Atrapados: una historia verdadera

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.

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.

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

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.