Crimson Tide

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.

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.

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.

Going into this run of Tony Scott films, I wanted Crimson Tide to be my favorite. I don't really know why beyond a certain affection for submarine movies in general. I'd seen it once before, remembered little about it, but felt like it could be the Tony Scott film that I got the most out of. Well, I did enjoy the film. It's slick and fun and tense, but it's also kind of inherently silly in a way that undermines it at key points all while it's pretty obvious that Don Simpson was looking at this as a way to legitimize himself after he'd been knocked back with the less than stellar box office returns of Days of Thunder. It's a weighty thriller unmade at its highest ambitions by the fact that it just doesn't quite feel real. Still, fun as it plays out.

Russia is going through turmoil as a separatist leader is leading an insurgency against the sitting federal government, rekindling the hot potential of war with the United States from the Cold War. In the middle of this is the US submarine, the Alabama, captained by Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman), an old seadog who has actually seen combat. Into his family of a crew he invites a new Executive Officer, Lt. Commander Hunter (Denzel Washington), after his previous XO is sidelined with appendicitis. It's obvious from the start that the two will butt heads, Ramsey dismissively noting Hunter's year at Harvard, a divide that becomes apparent in an early conversation on ship about the use of nuclear weapons in WWII.

You see, this conversation is kind of ground zero for why I can't actually take this film seriously. There's a talk about how there is a debate about the use of nuclear weapons to end WWII, but the talk is razor-thin and never actually goes into the pros or cons of the use in that specific case. It's just sitting there as this gauzy cautionary tale, with no specifics, about how the use of nuclear weapons can be world-ending. It's like it was written by someone who knows that there is a debate about the use of nuclear weapons but can't remember what either side actually says. In a film that's nominally about the use of nuclear weapons and the moral weight that such a decision carries, it's an odd way to try and ground your tale with a moral foundation.

But, it's obvious that Scott and his writer, Michael Schiffer, are mostly just interested in the situation as a great way to set up the pressure cooker that is dozens of men trapped in a metal tube in the middle of the ocean with death pressing up against the hull in every direction. Patrolling waters near the Eastern edges of Russia, namely a point near the Chinese and North Korean borders where a dispute over Russian nuclear silos is heating up, the Alabama, gets into conflict with a Russian sub that leaves its radio broken having received on message telling it to launch its ICBMs at the silos while a second message had been cut off in the middle of transmission that could say anything.

So, this is the source of the conflict. New XO and established Captain get into a head butting match about whether to follow the first order or to try and reestablish contact with their command to see what the second order is. On the surface, this is a great source of tension that drives everything, and what might be the film's saving grace is Tony Scott's slick, propulsive style that keeps things moving with new events (two sub attacks) along with the quality performances from everyone involved, most notably our two leads. However, it's ultimately kind of silly, especially considering the ticking clock, which takes what would be this great conflict of personalities like Run Silent, Run Deep, and instead leaves it as a facile piece of drama. I don't mind the facile drama on display. It's fun, but it's still facile.

You see, the problem is how the ticking clock works out. They have sixty minutes until the Russian separatists supposedly launch, but they're launch capable more than twenty minutes before that. Even if there is this conflict between the orders, why does Ramsey act like there's no way to wait a few minutes while the radio is being fixed until the last possible moment? It's obvious, from Hackman's performance, that he takes the idea of launching nuclear weapons as to be something of great weight and responsibility, but his actions are so gung-ho on the other hand. It's a contrast that the film doesn't seem to understand is there, especially late in the film when Ramsey does exactly that, making all of the dramatics of the previous forty minutes or so feel pointless.

However, as I said, those dramatics are fun. They're just thin. Ramsey desperately wants to follow the first order, so when Hunter declines, he tries to have Hunter removed. Hunter uses that as an excuse to remove Ramsey from his command. There's the second appearance of the enemy sub, torpedoes exchanged, pressure on the hull, a mutiny to the supposed mutiny as the officers split their loyalties. It really is helped by the fact that it's all cut so fast together while the actors give it their all (Scott really was good at getting performances from his actors).

And yet, I just wanted more. I wanted these professional sailors to act more professional, to find the tension through adults facing a terrible situation in the limits of their own experience. However, the film trends more towards irrational shouting from people who don't really feel like they belong in command at all. I mean, when Ramsey points a gun at Lieutenant Ince's (Viggo Mortenson) head, it's just too far, you know?

So, it's fun, but its one foot in realism betrays the rest of the film which isn't terribly realistic. I have a real soft-spot for submarine movies, pressure cookers for drama, and this does deliver that all on the backs of two high quality actors while the director speeds through everything in his own high-octane style. It's a good time at the movies, but it's just no The Hunt for Red October.

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.