Allarme rosso

Tense little action thriller on par with "The Hunt for Red October" has a nuclear submarine commander (Gene Hackman) and his new second-in-command (Denzel Washington) getting in a chess match of words and wits ala "Mutiny on the Bounty". Russian rebels may be about to launch nuclear missiles at any moment. Commands come through for Hackman to detonate the weapons from their ship, but then another message after that one which is incomplete splits the entire crew. Hackman thinks it is time to take control with aggression while Washington believes that this is way too important without knowing everything there is to know. A wide range of characters on the submarine (which includes Viggo Mortensen, Steve Zahn, James Gandolfini, Rick Schroeder, George Dzundza) must decide which of the all-world performers they are going to side with. The screenplay is mediocre really, but Hackman and Washington know how to overcome that and director Tony Scott keeps the pulse of his audience in high over-drive. Definitely an acceptable piece from the genre. 4 stars out of 5.

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.

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.

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.