Kursk

It tells the story of 23 survivors on a Russian submarine, and how the rescue mission is handled by the government. It is a sad story, which makes it even more engaging. It is an emotional rollercoaster that takes you to a hopeful up, then a desperate down. The process is then repeated, and tears are likely to fall from viewers' eyes.

Firstly some facts: 1) 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. Peacetime submarine service is less fatalities per man year than occur in land vehicle accidents, air crashes etc.

2) In the US and USSR and Russian Navy's NO ONE is forced into submariner service. During conscription and volunteer (US) and conscription (USSR/Russia), assignment to submarine is elite and sought after assignment for both officers and enlisted personnel.

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. Both ballistic missile and attack submarines are closely guarded secrets. 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. It was a massive secret operation because learning anything of a soviet submarine was of huge value (google: Project Azorian). These are high order state military secrets. Yes most anyone who goes to sea, even adversaries, are inclined to help. But refusal to take assistance is also the rule with nuclear armed submarines on all sides. Ballistic and nuclear submarine service is in essence war footing all the time including during peacetime. 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.

4) it is a virtual certainty that US, UK or other NATO assistance could not have saved a single life on the Kursk. 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.

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. 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.

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. it is political elements in Russia that underfunded and rushed the Kursk dangerous and haphazard refitting, that pushed early deployment, not their navy.

Now on the film itself I just can''t recommend it. It comes off like a "Lifetime Network" cheesy melodrama. 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. Why it was turned into a soap opera is beyond me.

I watch all films by Thomas Vinterberg. "Festen" was great; "The Hunt" was excellent. "Kursk" ("The Command") successfully recreates the tight life on a submarine. But it does not live up to its self-billing of a "true story." The film blames Navy admirals (sweet to see the old Max von Sydow one last time) for refusing foreign help. In fact, the new Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who refused help for days. Moreover, Putin did not interrupt his Black Sea vacation to engage in the rescue of the sailors. It was not "Admiral Petrenko" as you allege in the film, but Russian President Putin himself, who met with the families in a closed doors multi-hour meeting. A new widow of the submarine sailor emotionally criticized Putin, and was forcibly tranquilized (!) and removed from the room.

Dear Vinterberg: were you scared to portray Russian President Putin in the film? If so, don't undertake such a film, or at the very least don't call it a "true story." Even later, when Larry King, asked Putin in an interview "What happened to the submarine?" -- Putin replied with a callous smirk "She drowned." The heart-breaking letter was written by the dying Dmitri Kolesnikov, the commander of the torpedo section, to his wife -- why not honor him by using the real name? You ascribed the letter to the submarine's commander-in-chief, which is false. Listen to a song "Captain Kolesnikov" By Yuri Shevchuk - it is true to real feelings from this tragedy:

"Who about death will tell us two truthful words, It is a pity the fallen sailors have no black boxes.

Pencil breaks, it's cold, it's dark -- Captain Kolesnikov is writing a letter to us."

Most know about the Kursk incident yet know little otherwise. A terrible Cold War accident in which one of Russia's cutting edge subs sank due to an internal explosion - with survivors. The surviving crew was detected by the Russians who wouldn't ask for crucial help in the short window of saving those still alive. Expected? Well it's not a project such as The International Space Station - vastly different long-standing veils of secrecy dictate the Russian's inept posturing and faulty decisions. This is the story we haven't, mostly, been aware of. It's chilling as it depicts the human cost. This movie seems to pull few punches and doesn't bow to Hollywood-like bombast. It isn't meant to entertain so much as to enlighten with respectful homage given the crew. It succeeds and is a film that is easy to highly recommend.

I remember watching the tragedy unfurl in real time when I was in the Russian army. That was on BBC and I don't remember the Russian media covering the story as objectively. The film is enjoyable