IMDb RATING
5.3/10
765
YOUR RATING
During World War II, the British Royal Navy used experimental midget submarines to raid German warships in Norway.During World War II, the British Royal Navy used experimental midget submarines to raid German warships in Norway.During World War II, the British Royal Navy used experimental midget submarines to raid German warships in Norway.
Nick Tate
- Leading Seaman X-1
- (as Nicholas Tate)
Diana Beevers
- WRNS Officer
- (uncredited)
Rupert Davies
- Vice-Adm. Redmayne
- (uncredited)
Paul Hansard
- Cmdr. Steiner
- (uncredited)
Luke Hanson
- German Lieutenant
- (uncredited)
Desmond Jordan
- Naval Doctor
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
Routine and quite boring 1960s war film concentrating on the X-series of midget submarines. In this typical afternoon matinee movie James Caan appears as a totally miserable and humourless Canadian submarine commander. Presumably Caan appears to make the film saleable in North America. The underwater scenes and onshore action don't add up to much but the occasional glimpses of scenery around the Scottish lochs makes marginally for some of the tedium. The shoot out with German paratroopers has some tension and excitement. Overall, one for rainy, cold, wintery Sunday afternoons. 3/10.
A fictional story based on actual events. Intriguing as an american is portrayed in the armed service of the UK. Another such situation was in the movie 633 Squadron with Cliff Robertson. Overall a good movie.
This movie is another one not to bother with. I prefer my historical movies as accurate as possible as reality is usually more dramatic and entertaining than hokeyness. There was an X-craft squadron, they did train rigorously for a raid against the Tirpitz (the movie calls it the Lindendorff-why fictionalize it?), they almost succeeded, the did penetrate the Tirpitz's defenses, damaged it badly enough that it could never sail at full speed again. Why not pay tribute to these brave men who fought for our freedom by telling their story straight? And the special effects are cheesy-the ships look like the models I built as a kid in the 1960s.
Remember how the Stones and the Who and the Kinks were all rebelling against the establishment in England around 1968? Apparently, the establishment was busy making movies like "Submarine X-1." This movie was a major step backward for cinema, bereft of innovation and dynamic action. I Tivo'd this movie because the description "a Canadian commander trains midget submarine crews" made it sound like there were little people in little subs. Alas, there are normal sized people only. And Jimmy Caan.
Caan plays the Canadian, which is only slightly easier to believe than if he were playing an Englishman. He's rugged and manly and wears great knitwear while he looks harshly at people, sailors, who then take offense at his harsh Canadianness. Caan looks harshly into the distance and, as his men train at cutting fences underwater, he looks harshly at the sea. THIS IS THE ENTIRE MOVIE. A whole lot of underwater fence cutting, harsh looks, sweaters and the aforementioned midget submarines. Thank god for the ill-conceived Nazi commando attack on the secret base which reminds the viewer that there ARE stakes, there IS a war and it's with the NAZIS, so everything better go as planned or else V-E Day might not happen until May 9th or 10th.
Aside from the submarine interiors tilting for realism, there's very little that's progressive about the movie's construction. The camera is just kinda there in the room, not doing anything remarkable. The pace is monotonous, the sets are stagy and the performances are mannered, except for the harsh staring, of course. William Graham did a lot of television both before and after "Submarine X-1," so it would be easy to write off the clumsy filmmaking at the hands of a TV director. But Richard Lester, Ken Loach and John Frankenheimer came up as TV directors and were busy inventing and pushing cinema forward in 1968.
Keep in mind that the rest of the world has been watching movies influenced by the French New Wave. In 1968 Hollywood made "Bonnie and Clyde," "Rosemary's Baby" and "2001: A Space Odyssey." In other words, there was a new filmmaking realism established by then that "X-1" refused to acknowledge. At a glance, someone could mistake this movie as being made twenty five years earlier. No wonder Pete, Mick, Ray and even Ringo were such angry young men.
Caan plays the Canadian, which is only slightly easier to believe than if he were playing an Englishman. He's rugged and manly and wears great knitwear while he looks harshly at people, sailors, who then take offense at his harsh Canadianness. Caan looks harshly into the distance and, as his men train at cutting fences underwater, he looks harshly at the sea. THIS IS THE ENTIRE MOVIE. A whole lot of underwater fence cutting, harsh looks, sweaters and the aforementioned midget submarines. Thank god for the ill-conceived Nazi commando attack on the secret base which reminds the viewer that there ARE stakes, there IS a war and it's with the NAZIS, so everything better go as planned or else V-E Day might not happen until May 9th or 10th.
Aside from the submarine interiors tilting for realism, there's very little that's progressive about the movie's construction. The camera is just kinda there in the room, not doing anything remarkable. The pace is monotonous, the sets are stagy and the performances are mannered, except for the harsh staring, of course. William Graham did a lot of television both before and after "Submarine X-1," so it would be easy to write off the clumsy filmmaking at the hands of a TV director. But Richard Lester, Ken Loach and John Frankenheimer came up as TV directors and were busy inventing and pushing cinema forward in 1968.
Keep in mind that the rest of the world has been watching movies influenced by the French New Wave. In 1968 Hollywood made "Bonnie and Clyde," "Rosemary's Baby" and "2001: A Space Odyssey." In other words, there was a new filmmaking realism established by then that "X-1" refused to acknowledge. At a glance, someone could mistake this movie as being made twenty five years earlier. No wonder Pete, Mick, Ray and even Ringo were such angry young men.
"Submarine X-1" is just another of several WWII films that rolled out of Oakmont Productions in the late 1960s. Like "Attack on the Iron Coast" and "Mosquito Squadron", this flick lacks innovation, flair and plays like an extended episode of "Black Sheep Squadron". Movies like this were never meant for the big screen. Director Graham had worked almost solely on made-for-TV films up until this point, and it's no surprise that he went back to that medium. His attempt at making a war film is a big disaster.
The rather boring script is written by John C. Champion, who takes the X raid on the German pocket battleship Tirpitz and turns it into what should be a rousing tale of heroism and courage. It's not. Surprised? Lt. Cmdr. Bolton (James Caan, "A Bridge too Far") loses his submarine in the North Atlantic and his men blame him for the ship's destruction and death of 50 crewmen. Well, he's cleared of guilt and re-assigned to train crews of experimental midget submarines - and, what a shock - some of his distrusting former crewmembers wind up in the squad he's too train! I don't know where to start with a film like this. It's not particularly bad. It's just... well... not good. The sets, including some marvelous Scottish scenery and great submarine interiors, look beautiful and Ron Goodwin's music score is rousing as usual, these are the only good things about this movie. James Caan is a great actor; watch "The Godfather" series and try to say he's a poor actor. It's not that he can't act in this movie. He's never given an opportunity to act! He just mumbles occasional, witless dialogue and gives everyone around him strange facial expressions. The supporting cast don't make much of an impact, either. Everyone simply goes through their paces, carries out the mission and in 90 minutes, we've learned nothing about them and can't care less when some of them get killed. Interestingly enough, most of the supporting cast is comprised of English television-actors, which just adds to the "made-for-TV" look and feel of this film.
It's also important to note that everything about this movie is a pure cliché.. Bolton's character and those around him are built around our expectations based on other war films like "The Devil's Brigade". Bolton is simply a stereotype, and not even a two-dimensional one at that. The German characters range from stupid to stupider, from the parachutists that attack the secret submarine base and talk with terrible accents, to the Navy officers who question prisoners and yell a lot but never appear particularly menacing. They waste their time with interrogations about a surviving submarine, rather than doing something practical such as sending one of dozens of E-Boats out to search for the sneaky enemy vessel! This film couldn't get anymore clichéd if it tried; all it lacks is a sappy love interest. Interestingly enough, there is one blond bombshell but she only gets once scene and then is forgotten rather abruptly. The nuts and bolts of a good film are all present, but never developed.
The special effects are pretty poor, as is the case with every other Oakmont Production to emerge in its understandably short existence. The underwater photography is fantastic, but every time Graham takes his camera above the water, viewers are treated to shots of obvious toy ships being blown to pieces. The miniatures look like they came out of a Japanese monster movie not a war movie! The camera-work in the talky scenes is unoriginal and flat and the film just looks boring.
When watching a movie like this, one has to take into account the time period in which it was made. "Submarine X-1" and every other film of its kind belonged on the small screen or, better yet, on the big screen as propaganda films during 1943 or 1944. As a late-60s "action" piece, this one ultimately fails despite some obviously good intentions.
The rather boring script is written by John C. Champion, who takes the X raid on the German pocket battleship Tirpitz and turns it into what should be a rousing tale of heroism and courage. It's not. Surprised? Lt. Cmdr. Bolton (James Caan, "A Bridge too Far") loses his submarine in the North Atlantic and his men blame him for the ship's destruction and death of 50 crewmen. Well, he's cleared of guilt and re-assigned to train crews of experimental midget submarines - and, what a shock - some of his distrusting former crewmembers wind up in the squad he's too train! I don't know where to start with a film like this. It's not particularly bad. It's just... well... not good. The sets, including some marvelous Scottish scenery and great submarine interiors, look beautiful and Ron Goodwin's music score is rousing as usual, these are the only good things about this movie. James Caan is a great actor; watch "The Godfather" series and try to say he's a poor actor. It's not that he can't act in this movie. He's never given an opportunity to act! He just mumbles occasional, witless dialogue and gives everyone around him strange facial expressions. The supporting cast don't make much of an impact, either. Everyone simply goes through their paces, carries out the mission and in 90 minutes, we've learned nothing about them and can't care less when some of them get killed. Interestingly enough, most of the supporting cast is comprised of English television-actors, which just adds to the "made-for-TV" look and feel of this film.
It's also important to note that everything about this movie is a pure cliché.. Bolton's character and those around him are built around our expectations based on other war films like "The Devil's Brigade". Bolton is simply a stereotype, and not even a two-dimensional one at that. The German characters range from stupid to stupider, from the parachutists that attack the secret submarine base and talk with terrible accents, to the Navy officers who question prisoners and yell a lot but never appear particularly menacing. They waste their time with interrogations about a surviving submarine, rather than doing something practical such as sending one of dozens of E-Boats out to search for the sneaky enemy vessel! This film couldn't get anymore clichéd if it tried; all it lacks is a sappy love interest. Interestingly enough, there is one blond bombshell but she only gets once scene and then is forgotten rather abruptly. The nuts and bolts of a good film are all present, but never developed.
The special effects are pretty poor, as is the case with every other Oakmont Production to emerge in its understandably short existence. The underwater photography is fantastic, but every time Graham takes his camera above the water, viewers are treated to shots of obvious toy ships being blown to pieces. The miniatures look like they came out of a Japanese monster movie not a war movie! The camera-work in the talky scenes is unoriginal and flat and the film just looks boring.
When watching a movie like this, one has to take into account the time period in which it was made. "Submarine X-1" and every other film of its kind belonged on the small screen or, better yet, on the big screen as propaganda films during 1943 or 1944. As a late-60s "action" piece, this one ultimately fails despite some obviously good intentions.
Did you know
- TriviaThis war movie is loosely based on a real World War II mission, Operation Source, which was staged during September 1943. Operation Source involved a number of secret attacks on several German battleships, namely the "Lutzow", "Scharnhorst", and "Tirpitz", in northern Norway, using X-class mini submarines.
- GoofsThroughout the early portion of the movie the X craft program is referred to as "Top Secret". At this point in time, the British used the term "Most Secret", Top Secret being an American term.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Krig (2017)
- How long is Submarine X-1?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime1 hour 30 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Le Raid suicide du sous-marin X1 (1968) officially released in India in English?
Answer