I remembered reading about the Kursk in the newspaper as a kid. I would've much preferred the whole thing in Russian. In fact the whole film suffers at times from the weird mix of accents on display. Colin Firth's presence is somewhat puzzling. There's not much else memorable about anything else. Matthias Schoenaerts is the standout performance here. I even began adjusting the settings of my TV thinking something had gone wrong. At first I got the vibe of an old home video. Both the opening scenes and final scenes are presented in what resembles a tiny box. I hated the director's choice of film ratios. It's also not nearly as well-written or executed as the likes of 'Chernobyl'. It's basically 'Chernobyl' but with a submarine. Well you know this ain't going to be sunshine and rainbows going in. Why it was turned into a soap opera is beyond me. The bleeding edge technical aspects, the high stakes already make the Kursk's sinking and the rescue attempts under extremely difficult storm conditions compelling drama and action. It comes off like a "Lifetime Network" cheesy melodrama. Now on the film itself I just can''t recommend it. it is political elements in Russia that underfunded and rushed the Kursk dangerous and haphazard refitting, that pushed early deployment, not their navy. Ok, I am not fan at all of Soviet communism, of Russian nationalism under Putin, but this film is not bashing those evils - it is bashing the Russian navy and doing so with falsehoods. While that was always an unlikely scenario, it could not be ruled out at the time - BUT for a decade they Russian Navy and sober Russians have known,with 100% certainty, this was a torpedo malfunction inside the Kursk. 5) Some commentators here are repeating long debunked myths that the Kurks was sunk in a collision with a US boat or some other external cause. Kursk's bow was 75' into the mud and the boat was at a list of 60 degrees meaning given all the rescue methods that at the time relied on vacuum seal would not work. 4) it is a virtual certainty that US, UK or other NATO assistance could not have saved a single life on the Kursk. Any and all information about a submarine is useful to the adversary and even seemingly trivial data puts all other submarines on your side at risk - and therefore reduced the deterrent effect of your submarine force. Ballistic and nuclear submarine service is in essence war footing all the time including during peacetime. But refusal to take assistance is also the rule with nuclear armed submarines on all sides. Yes most anyone who goes to sea, even adversaries, are inclined to help. These are high order state military secrets. It was a massive secret operation because learning anything of a soviet submarine was of huge value (google: Project Azorian). The US spent present value four BILLION dollars to pull up a few pieces of a sunken Russian submarine, whose wreckage was at 16,000 feet (5 kilometers deep) in the pacific. Both ballistic missile and attack submarines are closely guarded secrets. 3) No one, not the US, not the Chinese, not the USSR/Russians is going to ask or allow help from an adversary in raising or rescuing personnel on a nuclear submarine, especially a advanced one. During conscription and volunteer (US) and conscription (USSR/Russia), assignment to submarine is elite and sought after assignment for both officers and enlisted personnel. 2) In the US and USSR and Russian Navy's NO ONE is forced into submariner service. Peacetime submarine service is less fatalities per man year than occur in land vehicle accidents, air crashes etc. Like in any other war the high ranked never risk anything, they get the praising in case of victories, and are never to blame if something goes wrong, so for that it's all well accurate to me.ฤก) despite half dozen or so peacetime submarine accidents with casualties of about 100, in comparison to peacetime army, surface navy, air force, both the US and USSR/Russian submarine services have been relatively low causality. And whatever the accuracy of details are the fact that so many people lost their lives because of the stubborness of their superiors is just a big shame. There are no weak moments in Kursk what makes this story a captivating movie. Matthias Schoenaerts, definitely one of my favorite Belgian actors did another good job playing his character. I'm a Belgian and used to read subtitles so that was what I was expecting. I'm sorry but when you have an entire Russian crew you expect them to speak Russian and not English. Personally I would have used the real languages of the characters instead of making a full English spoken movie. I vaguely remember the details when the drama happened for real but the details that I remembered were all present in this movie. I have no clue if the story is accurate or not (not when I read some other reviews) but to me it just didn't really matter as I watched this movie to be entertained and entertaining it was.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |