Kraut Posted May 4, 2000 Share Posted May 4, 2000 This is a review from ebert of the latest hollywood blockbuster movie U-571, which i did not waste my money on and probably never will (especially after watching the "special" about the movie on the increasingly corny history channel) U-571" is a clever wind-up toy of a movie, almost a trailer for a video game. Compared to "Das Boot" or "The Hunt for Red October," it's thin soup. The characters are perfunctory, the action is recycled straight out of standard submarine formulas, and there is one shot where a man is supposed to be drowning and you can just about see he's standing on the bottom of the studio water tank. To some degree movies like this always work, at least on a dumb action level. The German destroyer is overhead, dropping depth charges, and the crew waits in hushed suspense while the underwater explosions grow nearer. We're all sweating along with them. But hold on a minute. We saw the Nazis rolling the depth charges overboard, and they were evenly spaced. As the first ones explode at a distance, there are several seconds between each one. Then they get closer. And when the charges are right on top of the sub, they explode one right after another, like a string of firecrackers--dozens of them, as leaks spring and water gushes in and lights blink and the surround sound rocks the theater. At a moment like this, I shouldn't be thinking about the special effects. But I am. They call attention to themselves. They say the filmmakers have made a conscious decision to abandon plausibility and put on a show for the kids. And make no mistake: This is a movie for action-oriented kids. "Das Boot" and "The Hunt for Red October" were about military professionals whose personalities were crucial to the plot. The story of "U-571" is the flimsiest excuse for a fabricated action payoff. Submarine service veterans in the audience are going to be laughing their heads off. Matthew McConaughey stars as Lt. Tyler, an ambitious young man who thinks he's ready for his first command. Not so fast, says Lt. Cmdr. Dahlgren (Bill Paxton). He didn't recommend his second-in-command because he thinks he's not there yet: Not prepared, for example, to sacrifice the lives of some men to save others, or the mission. This info is imparted at one of those obligatory movie dance parties at which all the Navy guys look handsome in white dress uniforms, just before they get an emergency call back to the boat. The mission: A German U-boat is disabled in the mid-Atlantic. On board is the secret Enigma machine, used to cipher messages. The unbreakable Enigma code allows the Nazis to control the shipping lanes. The mission of Dahlgren, Tyler and their men: Disguise their U.S. sub as a Nazi vessel, get to the other sub before the German rescuers can, impersonate Germans, capture the sub with a boarding party, grab Enigma and sink the sub so the rescuers won't suspect what happened. "But we're not Marine fighting men," protests one of the sailors. "Neither is the other crew," says a Marine on board, who has conveyed these instructions. "And I'll train your men." Uh, huh. In less than a week? There are no scenes of training, and I'm not sure what happened to the Marine. The details of the confrontation with the Nazi sub I will not reveal. Of course it goes without saying that Tyler gets a chance to take command and see if he has what it takes to sacrifice lives in order to save his men and his mission, etc. If you remember the vivid personalities of the sub crews in "Das Boot" and "Red October," you're going to be keenly aware that no one in this movie seems like much of an individual. When they do have dialogue, it's functional, spare and aimed at the plot. Even Harvey Keitel, as the Chief, is reduced to barking out declarative sentences. The crew members seem awfully young, awfully green, awfully fearful, and so headstrong, they border on mutiny. There's a scene where the (disguised) U.S. sub is checked out by a German reconnaissance plane, and a young sailor on the bridge panics. He's sure the plane is going to strafe them and orders the man on the deck machine gun to fire at it. His superior officer orders the gunner to stand fast. The kid screams, "Fire! Fire!" As the plane comes closer, the officer and the kid are both shouting their orders at the gunner. Without actually consulting Navy regulations, my best guess is that kid should be court-martialed. You can enjoy "U-571" as a big, dumb war movie without a brain in its head. But that doesn't stop it from looking cheesy. Producers Dino and Martha De Laurentiis and director Jonathan Mostow ("Breakdown") have counted on fast action to distract from the plausibility of most of the scenes at sea (especially shots of the raft boarding party). Inside the sub, they have the usual cliches: The sub dives to beyond its rated depth, metal plates creak and bolt heads come loose under the pressure. "U-571" can't be blamed for one story element that's standard in all sub movies: The subs can be hammered, battered, shelled, depth-bombed and squeezed by pressure, and have leaks, fires, shattered gauges, ruptures, broken air hoses, weak batteries and inoperable diesel engines--but in the heat of action, everything more or less somehow works. Better than the screenplay, anyway. In case you're wondering, the German sub on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is U-505, and it was boarded and captured not by submariners, but by sailors from the USS Pillsbury, part of the escort group of the carrier USS Guadalcanal. No Enigma machine was involved. That was in 1944. An Enigma machine was obtained on May 9, 1941, when HMS Bulldog captured U-110. On Aug. 23, 1941, U-570 was captured by British planes and ships, without Enigma. This fictional movie about a fictional U.S. submarine mission is followed by a mention in the end credits of those actual British missions. Oh, the British deciphered the Enigma code, too. Come to think of it, they pretty much did everything in real life that the Americans do in this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 OK, Kraut, nice try. Boy you thought long and hard on that one. Geez! How come it's the #1 Movie in America? ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How come it's the #1 Movie in America?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the Americans have no clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 I don't think we can totally psychoanalyze every single war movie ever made. If we did, then we would have to do the same with science movies, mystery movies, and so on. There are probably countless things that we see on television or the movies that in the mind of a scientist makes absolutely no sense, yet, is portrayed as being accurate and real. Innacuracies are going to be present in any movie. We, including myself, have been especially hard on SPR. But, I still have to say it is one of the greatest movies I have seen at a movie theatre. Despite its problems. The movie (U-571) combined two events into one fictional, yet extremely entertaining movie. If the crew were to be British, then the Americans would be the ones complaining about history. They could have had a mixed British and American crew, but, would anyone believe this? Actually, the Poles were the first to get a crack at Enigma. Their research, and a surviving working model was vitally important to the British success. The only historical innacuracy, and indeed logical impossibility which is... How did they know that there was a damaged and stranded German submarine if they needed to capture it in order to read the German naval code to read the message that there was a damged submarine to capture? This is probably taken care of in the movie. Was it through a Luftwaffe code which was cracked much before the Naval code? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: OK, Kraut, nice try. Boy you thought long and hard on that one. Geez! How come it's the #1 Movie in America? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This line of reasoning killed wargames as a viable mainstream genre. But you may have a point there, lets all go play Deer Hunter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How come it's the #1 Movie in America? Because the Americans have no clue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or maybe some people go to movies for entertainment value rather than nit-picking through minor details and historical inaccuracies. Don't get me wrong, I think historical accuracy is important, but it is not always necessary in film making. There's something known as "dramatization", where the film makers stretch the facts to heighten the impact of the film. 'U-571' could be classified as a WWII submarine action flick. At least they didn't impose a CGI of John Wayne as the Captain. Basically the same arguments against SPR's historical inaccuracies could be applied to this film as well. And so what? If it's an entertaining picture then that what brings in the Box Office dough. American "summer blockbusters" are usually just that--exciting, larger-than-life movies that ROCK people's senses. ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 05-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted May 5, 2000 Author Share Posted May 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: Bla bla bla ... something about nit picking and historic stuff, being entertained and rocking senses, and some more bla bla bla ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you're kinda right. I mean, that's why C&C sells millions of copies eventhough it sucks donkey nuts. I believe any game or movie can be a hit if you have enough flashbang, some gymmic (in this case it's the ww2 "ohh we have to remember the veterans and all they gave us" gig), and massive advertising to spread the word. Hell, if BTS were to buy some ad time on CNN and god knows where else, they'd probably sell a couple million copies. You could then put steve on FOX news and let him talk about how we have to honor this and that, and it would probably be good for another 500k copies. Anyways, the review is funny and i think the movie looks really lame. But that's just me ... MK ps. Do i have to put a ton of those smiley faces in my post so this doesn't come accross as a flame? Well, ok ... =) Good? Wunderbar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize all that was a quote from that jackass Roger Ebert. He wouldn't know a entertaining movie if he saw one. I thought that was your own take on the movie. Critics don't like sci-fi movies either. Hell, my new signature comes from the #1 most anticipated summer blockbuster film, "Battlefield Earth". A sci-fi film based on a classic sci-fi novel that takes place in 3000 A.D. when an alien race has taken over the Earth and then the human race fights back to take the planet back. Hence the first line in my signature. ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted May 5, 2000 Share Posted May 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: Or maybe some people go to movies for entertainment value rather than nit-picking through minor details and historical inaccuracies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, true, but if I see a movie and spot, for instance, that SS troops have their arm patches on the wrong arm it just isn't right. I'll give you a totally unrelated example. Last week I got bored and Space Jam was on TV (I happen to like WB cartoons). When I saw Bugs Bunny's first appearance I thought: It moves like Bugs, it acts like Bugs, but he doesn't sound like him. Therefore that Bugs Bunny was a fake, a doppleganger, and not the real one (bugs Bunny died when Mel Blanc did). Switched it off immediately... If you're gonna do it do it right, methinks... ------------------ Juju Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 Okay, listen to this. Father goes into work (he's a fireman in a city). Another guy tells him he saw the vaunted "U-571". My father asks "How was it compared to Das Boot?" The guy responds "What's Das Boot?" Immediately, the guy became the butt of many jokes. The movie is a joke. I take what I see from the vets. The U-Boat captain on the History Channel said the only fact was that "There was a Batle over the Atlantic Ocean in WWII." Sorry, not watching that (I'm brutal with some films). ------------------ Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn. Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 You think "U-571" is revisionist? Go see "Gladiator"! Geez! (or should that be Jupiter?) Talk about re-writing history for the sake of a story... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 Uhhh, H E L L O people. These are movies. There is most always some dramitization to carry a film on the silverscreen. Otherwise if you made every little detail historically accurate, it would be like listening to shows in the Star Trek Next Generation era with all of their techno-babble. Point is that most subjects taken at face value are just plain boring. So you have to spruce them up a bit. Granted I haven't seen it yet, but I usually go to movies to be entertained, not criticize every little accuracy error. Hell, I went to see SPR the first time to see some "good killin'" ------------------ "Why don't we say that we took this one chance, and fought!" "Stupid humans. Hahahahahahaha!" --from the film Battlefield Earth [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 05-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penubly Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 Taking in to account the innacuracies, I still enjoyed the movie. I think that anyone who is actually checking details at the level discussed is assured of a certain level of dissatisfaction. _____________________________________________ Quote: U-571" is a clever wind-up toy of a movie, almost a trailer for a video game. Compared to "Das Boot" or "The Hunt for Red October," it's thin soup. _____________________________________________ I agree with the comparison to "DAS Boot", but I can not watch "Red October." Talk about filled with idiocy. Driving a boomer through the ridges at speed, when you are supposed to be a silent black hole!! And what is with this singing at the first dive. Maybe in a propaganda flick, but nowhere else. ------------------ Always with the negative waves, Moriarty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 If "good killin" is what yr after, then "Gladiator" is for you. Hey, I liked the movie: The CGI work is fantastic! Russell Crowe is great! What I don't like is when screen-writers take historical characters and completely and totally change historical fact. Kinda like doing a WWII movie and having the Germans win the war. Kinda dampens the enjoyment factor for me. Tho yr mileage may vary... Oh --- and I'm looking forward to "Battlefield Earth" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Fat Guy Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 U-571 gets an F in history but an A in enjoyment in my grade book. My wife even liked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted May 6, 2000 Share Posted May 6, 2000 There is a movie coming out this summer set in the American Revolutionary War. The Patriot was originally intended to be based on Francis Marion, The Swamp Fox and an antagonist of the period, Sir Banastre Tarleton with an unsavory reputation for atrocities. The war in the southern states was as much civil as revolutionary, so neighbor's participation in the action on both sides got a little nasty. As a vehicle for Mel Gibson, the movie got a little out of hand historically. It seems that Hollywood had the deciency to thinly disguise the names of the characters. If one is going to tell a yarn about historical matters for fun and profit, that is the least that can be done. If it tweaks the interest of a couple of folks, so that they go to the trouble of finding out what really happened -- as far as the historians can piece together the story with the remaining fragments and can see through their personaly colored glasses -- then Hollywood's game has at least a couple of winners. Reconciling a personal yen for historical accuracy with the enjoyment of a well told yarn need not be painful, if the two are recognised and kept separate. Indeed, they can complement one another. Besides, those two exceptional Hollywood minions become succeptable to wargaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts