un-retire for one last go.

Red Alert, Red Alert, Red Alert, Red Alert....

[tfrizzell · 10 July 2004]

Tense little action thriller on par with "The Hunt for Red October" has a nuclear submarine commander (Gene Hackman) and his new second-in-command (Denzel Washington) getting in a chess match of words and wits ala "Mutiny on the Bounty". Russian rebels may be about to launch nuclear missiles at any moment. Commands come through for Hackman to detonate the weapons from their ship, but then another message after that one which is incomplete splits the entire crew. Hackman thinks it is time to take control with aggression while Washington believes that this is way too important without knowing everything there is to know. A wide range of characters on the submarine (which includes Viggo Mortensen, Steve Zahn, James Gandolfini, Rick Schroeder, George Dzundza) must decide which of the all-world performers they are going to side with. The screenplay is mediocre really, but Hackman and Washington know how to overcome that and director Tony Scott keeps the pulse of his audience in high over-drive. Definitely an acceptable piece from the genre. 4 stars out of 5.

Tension and suspense achieved

[Agent10 · 7/10 · 1 June 2002]

This is the type of movie Tony Scott should have stuck to creating. While most Jerry Bruckheimer films prove to be bad, modern interpretations of old school martial arts movies, this was one of the better films Bruckheimer ever produced. While the story was completely plot-driven and the performances a little over the top, the rivalry between Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman made this film a cut above the rest of the trash Bruckheimer tends to produce. While simple and direct, it proves to be effective in the annals of storytelling, never overindulging the viewer.

One Of The Best Submarine Movies...

[underfire35 · 9/10 · 11 February 2004]

As CRIMSON TIDE opens we visit various crew members of the USS Alabama as they bid farewell to their loved ones. For one man, Lt. Cmdr. Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington), it will be his first time as second in command of a nuclear submarine. Capt. Frank Ramesy (Gene Hackman) is in charge and is not shy about letting everyone know. He is a seasoned veteran, as juxtaposed with the young idealistic Hunter. The early scenes do much to set up the main conflict of the film. For example when members of the crew discuss Carl Von Clausewitz, and his 1832 work Vom Kriege ("On War"), the intellectual showdown occurs between Ramesy and Hunter. This scene not only heightens the tension, but also reveals the different philosophies of these two men, what they believe in, why they are there. This short scene goes a long way to setting up why each of these characters are so unbending when the crisis presents itself.

The Crisis: The ship has been damaged and the EAM contact that has been received is disjointed. The Russian force (who is never very carefully explained) is fueling rockets for use against the US. That's all they know. The captain wants to surface and fire, Hunter thinks he's wrong. Factions form, but the film does a good job presenting a good argument for both desicions (although you get the sense that the film makers lean towards the "dove" side rather than the "hawks"). As tensions mount, there are various shifts in power and the crew stands divided. Every member of the crew watching as the minutes tick by, closer and closer to the final moment of truth...

Hackman is at the top of his form here as the relentlessly tough Ramesy. When given a good script with room to work, there is few better at creating a solid performance. The looks he gives, the way he uses his eyes, his speech patterns, simply wonderful to watch. Washington is just as good as Hunter, and the showdown between these two men, near the end, sends sparks flying off the screen. The rest of the cast is filled out with strong actors: Matt Craven, George Dzundza, (pre LOTR's) Viggo Mortensen, and (pre 'Sopranos') James Gandolfini.

As is well known, the script received various rewrites from Robert Towne (the Clausewitz scene), Steve Zaillian, and Quentin Tarantino (the Silver Surfer references, the scene where the crew chimes in about other submarine movies). All these different contributions blends fairly well together. The story is tough and direct, and touches on points that heighten the tension. The photography, by Dariusz Wolski (DARK CITY, THE CROW), is tight and atmospheric; Hans Zimmer's score pounding and reflective. The VIP vote, however, goes to Tony Scott, who proves himself with this film. He knows when to hold shots and doesn't rush the action (as he did with TOP GUN); he paces the film well and let's his actors work for him. CRIMSON TIDE is an entertaining and challenging film that, along with films like THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER and DAS BOOT, may set the high water mark (forgive the pun) for the genre. 9/10.

Jon Monsarrat review: intelligent and thrilling

[johnnymonsarrat · 7/10 · 30 March 2002]

Although billed as a film about a deep issue (how much control submarine commanders should have over their nuclear weapons), Crimson Tide is really a straight action flick in my opinion. However, it is intelligent and definitely a cut above the action/thriller stereotype.

Superbly acted by the best -- never fail actors Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman -- they keep the tension at an eerily high peak throughout the film.

Who should see this film:

-- action movie buffs

-- borderline action lovers who won't build false expectations that there's a lot of deep issues and drama going on here

-- Arty types who are refined enough to appreciate the acting, sets, and dialogue even if they don't normally like action films

Suspense plays a large role in the film, so once you've seen it you know what's coming and may not wish to see it again someday. Only this limits it to getting a 7 out of 10 in my book.

Wow! What an adrenaline rush!

[doofy51 · 9/10 · 3 September 2000]

Crimson Tide is awesome in the way it creates intensity and non-stop adrenaline rushes using scenes full of action, and scenes that aren't. The torpedo attack with the Russian sub was so fast-paced and packed with energy that it makes you bounce in your seat. Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington gave awesome performances, and their growing tension towards each other is enough to keep the excitement at a consistent high through the last half of the film. I don't appreciate how Hackman's character is regarded by most moviegoers as a mad man. He is just simply a seasoned, tough-as-nails military officer who must assume that the US is in danger, and he must stick by the orders that require him to go to drastic measures to protect us. The director did a good job at raising the tension, even though the ending was very predictable. The message at the very start of the film set the perfect tone. The entire film is in a way scary by making us wonder if what would happen in a situation like this, and how could the military establish proper operating procedures for it. However, the message at the end of the film re-establishes some hope. 9/10, and I love the creative title.

Appalling

[Mister-S · 4/10 · 20 September 2003]

What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.

Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.

Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!

Good, but...

[Ricardo_Aparicio · 24 August 2003]

Enjoyable, good tension, good dilemma, good cast. But:

You have a movie like this where either Washington's or Hackman's character side could be right about their course of action. The aim of the movie, ostensibly, is to present both sides and let the viewer figure out which is the correct course.

But you can't possibly side with Hackman, can you?

After all, his character goes nuts when everything starts happening. His character is possibly racist. And his character is prepared to launch nukes. Washington's character is, quite nobly, none of those things.

Ho hum. Hollywood audience manipulation at its finest.

Would it kill these writers and producers to present a dilemma movie in an intelligent fashion for once? I'd like to struggle with "who's right and who's wrong?" just once in my moviegoing life.

Count down three minutes till Doomsday.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 17 May 2003]

Excellent military drama with more intrigue and thrills than action. There is a clash of wills between the Captain(Gene Hackman)and his Lt. Commander(Denzel Washington)aboard the nuclear submarine USS Alabama. The mission is to avert an impending nuclear conflict with Russia. Hackman and Washington are tense and superb. Other submariners include:Viggo Mortensen, Rocky Carrol, Matt Craven, George Dzunda and James Gandolfini. Man the torpedos and stand by. You will witness that thin line between wrong and right.

Solid Tony Scott thriller with a lot of great actors

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 17 March 2014]

Russia is suffering political instability as rebels threaten launching nuclear war against US and Japan. The US sends nuclear submarine, the Alabama, off to sea. Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman) needs a new XO. Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington) is brought on board. The two are cordial at first, but soon differences surface. Ramsey is old-school and doesn't think much of the college educated Hunter. When they receive a disputed order to launch, the two men struggle to get the upper hand.

It is a compelling exciting submarine movie. There isn't an easy bad guy although we're meant to empathize with Denzel. The pairing of Hackman and Washington generates a lot of energy and a lot of acting power. They have a great back and forth during the climax. They are backed up by great supporting actors Matt Craven, George Dzundza, Viggo Mortensen, James Gandolfini, and Rocky Carroll. Director Tony Scott delivers a solid thriller.

I worked too much in the 90's and missed this one,

[bencrea · 10/10 · 21 March 2021]

This film was epic, I forgot how good Gene Hackman was at acting. Some of the cast ended up being huge players in the industry or already were and the whole film gelled together perfectly. Tony Scott has a great way of directing camaraderie among servicemen as he did with Top Gun, he always makes them feel like they're real people just being their natural selves. RIP, what an amazing body of work those brothers have together and separately. This film stands up today and will do for generations to come.

Good acting lifts the rather ordinary scenario

[raymond-15 · 7/10 · 10 March 2003]

It's ages since I watched a film about a submarine and its crew. Scripts it seems haven't changed that much. The same tensions, accidents and arguments among the submariners. This time the dissention is between the Captain ( Gene Hackman) and the Lt. Commander (Denzel Washington). They have opposing ideas on the use of nuclear weaponry.

The only relief from the tension is the Captain's pet dog who seems to have a calming effect on the Captain's sudden angry outbursts. It surprised me that a dog would be allowed to go to sea in an American submarine. Surely the "No pets allowed" rule applies.

There are some great lines in the film e.g. when the Captain says "Anyone who does not agree with me must leave the sub.immediately". The closing lines of the film are unexpected and send the viewer away with a smile. There is little else to smile about in this film.

The film portrays the courage and fortitude of the submariners. We have to acknowledge they are brave men. The navy insists that the line of authority must be respected al all times. The film makers take some liberties here. Because of the possibility that the Captain's decisions could propel the globe into World War 111, the first mate has him locked up in his cabin! The change of command divides the crew- a situation I felt was rather too easily rectified.

Denzel Washinton's best movie, period

[shortround8391 · 10/10 · 10 April 2009]

"Crimson Tide" is one of my favorites and to me is the best submarine movie ever made. And I don't understand why people say the "The Hunt for Red October" is THE submarine film. Because, to me THFRO was very long and moved at a snail's pace, and also the murky underwater action scenes were hard to look at because you could hardly see what was going on.

However, "Crimson Tide" is an improvement in my opinion. It's over 2 hours long, but its pace moves by so fast that you're not gonna realize it. But if you're looking for tons of explosions and gunfire, then this ain't your kind of movie, it happens to be more suspense-oriented. Otherwise, you can just check out "Die Hard", "Terminator" or "Aliens", for the action-packed extravaganza that most people want. But I guess the scene in which the subs face off and each are firing the torpedoes at each other could be considered action. And that scene in probably the best part of the entire movie since there is no way anyone could resist the suspense and especially when the sub is sinking and the water pressure is rising and it could compress at any second.

Without going on and on too much I'll just give the basic premise of the movie so you won't get too confused. It's been a couple years after the Soviet Union collapsed and now a radical leader and his followers are trying to takeover the Russian government and is threatening to launch nuclear missiles into both the United States and Russia itself if they interfere with him. And the USA sends a submarine with nuclear missiles out to the Pacific Ocean in case the event of when the Russian missiles are launched and they could instantly counter-attack. But the two commanding officers clash on whether or not the missiles should be fired since they are debating if Russia is attacking or not. But since they are so far down in sea level, they can't communicate to get their orders. At first, it may seem uninteresting, but you'll realize how much suspense and tension is in here when you see it.

As for the acting, well what can I say? Denzel Washington has gotta be the greatest method actor in Hollywood right now and "Crimson Tide" is a prime example. So far in his career, he already won an Oscar for "Glory" and "Training Day" in which he gave two outstanding performances that will forever be remembered in Hollywood. But his work in "Crimson Tide" is, and I dare say, tops both of his Oscar-winning performances. He plays the lead role as Lt. Commander Ron Hunter, who is objecting his Captain's orders to attack Russia since it would cause a complete nuclear holocaust with billions of deaths involved.

Gene Hackman, who is another Hollywood favorite, is Captain Frank Ramsey, the crazy old guy who will stop at nothing to ensure that World War III between the USA and Russia happens. His character even preferred to have a missile drill happening when the sub had a fire and its safety was endangered, and as a result an officer lost his life.

Hackman's character represents the way the USA was before in a time of war, and they seeked anything to get involved in that war so other countries would fear them. Washington's character symbolizes what the USA is like during the 1990's and they would try to stay as neutral as possible. Also, the scene when Denzel and Gene are arguing and shouting over each other about the nukes and before the mutiny happens has gotta be one of the greatest acted scenes ever. And this basically provides the tension that makes "Crimson Tide" what it is as a film. And the bulk of the movie, the question "Will they launch or not?" goes on. Just watch it and found out.

Also, the dialogue is among the best I've ever heard, and heck, I'll say that it even challenges "Pulp Fiction" as having some of the best lines ever. What's interesting is that Quentin Tarantino provided some of it in here and that's clearly evident. The Silver Surfer reference and the submarine movie trivia are the real punch-ups here. My favorite line from this is "You don't put on a condom unless you're gonna f**k!".

"Crimson Tide" is an excellent thriller movie that stands out because of the suspense, the tension, the acting and the punchy dialogue. Do yourself a favor and forget "The Hunt for Red October"! "Crimson Tide" will blow you away!

Good movie with a major flaw

[dawgman67 · 7/10 · 26 July 2021]

Good movie but the mutiny could easily be prevented. They had to go to 150' to launch. At that depth prior to the damage to communication they could've easily gotten the EAM.

Masterclass

[Tweetienator · 8/10 · 8 August 2022]

I watched Crimson Tide a few times and every time it is an intense and suspenseful drive - an extremely thrilling story, and a cast giving a top notch performance: Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington at their prime, the supporting cast is fine too, and last but not least, the production leaves little to be desired.

Endless Epic Music = Sunken Story

[thespeos · 7/10 · 18 June 2022]

If you like movies like "Gladiator" (2000) then you'll love this: all meat, no nutrients.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This is a very poor attempt to meld two very good stories: "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935 and 1962)* and "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958), both of which are excellent films. This is simply modern tripe (tripe can be both meat or something useless, which is why I call these types of films all meat, no nutrients).

It has scant "character development" and it's "story" is hollow ... yes, like a sub. There's endless male choral / epic-sounding music, and proficient use of the "f" bomb, but that's it. Endless music is a near-guarantee that a film lacks substance, even among the classics I love so much.

* Note: Both are excellent and very well acted. The question is do you prefer Gable or Brando?

ACTING: You'd expect solid acting from Washington and Hackman, and they deliver. But that's all you get.

Neither is giving us anything new in range of character quality, just the same personalities in different costumes.

ENTERTAINMENT: For males who want constant tension and testosterone, this is for you. Otherwise, value is low.

TEMPO: OK, I suppose

CINEMATOGRAPHY: It's the inside of a submarine ...

DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Tony and brother Ridley (not on this film) churn out the same male-oriented drivel, over and over ... ad nausea. On a rare occasion one of them delivers something interesting, e.g. "Enemy of the State" (1998), "Alien" (1979), "Black Hawk Down" (2001). Between them, Ridley appears the far more capable. But as a whole, the cache of their work is fairly predictable and is confined to a sliver of genre.

Writers: Both writers have very small portfolios, and there's not much in those to speak of, if at all.

Is it a good film? Yes, and no

Should you watch this once? Maybe

Rating: 7.0 (not a drop more)

Terrible Movie

[kenboard220 · 1/10 · 8 April 2007]

As a former submariner, this was one of the worst submarine movies I have ever seen. First of all, a mutiny aboard any US Naval vessel, particularly a Nuclear Powered Trident submarine in unthinkable. These men are the best of the best and are dedicated to their mission. The responsibility they carry is awesome and they take it very seriously all the way from the Captain to the most junior crew member. I could never see a crew of any ship split their alliance between the Captain and the Executive Officer. An Executive Officer who acted as the Character played by Denzel Washington did would be relieved of his duties and Court Martialed, then drummed from the Navy. It is no surprise the Navy refused to send a technical adviser to help in making this film. Lastly, if any member of a submarine crew made the amount of noise made underway on this vessel they would be severely reprimanded. Submariners learn early in their career to be as quiet as possible to avoid detection. They don't slam doors and even speak quietly and wear soft soled shoes when underway. I was amazed at how loud they portrayed the crew while underway. Loud music would never be tolerated. I know portraying submarine life in reality would not sell movie tickets, but this is over the top to the point of being ridiculous. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.

An excellent fast moving thought-provoking film

[vad-2 · 1 March 1999]

There have been few war-type films (Saving Private Ryan was another) which have been so thought-provoking. The acting and action was excellent as could be expected from such a cast so my comments are really centred on the story line and its presentation. Set in the scenario of the post-cold war Russia, which is still with us, the basic confrontation which faces every naval commander of a nuclear submarine was brought to stark reality in this film. Who has the final say when it comes to pushing the button? Dependence on technology which is not infallible highlights the weakness of humans who become its slaves rather its masters. Ultimately the stark choice between life and death, between fiction and reality can become blurred when cut off from the world inside a deep sea submarine. How many times has this happened one can only wonder. Since we are all here it can be assummed that the CExcO portrayed by Denzel Washington always won or the type of persons portrayed by Hackman do not exist. Good triumphed over evil.

I wonder what happened to the men who mutineered, they seem to have been forgiven, for an offence still punishable by death, at least in the British navy. It's easy to criticise many technical mistakes in the film and some of the improbabilities but the main points were made and shown well. This film rates just as high as Red October, which was of a similar theme but also excellent. I wonder if Burt Lancaster ever sees these films? In its day Run Silent Run Deep had a lot to recommend it, but that is for another Comment at another time when I see it again

How is this film rated as low as 7?! Shocking!

[PsychoBeard666 · 10/10 · 28 February 2021]

Denzel Washington, Gene Hackman, James Gandolfini, Viggo Mortensen...

Hans Zimmer. Tony Scott.

Absolute gold!

Not Das Boot, but not bad either

[Ismaninb · 7/10 · 4 March 2007]

Every producer and director shooting a submarine movie has one big problem: the unsurpassable Das Boat (1981) from Wolfgang Pedersen. Everyone who knows that one, immediately recognizes how much Crimson Tide borrows. Still it succeeds in adding a few new elements. So some of the criticism I have read is unfair. The movie is not realistic? Sure, but that is not what it is about. If an artist wants to make a point, (s)he often has to sacrifice realism. Read Homerus or Shakespeare for some examples. The point is of course the conflict between Hunter and Ramsey. That is an important one, even if it is impossible in the real world. I am not a fan of either Washington or Hackman. In Crimson Tide they do a decent job - not more - by making the conflict trustworthy, as long as the movie lasts. The Russians are stereotypical crooks? We hardly meet one in the movie. The world is saved not by heroism of the American Navy, but because the Russian government does her job. The possibility of a nationalist coup d'état was not that unlikely. Remember Boris Jeltsin locked up in the Russian White house? There were some generals involved. The final handshake is not credible? The whole point is, that the two main characters never really dislike each other. They are willing to cross some lines just to do what they think is right. It is not a good guy versus bad guy scheme. Both Hunter and Ramsey are right; in the movie it is impossible for both and for the spectator to decide. So far the strong points, which are enough for a 7/10 for me. Being a chauvinist I must make clear, that a skillful European director would have made much more of the drama. The solution of the conflict is very predictable. And when things become hard, Tony Scott grabs what Hollywood directors know best: violence and action. To summarize: Crimson Tide is a decent, not brilliant but neither awful action thriller. There is certainly not as much shouting as for instance in The Rock, which can be compared in several ways. The characters of Crimson TIde are not uninteresting, like those of The Rock. Crimson Tide dares to leave the usual good-bad scheme. The message is simple, but still important enough: the importance of correct procedures cannot be underestimated. See Crimson Tide that way and you will be able to forget its flaws.

Tony Scott, RIP

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 12 October 2012]

Prior to Tony Scott's recent suicide, I hadn't seen most of his movies. But now I've seen "Crimson Tide". This portrays tension aboard a nuclear submarine when the hot-headed captain (Gene Hackman) wants to go ahead with a launch while the restrained executive officer (Denzel Washington) wants to wait for another signal. I didn't think that it was a great movie, but the context of rebel forces in Russia threatening to launch nukes brings up the issue of how secure weapons of mass destruction anywhere are, combined with the risk that a trigger-happy might ignore an incomplete message and decide to launch weapons. The point is, who can truly be considered sane in a completely insane situation?

Like I said, it's not any kind of masterpiece, but still worth seeing. Great tension between Hackman and Washington. Appearing in early roles are James Gandolfini, Steve Zahn, Ryan Philippe and Daniel Von Bargen.

suspend reality

[graewlfe · 6/10 · 17 July 2005]

Overall this was a good action flick, but as with pretty much all things "Hollywood" they don't take reality into consideration. The premise of this story was something the Navy went through long before the nuclear missile program ever went into action, and there are many more checks and balances than are shown in the movie. From the action at the beginning of the movie (fire in the galley with a ship-initiated drill during the aftermath - wouldn't happen), to the "single radio" in the communications shack (there are MANY options), this show is a nice way to scare people, but does not reflect the reality of serving onboard a Trident submarine. Enjoy the action, enjoy the play between Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman, but remember that this is Hollywood, was NOT endorsed by the US Navy, and is stretching a lot of things to make a "good flick" .. RM1(ss), plankowner, USS Nebraska (SSBN 739 Blue). (and yes, that means I've served on a Trident submarine)