À bord d'un sous-marin nucléaire américain, un jeune officier en second organise une mutinerie pour empêcher son capitaine à la gâchette facile de lancer ses missiles avant de confirmer ses ... Tout lireÀ bord d'un sous-marin nucléaire américain, un jeune officier en second organise une mutinerie pour empêcher son capitaine à la gâchette facile de lancer ses missiles avant de confirmer ses ordres.À bord d'un sous-marin nucléaire américain, un jeune officier en second organise une mutinerie pour empêcher son capitaine à la gâchette facile de lancer ses missiles avant de confirmer ses ordres.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Nommé pour 3 Oscars
- 5 victoires et 9 nominations au total
Jaime Gomez
- Ood Mahoney
- (as Jaime P. Gomez)
Lillo Brancato
- Russell Vossler
- (as Lillo Brancato Jr.)
Ricky Schroder
- Lt. Paul Hellerman
- (as Rick Schroder)
Avis à la une
This is the type of movie Tony Scott should have stuck to creating. While most Jerry Bruckheimer films prove to be bad, modern interpretations of old school martial arts movies, this was one of the better films Bruckheimer ever produced. While the story was completely plot-driven and the performances a little over the top, the rivalry between Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman made this film a cut above the rest of the trash Bruckheimer tends to produce. While simple and direct, it proves to be effective in the annals of storytelling, never overindulging the viewer.
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.
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.
Crimson Tide is awesome in the way it creates intensity and non-stop adrenaline rushes using scenes full of action, and scenes that aren't. The torpedo attack with the Russian sub was so fast-paced and packed with energy that it makes you bounce in your seat. Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington gave awesome performances, and their growing tension towards each other is enough to keep the excitement at a consistent high through the last half of the film. I don't appreciate how Hackman's character is regarded by most moviegoers as a mad man. He is just simply a seasoned, tough-as-nails military officer who must assume that the US is in danger, and he must stick by the orders that require him to go to drastic measures to protect us. The director did a good job at raising the tension, even though the ending was very predictable. The message at the very start of the film set the perfect tone. The entire film is in a way scary by making us wonder if what would happen in a situation like this, and how could the military establish proper operating procedures for it. However, the message at the end of the film re-establishes some hope. 9/10, and I love the creative title.
I saw a picture of 93 year-old Gene Hackman the other day riding a bicycle. He still has the youthful energy. I'll bet he could act if he still wanted to. We lost Michael Caine to retirement this last year and Jack Nicholson hasn't come back either. Three of the best to ever do it. Well...make that four with Denzel Washington. Hope he goes for many more years.
We don't appreciate these guys when we have them. I was a kid when this movie came out but I remember the fight between Hackman and Washington like it was 10 minutes ago. I've never seen a more intense scene. It might even be one of the best square offs in cinematic history and there's only one punch! Two of the greatest actors to ever walk the Earth and in the same scene. What a climax. Thank you Denzel and thank you to Gene Hackman. I hope you un-retire for one last go.
We don't appreciate these guys when we have them. I was a kid when this movie came out but I remember the fight between Hackman and Washington like it was 10 minutes ago. I've never seen a more intense scene. It might even be one of the best square offs in cinematic history and there's only one punch! Two of the greatest actors to ever walk the Earth and in the same scene. What a climax. Thank you Denzel and thank you to Gene Hackman. I hope you un-retire for one last go.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe refusal of an executive officer to agree in launching nuclear weapons due to a fragment order is based on a similar incident within the Soviet Navy. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet submarine B-59 attempted to infiltrate the US Navy blockade by running submerged. By doing so they had been out of contact for several days with Moscow at the depth they ran at. When US destroyers dropped signal depth charges to force the sub to surface, the Soviet captain, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, believed war had broken out between the US and the Soviet Union. His sentiments were concurred by the on board political officer, Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov. However, Savitsky's second-in-command, Vasily Arkipov, who also was the flotilla commodore, refused. All three needed to agree before launching. Being out of contact for so long and with no clear orders, Arkipov convinced Captain Savitsky to surface and they found themselves surrounded by US destroyers. Their communication was reestablished with Moscow and they received orders to return home, thereby averting nuclear war.
- GaffesOn 26 October, when Hunter briefs the officers after receipt of the first EAM placing forces at Defcon 3, he states the last time forces were at that level of readiness was during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "32 1/2 years ago". The Cuban Missile Crisis was ALSO in October, so no matter what year in which this film was set, there would be no half year involved. And, anyway, it was last ordered in 1973, during the Arab-Israeli War.
- Versions alternativesThe English language version includes a scene where Lt. Cmdr. Hunter (Denzel Washington) breaks up a fight between two sailors. One of the two men tells Hunter that they were arguing over which version of the character Silver Surfer was best, the one drawn by Jack Kirby or the one by Moebius. In the Italian version the comic book character over which the two men are fighting have been changed to Betty Boop and Felix the Cat.
- ConnexionsEdited into Time Under Fire (1997)
- Bandes originalesPiano Sonata No.14 Op.27 No.2
Written by Ludwig van Beethoven
Performed by Tatiana Nikolayeva
Courtesy of Olympia Compact Discs, Ltd.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Crimson Tide?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 53 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 91 387 195 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 18 612 190 $US
- 14 mai 1995
- Montant brut mondial
- 157 387 195 $US
- Durée
- 1h 56min(116 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant