Awkward Moralizing Movie Confirmed, Sir.
Today's review: Crimson Tide, the only other movie in all of Sub month that's not going to be WWII based.
Crimson Tide has a very good premise, and in other circumstances, might have managed to be an action/thriller that really made you think. However, the “dilemma” turns out to be ridiculously one-sided (even when it shouldn’t be), and the action side of things is subpar. I went in expecting it to be not as good as The Hunt for Red October; I didn’t expect it to turn semi-preachy.
The story revolves around Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman), commander of the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Alabama, who’s just taken on a new executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington). A Russian extremist group is threatening to restart the cold war (and turn it into a hot one to boot), so the Alabama’s been sent out as a precaution. After about half-an-hour, during which the movie seems to be going in a “Hunter must adapt to the new way Ramsey does things” direction, the movie throws a curveball; an alert comes that the Alabama should prepare to launch its nuclear missiles. But due to a battle with an enemy sub, a follow-up message is cut off, so no one knows whether to launch or not. It rapidly becomes a case of for or against launching, with a particular battle between Ramsey’s experience vs. Hunter’s by-the-book nature. While it’s an interesting hook, the script goes about the idea all wrong.
The problem is that the movie unquestionably takes a side, and it comes down in favor of Hunter. Don’t get me wrong, potentially starting WWIII isn’t something you should do lightly, but Hunter is clearly meant to be the hero of the piece, even though Ramsey has a point. Maybe I’ve just seen too many older movies, but I’m used to movies where the guy who’s actually been out in the business/battlefield/whatever tends to win out over the one who’s only learned the “official” rules. Here, Hunter keeps citing rules, even though Ramsey points out rules that sound just as valid to me. But no, we’re supposed to see Ramsey as an irrational hardass, even though I, at least, was way more on his side.
It doesn’t help that the movie relies heavily on plot contrivances to keep up the tension. The whole dilemma wouldn’t have even come about if things hadn’t happened just so. While of course certain things have to happen for the sake of the plot, generally it should grow naturally from the story, not crammed in there because plot demands it. So by combining an unbalanced moral dilemma with cliché and contrivance, the result is a story that falls apart if you think about it too much.
The last thing to note is that the submarine side of things isn’t that well done either. The sub seems just a little too wide and spacious. In fact, over the course of the movie, we see that it has room to hold a punching bag, a record player, and a fish tank. Forget the space issue, I’m pretty sure the military wouldn’t allow at least two of these things on board. The movie also cops out on the one moment where the setting being a sub matters.* The Alabama is in danger at one point of going too low and being crushed by the pressure, but no matter how low they go, the sub shows no sign of distress; no creaks, no leaks, nothing. It’s a missed opportunity, especially since it could have let to more believable reasons for the plot to move forward.
While this isn’t a bad movie, it’s much weaker than it could be. If the movie had been more neutral, it could have been a gripping thriller, instead of mildly annoying. I don’t know if the movie intended to be cynical or not, but that’s certainly the impression it leaves, along with a very bad taste in my mouth.
*While it makes sense to take place on a sub in this case, a similar story could play out on any isolated space, be it plane, train, ship, or spaceship. All you really need is a bomb and a busted radio.
Crimson Tide has a very good premise, and in other circumstances, might have managed to be an action/thriller that really made you think. However, the “dilemma” turns out to be ridiculously one-sided (even when it shouldn’t be), and the action side of things is subpar. I went in expecting it to be not as good as The Hunt for Red October; I didn’t expect it to turn semi-preachy.
The story revolves around Captain Ramsey (Gene Hackman), commander of the nuclear submarine U.S.S. Alabama, who’s just taken on a new executive officer, Lieutenant Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington). A Russian extremist group is threatening to restart the cold war (and turn it into a hot one to boot), so the Alabama’s been sent out as a precaution. After about half-an-hour, during which the movie seems to be going in a “Hunter must adapt to the new way Ramsey does things” direction, the movie throws a curveball; an alert comes that the Alabama should prepare to launch its nuclear missiles. But due to a battle with an enemy sub, a follow-up message is cut off, so no one knows whether to launch or not. It rapidly becomes a case of for or against launching, with a particular battle between Ramsey’s experience vs. Hunter’s by-the-book nature. While it’s an interesting hook, the script goes about the idea all wrong.
The problem is that the movie unquestionably takes a side, and it comes down in favor of Hunter. Don’t get me wrong, potentially starting WWIII isn’t something you should do lightly, but Hunter is clearly meant to be the hero of the piece, even though Ramsey has a point. Maybe I’ve just seen too many older movies, but I’m used to movies where the guy who’s actually been out in the business/battlefield/whatever tends to win out over the one who’s only learned the “official” rules. Here, Hunter keeps citing rules, even though Ramsey points out rules that sound just as valid to me. But no, we’re supposed to see Ramsey as an irrational hardass, even though I, at least, was way more on his side.
It doesn’t help that the movie relies heavily on plot contrivances to keep up the tension. The whole dilemma wouldn’t have even come about if things hadn’t happened just so. While of course certain things have to happen for the sake of the plot, generally it should grow naturally from the story, not crammed in there because plot demands it. So by combining an unbalanced moral dilemma with cliché and contrivance, the result is a story that falls apart if you think about it too much.
The last thing to note is that the submarine side of things isn’t that well done either. The sub seems just a little too wide and spacious. In fact, over the course of the movie, we see that it has room to hold a punching bag, a record player, and a fish tank. Forget the space issue, I’m pretty sure the military wouldn’t allow at least two of these things on board. The movie also cops out on the one moment where the setting being a sub matters.* The Alabama is in danger at one point of going too low and being crushed by the pressure, but no matter how low they go, the sub shows no sign of distress; no creaks, no leaks, nothing. It’s a missed opportunity, especially since it could have let to more believable reasons for the plot to move forward.
While this isn’t a bad movie, it’s much weaker than it could be. If the movie had been more neutral, it could have been a gripping thriller, instead of mildly annoying. I don’t know if the movie intended to be cynical or not, but that’s certainly the impression it leaves, along with a very bad taste in my mouth.
*While it makes sense to take place on a sub in this case, a similar story could play out on any isolated space, be it plane, train, ship, or spaceship. All you really need is a bomb and a busted radio.