Opiniones de usuarios

Since it is based on the true story of the K-141 Kursk submarine disaster, we already know the end of the story. So it was a true challenge for director Thomas Vinterberg (known for Jagten, Festen,...) to take a special approach for his movie. He made the clear choice to focus on the emotion and the human side of this tragedy, rather than on the political side. The result is a strong movie which succeeds in dragging you into the submarine itself and it's victims (and wifes). It's no coincidence that the aspect ratio shifts to wide during the whole submarine sequence and back to narrow (16:9) at the beginning and conclusion of the story. Or like the director himself said at the moviepremière in Ghent, Belgium: "Well ... you should see it"

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

The Kursk tragedy occurred in 2000 and the Russians refused help from the West to save their face and pride. But as this film depicts, the greatest tragedy was that 117 lives were lost through stubbornness and holding on to old behavior a la the Cold War.

The film is based on this event in 2000 and how the families were affected and their reaction to the lies forthcoming from the Navy Brass. This part is true, although no one really knows the actual suffering of the men on board the Kursk. The drama seen on board is fictional, but a lot of it was derived from 2 letters written and subsequently recovered.

A well made film and worth a watch. (Pun intended!)

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.

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.

Well you know this ain't going to be sunshine and rainbows going in. It's basically 'Chernobyl' but with a submarine. It's also not nearly as well-written or executed as the likes of 'Chernobyl'.

I hated the director's choice of film ratios. Both the opening scenes and final scenes are presented in what resembles a tiny box. At first I got the vibe of an old home video. I even began adjusting the settings of my TV thinking something had gone wrong. It hadn't.

Matthias Schoenaerts is the standout performance here. There's not much else memorable about anything else. Colin Firth's presence is somewhat puzzling. In fact the whole film suffers at times from the weird mix of accents on display. I would've much preferred the whole thing in Russian.

I remembered reading about the Kursk in the newspaper as a kid. The true story of this is equal parts terrifying and heartbreaking. While 'Kursk' did its best humanizing the victims, it still somehow didn't feel urgent or intense enough as it perhaps should.

This film would have more impact if you didn't already know much about the true story. It succeeds in making me want to read some of the books about it and find out more - but beyond that, I can't help feeling the brave men of the Kursk deserved a better film about them.

The Russians have a long-deserved reputation for a cavalier attitude to safety and films have been made about submarines in distress since silent days; the confined settings guaranteeing a truly claustrophobic experience.

Like 'The Deer Hunter' 'Kursk: the Final Mission' begins with a wedding celebration in stark contrast to the disaster that unfolds and ends with (SLIGHT SPOILER COMING:) a Russian orthodox funeral attended by Max Von Sydow.

Colin Firth brings his usual reassuring presence to the British officer who looks on helplessly; but Vladimir Putin is nowhere to be seen, his glacial lack of concern for the lives of his own forces already evident as early as 2000.

Above all this film is very human. It appears both a criticism on humanity (society - at one point or another) and human frailty, and an uplifting story at the same time to show the best of humanity and humans as a whole. Their fears, courage, anger, hope, et cetera. On the whole it seems to follow the best of classic Russian literature in its themes.

Factual this film is not. Up to a point. The happenings aboard ship are mostly speculative. In this sense it follows other sea-disaster films such as Titanic. Politically sensitive perhaps, given the current Russian political climate, in relation to the west. But this film does not deserve to become a political tool for any side in the new cold war (more tepid, if you ask me, anyway). At worst, or best, this film is a single insight into how the Russia of today became the Russia it is today.

What will stay with me is the 90 year old Max von Sydow in his semi- villain role. He truly embodies his part. With only two Academy Award nominations to his name, I do hope he receives a lifetime achievement award before he leaves us (hopefully many years from now). Regretfully one of the last greats. Best wishes and high regards.

As a film, this seems to be a mostly Wallonian production (?), this film rises above its station. It makes me wonder what influence Luc Besson had?

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."

This film was excellent in every aspect. Directing by Thomas Vinterberg was amazing (except for the annoying black edges at the start and end of the film - why?). Writing/screenplay by Robert Rodat was great. Cinematography near perfect. Casting was outstanding - as were the performances by all. The score/music was bang on. S/VFX were perfect. My only critique is that the almost 2 hour length felt longer due to some slow pacing issues. Otherwise, an excellent film that leaves an uneasy feeling in your stomach, knowing that this film is based on actual events. A well deserved 9/10 from me.

Kursk offers excellent production values, cinematography and performances, but falls victim to its own conceit in attempting to interweave muddled, inconsistent political statements, resulting in a film that alternates between tense action and maudlin sentimentality.

The plot description on IMDb states, "As the sailors fight for survival, their families desperately battle political obstacles and impossible odds to save them." The futile and ineffective efforts of the families have little to do with the through line, but considerable attention is devoted to opening and closing scenes presented in a distractingly claustrophobic cropped frame, as well as raucous town hall meetings evocative of contemporary meetings disrupted by virulent activists promoting radical political ideologies. The Russian bureaucracy is presented again, again and again as obstinate and deceitful, leaving one to wonder if the filmmakers are attempting to make a statement about contemporary claims of Russian interference and hegemony. Although framed as a tragedy, the film isn't in the classical sense of a noble hero brought to ruin by a personal flaw. However, there is a tragic element in a recurring plot device concerning timepieces which in a minor way impedes the protagonist's ability to perform his duties. In the denouement, this device is woven into an apparent call out to the Resist! Movement. A scene evocative of the Sermon on the Mount seems to advocate income redistribution.

Yet, these apparent efforts to espouse liberal political ideologies are confused by other elements. The disaster is exacerbated by the Russian Navy's failure to properly maintain its fleet, suggesting more money should have been spent on the military. The socialist/communist bureaucracy is depicted as corrupt, ineffective and incompetent, possibly as a cautionary note to accepting the political policies of Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, and possibly even leftists like Warren and Pelosi. The Russian military is depicted as ineffective and a theme is that all sailors are brothers, regardless of nationality, possibly suggesting that we should consider Russia a potential ally, rather than our natural enemy.

The movie joins a large group of recent films that seem compelled to make political statements at the expense of plot and character development. It could have been a much more effective thriller by focusing on the disaster and the efforts by the crew to overcome impossible odds. Alternatively, it could have been a melodrama, focusing on the efforts of the wives to persuade intransigent bureaucrats, particularly Max von Sydow's Petrenko, to admit failure and take the moral high ground instead of blind obsequiousness to party dogma.

As a drama about a submarine and the attempts to rescue its crew, it is a so-so movie. However, by saying that it is based on true events, it is an insult to the memory of those the movie claims to be depicting because a significant part of the movie is fiction. If you are really interested in learning about the Kursk and the events of August 2000, read the book that the movie says it is based on ("A Time to Die") and/or watch a documentary. The truth is far more interesting than this fiction.

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.

The story of the accident aboard the Russian submarine Kursk and the ensuing failed rescue attempts by the Russians is handled with apparent disaster genre inclinations by Danish filmmaker Thomas Vinterberg (Jagten). The traditional structure of building up character relations and setting the stage for the inevitable catastrophe does stir up a fair amount of emotion and engrossment, but the film is a little too hinged on predictable good/bad guys dichotomy and a somewhat archaic view on the east/west axis. Fine performances from Matthias Schoenaerts, Léa Seydoux and Peter Simonischek elevate the drama, whereas Max von Sydow is clearly too old in what turned out to be his final film role. The screenplay was written by Robert Rodat, penner of Saving Private Ryan.

I get the objective of the writer and director to tell the human story but can't help but think they skimmed over, left out details and straight up changed way to much to dedicate time to that objective. The vfx were extremely good though as were the performances.

I also can't help but think did we really need another "look, Russian military and government fail and are corrupt" movie? How about a movie about the Royal Navy HMS Trenchant Trafalgar-class involvement in the Antares disaster in November 1990? The failings of that crew to realize they'd snagged the nets of a trawler and dragged her under? The idiocy of running the Perisher exercise with a submerged submarine in those waters in the first place? The fact there had been a number of similar incidents in the past that were very close calls with boats losing their gear but also raised questions about other boats disappearances over the years? The actions of the Royal Navy in the aftermath stalling the investigation and even seemingly attempting to downplay it? But then FV Antares was only a boring old fishing trawler out of Carradale, Argyll and only cost 4 lives so where's the drama in that, right? Russian military and government aren't the only ones that screw up, cost lives and try to dodge accountability.

The great Thomas Vintenburg, known for his very talky movies, here makes a film which is rather less heavy on dialogue than normal: a film about the end of the Kursk, a Russian submarine that sunk with the eventual loss of all hands. We know little about the Kursk's last days, except for the fact that at least some of the crew did not die at once. The thought of being trapped hopelessly on the ocean floor is a primaevally horrific one. Relationships between Russia and the west were better then than now, but it is possible that a rescue could have been effected had the Russians accepted western aid sooner. Vintenburg's film is muted and as unmelodramatic as possible. But without melodrama, the story is perhaps not inherently that dramatic, just unbearably sad, and it's greatest interest lies more as documentary than as drama. Last year, a Russian battleship was sunk and (for understandable reasons) the west cheered. This film at least reestablishes our common humanity; and makes one relieved that one doesn't have to earn one's living forty leagues below the sea.

This is a fictionalization of the Russian submarine disaster that made world-wide news. Adapted from a book, the story runs in multiple alternating stories. Matthias Schoenaerts stars as the submarine officer who has to keep the survivors alive. Léa Seydoux co-stars as his wife, battling for information from the naval authorities who are stonewalling. Colin Firth has a bit part as a British officer, representing the international offers for help. Meanwhile, the severely underfunded Russian navy has only one ill-maintained rescue vessel, and, for political or other reasons, is resisting offers to help from various NATO countries.

The underwater scenes were suitably claustrophobic. While different (sometimes under-trained) crew members exhibited different reactions, there was general camaraderie, as also shown in an early sequence where various underpaid crew members sell their watches to help finance a colleague's wedding.

A significant bit part is the young son of Matthias Schoenaerts' character, who opens the movie practicing holding his breath underwater - a skill needed for future naval / submarine work. The kid represents the children of the whole crew.

I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival, and was surprised to see that Kursk was in English. The director reasoned that he didn't speak Russian, and the film was about various communities coming together, something that was more universal than it being just a Russian story.

Note that I am reviewing this as a movie, not as to whether this is a complete historical document.

I can't help the feeling this is an attempt to apply a narrative onto a tragedy. Do we even know what really happened there? Would the US or any EU state allow Russia to save a submarine that has experimental weapons, state secrets, on board? As a movie, it isn't half bad and if this were about a generic, fictional accident, I would give it a 6 or 7, but as an obvious attempt to present a narrative as objective history, villifying a nation that acted no different than any other would in the same situation, this gets a 2 from me.

As with many a tale like this - we will probably never know the whole story of how the Russian submarine "Kursk" came to sink and of the desperate attempts to rescue the stranded sailors. What Thomas Vinterberg does here, though, is direct a film with a plausible, quite compelling, narrative that elicits good, solid, performances from Matthias Schoenaerts and August Diehl who manage to convey the claustrophobic scenes on board remarkably well. Max von Sydow exemplifies the old guard establishment figure to a T and lends all the more to the frustration that maybe more could have been done to save lives had politicking played a less prominent role in the salvage process. Any comments on the accuracy of the efforts at international collaboration would be speculative, but Colin Firth does imbue some genuine sense of eagerness to assist and an awareness of the urgencies involved. This is well worth a watch.