Recensioni degli utenti

However incredible they may seem the events narrated in this picture actually occurred and starred by Bernhard Rogge (Van Heflin), captain of the German raider at that time called Atlantis . It deals with the sensational 665-Day chase of the Killer-Ship Atlantis captained by Bernhard Rogge pursued by the British staff commanded by Admiral Russell (Charles Laughton ) ; including an intrigue upon secret agent (Alex Nicol) robbing documents by means of a dangerous mission .

This interesting war movie contains suspense , thrills, sea battles and historical events . It's an European co-production lavishly and mostly produced by the great Italian producer Dino De Laurentiis . Exceptional cast formed by European actors as Italian as Gian Maria Volonte , Eleonora Rossi Drago ,Folco Lulli , Corrado Pani , American as Van Heflin ,Alex Nicol ,Walter Barnes , French as Mylene Demongeot , British as Charles Laughton , Cecil Parker , Ralph Truman , and German as John Ericson ,Peter Carsten , Gerard Herter , Helmut Schmid , Diete Eppler . Very good musical score by the classic Nino Rota , with tunes similarly composed to the subsequent The Godfather . Atmospheric cinematography by Aldo Tonti , though is necessary a fine remastering and contains several stock-shots . The motion picture is well directed by Duilio Coletti .

The picture is based upon events which actually occurred during a series of naval actions in 1940-41 and carried out by Bernhard Rogge (1899-1982) exceptionally played by Van Hefiln . Rogge was one of many German officers who were forced to apply for a German Blood Certificate, that would allow their racial background to be overlooked (he had a Jewish grandparent).He was awarded a Japanese ornate Samurai sword and the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross for his actions as the commander of the Hilfskreuzer (auxiliary cruiser) Atlantis . Rogge became a Vizeadmiral (vice-admiral) by the end of World War II, and eventually became a Konteradmiral (rear-admiral) of the West German Bundesmarine. Rogge also was one of the few German officers of flag rank who was not arrested by the Allies after the war. This was due to the way he had exercised his command of Atlantis.The skipper of the British vessel, City of Baghdad, which the Atlantis sunk in July 1941, stated, "His treatment of prisoners left respect, instead of hatred". Admiral Karl Dönitz, who was prosecuted for war crimes at the Nuremberg Trials, cited his own support of Rogge in an effort to clear himself of the charge of being antisemitic. Rogge was later a German officer for Nato in the territorial Allied Naval Forces .

Under Ten Flags is a film about the destruction of the German surface raider Atlantis during the years of World War II before American entry. Based on a true story the captain is played by Van Heflin who is a master at camouflaging his ship as an ordinary merchant vessel and then springing a big surprise on Allied commerce. His ship carries at least ten flags for each occasion including the swastika rolled down when the moment is right to strike.

Heflin seems to take his cues from the famous sea raider of World War I, Count Felix Von Luckner who operated exactly that way in the previous conflict. That's not easy to do the same during this war with Germany's new masters, still Heflin has a code he lives by. He's also got at least one confirmed Nazi in his crew, John Ericson a young Aryan true believer. He can't believe that Heflin actually treats the prisoners he takes like human beings including a Jewish husband and wife who gives birth to a baby daughter on the ship. Ericson vows to report such subversive behavior to the proper authorities in Berlin.

This film is very similar to Sink The Bismarck and the guy trying to put Heflin and his raider out of business is Admiral Charles Laughton in London. It's all a matter of cracking the German code and the action also is in occupied Paris where they've got the code in the German embassy.

Laughton wants to take Heflin down but he's absolutely enthralled by Heflin's skill and daring. Beyond that Laughton's part as the British admiral is rather ill defined. Usually I enjoy watching Laughton in anything and I like him here as well, but he's not given all that much to work with and the film clearly belongs to Heflin.

Who delivers a very good performance as a civilized man trying to stay civilized in barbaric times and having barbaric people run his country. Under Ten Flags for some reason seems to have disappeared and I count myself lucky to have gotten a copy of the film to review it. I think fans of war films will consider themselves lucky to see Under Ten Flags.

I agree with most of the positive reviews here. This is an interesting and entertaining film.

On the negative side, Charles Laughton seemed to be channeling Winston Churchill. This is somewhat confusing as Churchill was head of the admiralty at one time.

I have no objections whatsoever to seeing the wondrous Mylene D., but were shorts THAT short in the 1940s??? It seems very obvious that she was added to the movie as 'sex appeal' (either that, or she was the producer's girl friend).

And did they have invisible-to-the-naked eye rays as protective devices for valuable items back then? I've never seen a film from that time period with that particular gimmick. Under Ten Flags was actually made in 1960, but use of the rays for that purpose seems to be a more modern invention (than the film's time setting.) These are mere quibbles. See it.

I don't see this film in as nearly a bad light as some of the other commentator's here. There is good performances from Van Heflin and Laughton is always a joy to watch. There are certainly some obvious Italian extras thrown into this movie but whats bad about that? I for one can give the thumbs up for the female actors. Great bodies on them even though its in black and white! Stock footage is used in abundance for the sinking of the ships but the actual guns firing and being uncovered on the German vessel looks like the real deal to me. So sure, its not a masterpiece but give it a chance and I am sure you will find it a time passer.

Based upon the diaries of Admiral Bernhard Rogge this film is, alas, something of a disappointment. Although 'capably' directed by Duilio Coletti with superb cinematography and score by his compatriots Aldo Tonti and Nino Rota, it is weakened by a poor screenplay.

There is some distinctly dodgy dubbing going on and many characters are underwritten. Both Eleonora Rossi Drago as the token Jewess and Mylene Demongeot as the obligatory eye candy have utterly thankless roles whilst at the other end of the spectrum we have Charles Laughton's hammy turn as Admiral Russell. This is an actor who has very often given performances that are touched by genius but here he is all bluff and bluster and rattles off his lines as though he has a plane to catch.

What holds the film together is Van Heflin as Rogge. His is by far the best written role and Mr. Heflin's performance is one of strength and compassion. A consummate professional whose like we will never see again.

One would have to say that despite the presence of Mr. Heflin and some effective moments, we have seen this sort of thing done so much better.

Sadly, this movie has not been commercially available for many years. It is story about a rarely mentioned weapon of WWII, the German Surface Raider. They were ordinary merchant ships lined with amour plating and medium-sized navel guns. Unlike the famous U-boats which could hide beneath the sea, Surface Raiders relied on disguise to blend in with normal shipping traffic until they could find a lone ship they could surprise and sink.

This is the story of the hunt to find and destroy the best of them, the ship Atlantis. It is a story of bravery and ingenuity on both sides as the British Admiralty is caught up in a vast game of hide-n-seek with a clever adversary.

I choose to write this review largely because I have, over the years read a few rather poor opinions expressed about it. I can't wait for it to reappear somewhere, someday. My only explanation as to why someone who is a fan of naval war films would not thoroughly enjoy this one is the fact that the last three times I saw it over fifteen years ago the reels of the movie were in the wrong order! (I swear). That dampens the suspense considerably and gives it a very muddled, confused look. But even mixed up it beats a lot of movies I've seen.

There were a number of good films made about the Second World War at sea in the 1950s and 60s. Sadly, this isn't one of them. Starring Van Heflin as probably the nicest and most reluctant German sea captain of the war, and a blustering Charles Laughton as the British Admiral out to sink him, this surprisingly shoddy film mixes stock footage, old bits of newsreel, obvious models and a shipload of Italian extras as British and German sailors with poorly dubbed American accents. The fact that it was made in Rome by Italian producers probably explains the film's hopelessly confused loyalties, trying to show the war from both the British and German sides. Unfortunately, being so fair to both sides renders the film's attempts at suspense completely redundant, and makes it hard for the audience to work up much interest either way. Although allegedly based on a true story, much of the film is so heavily fictionalised it often loses touch with reality altogether. At one point it even turns into a third rate James Bond rip-off, with the British getting an American soldier to undergo plastic surgery to make him the double of a German officer so he can steal top secret plans. All in all, you would be better off watching The Cruel Sea, Sink the Bismarck or Battle of the River Plate than wasting your time on this dismal offering.

A thoroughly enjoyable movie with real ships and lots of original wartime footage, which make it a refreshing change from some of the slick but unconvincing modern offerings. More than a few of the usual, expected stereotypes are depicted, but the plot chunters along at a cracking pace, interspersing furious naval action with some well-observed 'stiff upper lip' screenplay, some nerve-wracking espionage work and any number of amusing little character studies.

Honour, death, determination, courage, childbirth, duplicity, fear and humour are dealt with in turn and all acted out in a thoroughly workmanlike manner. Van Heflin is superb as the captain of the German ship and the unutterably delectable Mylene Demongeot is stunning as a perky nymphette who, obviously fearing her looks would fade before the end of the film, seemed desperate to hook a guy (any guy) before the end credits! As might be expected, the entirely dependable Charles Laughton did a sterling job of playing Charles Laughton - in a Sailor Suit! Without exception the rest of the supporting cast were top notch - all the way down to the brave little kids being winched aboard ship in a cargo net!!

As it is based on true events, this movie is all the more worth watching by anyone who enjoys naval warfare stories and is heartily recommended!

An 8 out of 10 without hesitation for me....

The previous review is correct, this is a poor film. However the lack of blood 'n' guts is based on fact. Atlantis was captained by Bernhard Rogge. The skipper of the British vessel, "City of Baghdad", which the Atlantis sunk in July of 1941, stated, "His treatment of prisoners left respect, instead of hatred." The Captain of the "City of Baghdad" was Captain J. Armstrong-White. He wrote the foreword in "Atlantis, The story of a German Surface Raider" written by U. Mohr & A.V. Sellwood.

Rogge became a Vizeadmiral (vice-admiral) by the end of World War II, and eventually became a Konteradmiral (rear-admiral) of the West German Bundesmarine.

Rogge also was one of the few German officers of flag rank who was not arrested by the Allies after the war. This was due to the way he had exercised his command of Atlantis.

"Under Ten Flags" may not be the most exciting war film ever made. It lacks the scope or star power of films like "The Guns of Navarone" or "The Eagle Has Landed". However, it more than makes up for it because unlike most war films, it's historically accurate--at least in all the major details. As a retired history teacher, I really, really appreciate that--as too many films play fast and loose with the facts. In this case, it's interesting enough that it didn't need a lot of embellishment.

The film is about a German ship that harassed British shipping in the Atlantic. It was able to do this so successfully because the ship appeared to be just another merchant ship. And, the title of the film is a comment about how the ship could quickly be changed to look like a boat from many different friendly nations. So, again and again, when British naval ships neared, the German craft changed appearances to make it seem quite innocuous. But, with torpedoes, guns and a crack crew, this was a very lethal ship. The problem for the British is that they needed to find it.

As for the captain of this German ship (played by Van Heflin), he was an interesting fellow. He was, foremost, a professional and not a Nazi party man. This made for many interesting moments in the film, as he tried to fight cleanly--in a manner that minimized deaths--especially to civilians. The contrast of this and some of his blood-thirsty Nazi crew was profound...and real.

Overall, a very interesting film because it was so unusual, thoughtful and well written. Well worth your time--especially if you want to see what WWII was really like.

By the way, being the history buff, I notice little details too--such as the striking blonde who is dressed and coiffed circa 1960--not WWII.

THIS gets a 6.4 rating? A potentially taught true story with "A" list leads, bad "B" movie production values and turgid direction? Van Heflin and Charles Laughton were "A" list stars in 1960. Both put in fine performances, though Heflin should have at least made a go at a German accent. In fact, none of the Germans speak German or with an accent, all of the signs in German headquarters are in English, there is not even a shaky camera to suggest ship movement, virtually all of the action footage is stock. Even the editing is so indifferent a key subplot appears to be part of another movie. Want to see a good "cat and mouse" Naval war picture? Watch "The Enemy Below". Need an insomnia cure? Watch "Under 10 Flags".

I give "Under 10 Flags" a "4".

Under Ten Flags..Is in my opinion one of the best acted and directed movies dealing with world war II. It depicts a man's duty to country.. his personal honor to himself in up-holding honest and humanitarian beliefs even when required to do his duty and kill the enemy. The lead is by veteran actor Van Heflin.,who plays the captain of the German Raider "Atlantis".,this is based on a true story and facts of the german surface raider "Pacas" during world war two. This type of war movie needs to be returned to the screen to show our younger generation that although war is brutal and even unavoidable man can still win or lose with dignity and honour. I would like to see this movie made available on Video and returned to TV.

You can tell Charles Laughton was coming to the end of his career in this dull and uneventful film. They call it a movie but it's not. I don't know what it is: documented history, docu-drama. Whatever you want to label it, it is not a movie. I can see why it hasn't stood the test of time because there is nothing in it to feed Laughton fans. It comes nowhere near the quality of 'Hobson's Choice' or 'Full House'.

In terms of being a battleship film, Laughton did something similar nearly twenty years earlier in 'Stand by for Action' with Robert Taylor. That was also a poorly made film and did not deserve to be called a movie.

I would advise Laughton fans to stay away from this film because you miss nothing by not watching it.

This is truly a classic! It portrays war at sea, as a deadly game of hide and seek. Cause as much havoc and destruction, without being identified or located. In this movie, the enemy(the British) has no idea what kind of ship(s) or submarine(s)are sinking vital merchant ships. It is a raider ship,with a clever Captain that can change the appearance of his ship as quickly as changing clothes! Nationalities were no obstacle. It also showed that all German officers were not followers of Hitler. This one, in real life, went on to serve as a NATO naval officer. This ship's crew should have lots of war stories for the grandchildren.

It has been many years since I saw this film but I remember it to be interesting with a differant view of the war through the eyes of the captain of the german raider, Atlantis. He is shown to be compassionate in saving as many lives as he can from the ships that he sinks and is not at all in agreement with Hitler's policies but his country is as war and so he obeys his orders. It is a shame that this film is not available on tape or otherwise as it depicts the other side of German officers not in "lock step" with Hitler.

I have not seen this film in more than 30 years. I can't imagine why it is not available on vhs or dvd. I saw it originally in the theaters and it made quite an impact on me. I love sea tales and this is one of the finest.

Rarely seen like it's subject matter, a film whose story is well told and a world away from the child-like American war epics released later in that decade. The surface raider Atlantis was perhaps the most successful of it's type preying upon merchant shipping destined for Great Britain and her allies. The performances top-to-bottom are splendid although the silent scenes at the German Atlantic Naval Headquarters in Paris ratchet up the tension like little else on celluloid-more so because of it's being based on truth. Superior to naval films both those that came before and after it because it's story is so compelling, true and hardly known. There are no sides to be taken and yet one wishes both sides well in this game of naval chess. Indeed, the captain of the merchant ship Abdullah who -in war circumstances would be considered a hero- comes out as the only villain of the piece. That the Germans mostly all speak with American accents is forgotten easily in the action and minor characters are well-sketched by their players. There is none of the John Wayne -machismo and black and white simplicity that makes most war films loud but laughable but rather admiring the quiet professionalism of sailors at war- highly recommended, indeed !

Te movie, movie focused on naval warfare during the Second World War, exemplifies a peculiar moment in European postwar cinema: a moment when the urgency of collective memory had to coexist with the ideological tensions of the Cold War and the shifting identity of formerly belligerent nations. It was released fifteen years after the end of WWII, at a time when the initial flood of overt propaganda and cathartic neorealism was beginning to give way to more introspective or reconciliatory narratives, especially in the case of Axis countries. Italy, freshly reintegrated into the Western political fold, was recalibrating its cultural output toward a more ambiguous treatment of its wartime legacy. This context deeply informs the tone and thematic approach of the movie, which adopts an unusually reserved attitude towards moral judgments, opting instead for a humanistic and even-handed portrayal that fits uneasily into conventional heroic frameworks.

Cinematically, the film displays a muted visual style, with carefully composed black-and-white cinematography that resists both the kinetic chaos of Hollywood war spectacles and the grainy rawness of neorealism. Instead, the camera work is measured and often static, favoring long takes that emphasize the claustrophobia and procedural monotony of naval life. The mise-en-scène is rich with detail-uniforms, maps, and confined steel corridors are rendered with an authenticity that, while not ostentatious, serves the immersive function effectively. The naval sequences in particular are treated with methodical attention rather than sensationalism; torpedo attacks and evasive maneuvers are choreographed with precision, not bombast. There's a notable reluctance to stylize violence, which contrasts sharply with earlier Allied productions like The Cruel Sea (1953), where the action carries a patriotic moral urgency. Here, the focus is on strategy, endurance, and mutual respect between enemies, which lends the film a tone closer to a procedural drama than to a traditional war epic.

The performances are restrained across the board, almost to a fault. The commanding officer of the central ship is portrayed with a quiet authority that emphasizes intellectual control over charismatic leadership. His demeanor echoes the captain in Das Boot (1981), though this earlier film lacks the fevered intensity and psychological deterioration that would define that later submarine drama. Where Das Boot plunges into the horror of entrapment, this film maintains a stoic, detached mood that suggests a more meditative or symbolic reading of naval warfare. The interactions between officers and crew are marked by professionalism rather than camaraderie, which may appear emotionally remote but aligns well with the film's thematic core: duty, honor, and the dispassionate calculus of survival.

In terms of editing and narrative pacing, the film operates on a slow burn. Scenes are allowed to linger, often resisting the traditional three-act structure or escalation of tension typical of British or American naval films of the same period. This rhythm might frustrate audiences expecting action-driven momentum, but it is deliberate and reflective of a European sensibility that privileges moral ambiguity over narrative resolution. The film's structure echoes, in this sense, Above Us the Waves (1955), which also emphasized the tactical and logistical aspects of submarine warfare over visceral combat. However, where that film imbued its characters with a clear sense of nationalistic purpose, the one in question here is markedly less declarative. National identities are complex, even interchangeable, and the flags under which characters serve are treated more as incidental than defining.

The score, composed by Nino Rota, may initially seem at odds with the film's visual austerity. Rather than reinforcing the severity of the subject matter with martial or somber motifs, the music offers a more lyrical, at times almost gentle, counterpoint. This choice reflects an intentional desire to humanize the narrative, softening its procedural texture without diluting its dignity. Rota's presence is no accident; by this point in his career he was already known for his ability to compose melodies that were both accessible and emotionally sophisticated. In this context, his contribution broadens the emotional register of the film, inviting the audience not just to observe, but to feel, even in a setting as impersonal as a naval command bridge. While some viewers might have expected a more ascetic sonic approach, the score never veers into sentimentality, and its tonal restraint matches the film's understated humanism.

Aesthetically and ideologically, the movie reflects the European postwar anxiety about clear-cut narratives of heroism. It is no coincidence that the naval commander at its center is depicted not as a nationalist symbol, but as a rational actor navigating the absurdity of total war. His character, and by extension the entire film, is invested in the notion of a shared martial code that transcends allegiance-an idea that had growing resonance in 1960, as NATO aligned former enemies and mutual respect among adversaries was being re-imagined as a moral cornerstone of international diplomacy.

From a technical standpoint, the production values are consistent, if not particularly ambitious. Set design and model work are convincing enough to sustain immersion, though some optical effects and rear projection shots betray the era's limitations. Nonetheless, the film avoids the theatricality that mars some contemporaneous European war films, especially those that struggled with budgetary constraints or relied too heavily on exposition.

In sum, the movie's most distinctive trait lies in its tonal restraint and its refusal to adhere to triumphalist narratives. This places it in productive tension with other naval films of its time, such as The Silent Enemy (1958), which celebrated British underwater demolition teams with unabashed patriotism. In contrast, this movie is more concerned with decorum than valor, more invested in the idea of war as a test of ethical consistency than as a stage for national glory. While this philosophical bent can at times flatten emotional engagement, it also provides a rare lens through which to view naval conflict-not as a clash of ideologies, but as a domain ruled by codes of conduct, professional respect, and an underlying melancholy born of mutual recognition between enemies.