Question:
Another submarine movie K-19: The Widowmaker, hits the big screen. It's 1961 in which Harrison Ford (Clear & Present Danger) plays Captain Alexei Vostrikov, who is given command of the latest Russian nuclear submarine the K-19. The submarine is suffering from malfunctions during its construction and it's impossible for the crew to conduct missile drills.
Captain Mikhail Polenin (Liam Neeson) is not too pleased when Command of K-19 is transferred to Vostrikov, but he still serves in a honourable manner. The submarine is soon underway when Vostrikov starts conducting fire drills to get the crew up to speed. The crew are not too happy with their new Captain, but they are successful in conducting their launch of the test missile.
Soon after the missile test there's a leak in the nuclear reactor and this is when the crew are put under the pressure of stopping a nuclear explosion. This film is actually based on a true story about the crew of the K-19, but I don't know how much is fiction though. It's very similar to the TV film Hostile Waters, which was far superior to this, as it was filled with tension.
I generally find submarine movies engrossing viewing such as The Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide. This new film is rather a disappointment and should have been called The Drivelmaker, since it's riddled with clichés and is very predictable. The main problem with the film is there's no passion for the story, it's far too Hollywood in its construction.
The German u-boat film Das Boot has loads of passion and is in the German language. K-19: The Widowmaker should have been in Russian with a director that wanted to tell the story of the K-19. Kathryn Bigelow is really following the script she was given with no feeling for story and lacks any sort of tension. There is a sense of horror and dread from the radiation sickness, but that's thanks to makeup.
The acting is pretty poor, with both Ford and Neeson being laughable with their appalling Russian accents. The special effects are also pretty poor, when the submarine goes under water it's obvious computer graphics, especially the ice breaking sequence. I found K-19: The Widowmaker to lack the atmosphere of The Hunt for Red October and the tension of Crimson Tide. Overall, it's a pretty average affair.
EDIT Got Neeson's character name wrong. Oops!
Sad to see Bigelow doing bland crap like this.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/K19TheWidowmaker-1115600/
Even the favourable reviews have reservations.
Totally disagree with this review, i found it very easy to get into the story and i did genuinely care about the characters.
Also disagree. Good movie.
&threadid=122037
Saw this today and thought it was excellent. OK, the Russian accents aren't all that but they're a brief distraction - we're not talking Don Cheadle's Jamie Oliver impersonation in Oceans Eleven. 12 years ago Sean Connery was berated for not trying to do one in The Hunt For Red October so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Otherwise Ford and Neeson are fine.
The portrayal of life in the Soviet navy is very well done. The film really puts you aboard the submarine and immerses you in the sailors' routine so that, even though the characters aren't developed deeply, you still care strongly what happens when disaster strikes.
I admired that the film stayed entirely with the Soviet p.o.v. It validates my feelings about Black Hawk Down, that the immediacy of that movie would have been lost had it tried to portray both sides of the battle. Same here - by staying on the Russian side, we understand exactly why the sailors fear the American enemy, even when they appear to be the only hope of rescue.
The real star is director Kathryn Bigelow, who deserves prauise for another job well done and sympathy for turning out exciting, superbly made thrillers since the 80s (Near Dark, Blue Steel, Point Break, Strange Days) and watching them flop one by one while action audiences instead go to garbage like Tomb Raider, The Fast & The Furious and Charlie's Angels.
I'm with the last three posters - I can't believe how much bad publicity this film is getting. And the two star Empire review ('It ain't no U-571, enough said') is laughable – the toilet trash that was xXx got three for the love of god! This is Citizen Kane compared to the Bon Jovi flick. The accents aren't that bad - and the fact of the matter is that these guys spoke Russian, not English with an accent, so it was never going to be 'authentic' without subtitles.
I had major reservations about the cast. Or rather, about Harrison Ford. I haven't liked him in anything (or the films themselves) since The Last Crusade in ‘89. But both himself and Neeson convey the required amount of authority without ever overplaying it or trying to one-up the other. And on his first 'producer' credit, Ford doesn't go to his obvious strengths, or keep most of the best moments for himself. Maybe he’s got his balls back. There’s hope for Indy IV after all.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the film copes admirably with showing only one side of the 'situation' - a Russian submarine mission in 'peace time'. We know the conflict, we know the enemy (a polar opposite to Black Hawk Down). Indeed, in a nice touch there is a ‘Pipes of Peace’ scene that doesn’t even require the participation of the other side.
And no matter what you think about the rest of the film, there is no denying it has one moment of electrifying cinema. Ford tells his men that they have a nuclear reactor leak that needs shutting down ('uh, largely very dangerous'). As the radiation situation turns from 'be a hero now, pay later' into 'be a hero now, pay now', the tension is almost unbearable.
It's not without its flaws. The standard sub-in-nuclear-peril cliches are here, right down to the mutiny. And a large proportion of the exterior shots (both under and above water) are lifted from Titanic of all things. The 'loose ends' were probably the result of dramatic license where no update actually existed. And the coda never felt right. Not quite to the level of it's-better-to-have-a-beautiful-heart-and-a-sick-bucket. But the fact remains that it's 28 years later and it's hard to believe the reunion is populated as it is.
A tale worth telling, well told. And it would make a great double bill with Thirteen Days. ****
I must say that I agree with the last two posters, I saw the film on Saturday and it was superb. I was a little concerned that there was only two majors actors in the main leads but this didn't really matter as the supporting cast were good. An entertaining and engrossing film well worth the entrance fee and one I will be picking up on DVD.
I agree with the first review, average at best. Obviously you can't but help compare it with 'red october' and 'crimson tide' and it failed miserably in comparison, in my opinion naturally.
The main failing for me however was the lack of a 'baddy' if you like. Ill equipped sub sets sail, captain pushes crewe and ship to limit, ship breaks , some live some die as heros. For me it just didn't cut it.
Also the 'reactor' scenes just reminded me too much of the second Start Trek movie (where spok bites the bullet!).
Lastly I don't know how much of it was a true story either, what does 'inspired by actual events' mean! There was a K-19? There was a K-19 and these events hasppend? What.
Yes, there was a K-19 and these events happened. There is a fair bit of dramatic licence though - e.g. the initially cowardly chap in fact volunteered immediately in real life, medals were awarded and the captain came through a court martial having been vindicated (though his career was knackered). Plenty about this on the web if you search. The reactor was not likely to have exploded in yer actual fireball too, but whether the crew at the time really knew that for certain is another matter - so I say the film can get away with over-blowing the situation a bit.
I disagree with first poster, this film was excellent!! , under rated as usual though :mad:, so its a big thumbs up from me :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
Originally posted by Alan. b
I must say that I agree with the last two posters, I saw the film on Saturday and it was superb. I was a little concerned that there was only two majors actors in the main leads but this didn't really matter as the supporting cast were good. An entertaining and engrossing film well worth the entrance fee and one I will be picking up on DVD.
Just ordered it bruv, you can borrow it after i've seen it.:thumbs:
I'm ordering it this week too :clap:
Some films get misunderstood on release at times, Bladerunner-from nothing to cult status.
Captain Mikhail Polenin (Liam Neeson) is not too pleased when Command of K-19 is transferred to Vostrikov, but he still serves in a honourable manner. The submarine is soon underway when Vostrikov starts conducting fire drills to get the crew up to speed. The crew are not too happy with their new Captain, but they are successful in conducting their launch of the test missile.
Soon after the missile test there's a leak in the nuclear reactor and this is when the crew are put under the pressure of stopping a nuclear explosion. This film is actually based on a true story about the crew of the K-19, but I don't know how much is fiction though. It's very similar to the TV film Hostile Waters, which was far superior to this, as it was filled with tension.
I generally find submarine movies engrossing viewing such as The Hunt for Red October and Crimson Tide. This new film is rather a disappointment and should have been called The Drivelmaker, since it's riddled with clichés and is very predictable. The main problem with the film is there's no passion for the story, it's far too Hollywood in its construction.
The German u-boat film Das Boot has loads of passion and is in the German language. K-19: The Widowmaker should have been in Russian with a director that wanted to tell the story of the K-19. Kathryn Bigelow is really following the script she was given with no feeling for story and lacks any sort of tension. There is a sense of horror and dread from the radiation sickness, but that's thanks to makeup.
The acting is pretty poor, with both Ford and Neeson being laughable with their appalling Russian accents. The special effects are also pretty poor, when the submarine goes under water it's obvious computer graphics, especially the ice breaking sequence. I found K-19: The Widowmaker to lack the atmosphere of The Hunt for Red October and the tension of Crimson Tide. Overall, it's a pretty average affair.
EDIT Got Neeson's character name wrong. Oops!
Answers:
Sad to see Bigelow doing bland crap like this.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/K19TheWidowmaker-1115600/
Even the favourable reviews have reservations.
Answers:
Totally disagree with this review, i found it very easy to get into the story and i did genuinely care about the characters.
Answers:
Also disagree. Good movie.
&threadid=122037
Answers:
Saw this today and thought it was excellent. OK, the Russian accents aren't all that but they're a brief distraction - we're not talking Don Cheadle's Jamie Oliver impersonation in Oceans Eleven. 12 years ago Sean Connery was berated for not trying to do one in The Hunt For Red October so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Otherwise Ford and Neeson are fine.
The portrayal of life in the Soviet navy is very well done. The film really puts you aboard the submarine and immerses you in the sailors' routine so that, even though the characters aren't developed deeply, you still care strongly what happens when disaster strikes.
I admired that the film stayed entirely with the Soviet p.o.v. It validates my feelings about Black Hawk Down, that the immediacy of that movie would have been lost had it tried to portray both sides of the battle. Same here - by staying on the Russian side, we understand exactly why the sailors fear the American enemy, even when they appear to be the only hope of rescue.
The real star is director Kathryn Bigelow, who deserves prauise for another job well done and sympathy for turning out exciting, superbly made thrillers since the 80s (Near Dark, Blue Steel, Point Break, Strange Days) and watching them flop one by one while action audiences instead go to garbage like Tomb Raider, The Fast & The Furious and Charlie's Angels.
Answers:
I'm with the last three posters - I can't believe how much bad publicity this film is getting. And the two star Empire review ('It ain't no U-571, enough said') is laughable – the toilet trash that was xXx got three for the love of god! This is Citizen Kane compared to the Bon Jovi flick. The accents aren't that bad - and the fact of the matter is that these guys spoke Russian, not English with an accent, so it was never going to be 'authentic' without subtitles.
I had major reservations about the cast. Or rather, about Harrison Ford. I haven't liked him in anything (or the films themselves) since The Last Crusade in ‘89. But both himself and Neeson convey the required amount of authority without ever overplaying it or trying to one-up the other. And on his first 'producer' credit, Ford doesn't go to his obvious strengths, or keep most of the best moments for himself. Maybe he’s got his balls back. There’s hope for Indy IV after all.
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the film copes admirably with showing only one side of the 'situation' - a Russian submarine mission in 'peace time'. We know the conflict, we know the enemy (a polar opposite to Black Hawk Down). Indeed, in a nice touch there is a ‘Pipes of Peace’ scene that doesn’t even require the participation of the other side.
And no matter what you think about the rest of the film, there is no denying it has one moment of electrifying cinema. Ford tells his men that they have a nuclear reactor leak that needs shutting down ('uh, largely very dangerous'). As the radiation situation turns from 'be a hero now, pay later' into 'be a hero now, pay now', the tension is almost unbearable.
It's not without its flaws. The standard sub-in-nuclear-peril cliches are here, right down to the mutiny. And a large proportion of the exterior shots (both under and above water) are lifted from Titanic of all things. The 'loose ends' were probably the result of dramatic license where no update actually existed. And the coda never felt right. Not quite to the level of it's-better-to-have-a-beautiful-heart-and-a-sick-bucket. But the fact remains that it's 28 years later and it's hard to believe the reunion is populated as it is.
A tale worth telling, well told. And it would make a great double bill with Thirteen Days. ****
Answers:
I must say that I agree with the last two posters, I saw the film on Saturday and it was superb. I was a little concerned that there was only two majors actors in the main leads but this didn't really matter as the supporting cast were good. An entertaining and engrossing film well worth the entrance fee and one I will be picking up on DVD.
Answers:
I agree with the first review, average at best. Obviously you can't but help compare it with 'red october' and 'crimson tide' and it failed miserably in comparison, in my opinion naturally.
The main failing for me however was the lack of a 'baddy' if you like. Ill equipped sub sets sail, captain pushes crewe and ship to limit, ship breaks , some live some die as heros. For me it just didn't cut it.
Also the 'reactor' scenes just reminded me too much of the second Start Trek movie (where spok bites the bullet!).
Lastly I don't know how much of it was a true story either, what does 'inspired by actual events' mean! There was a K-19? There was a K-19 and these events hasppend? What.
Answers:
Yes, there was a K-19 and these events happened. There is a fair bit of dramatic licence though - e.g. the initially cowardly chap in fact volunteered immediately in real life, medals were awarded and the captain came through a court martial having been vindicated (though his career was knackered). Plenty about this on the web if you search. The reactor was not likely to have exploded in yer actual fireball too, but whether the crew at the time really knew that for certain is another matter - so I say the film can get away with over-blowing the situation a bit.
Answers:
I disagree with first poster, this film was excellent!! , under rated as usual though :mad:, so its a big thumbs up from me :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
Answers:
Originally posted by Alan. b
I must say that I agree with the last two posters, I saw the film on Saturday and it was superb. I was a little concerned that there was only two majors actors in the main leads but this didn't really matter as the supporting cast were good. An entertaining and engrossing film well worth the entrance fee and one I will be picking up on DVD.
Just ordered it bruv, you can borrow it after i've seen it.:thumbs:
Answers:
I'm ordering it this week too :clap:
Answers:
Some films get misunderstood on release at times, Bladerunner-from nothing to cult status.
1 2