Kursk

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.

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.

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"

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!)

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.