Crimson Tide (1995)

Wonderfully offbeat film!

Sadly Over-hyped

Charming and brutal

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Nuclear devastation threatens the west coast of the United States when Russian rebels capture several intercontinental missile bases in Siberia and declare war against the USA. The crew of the submarine USS Alabama is in the midst of this modern missile crisis when the order arrives to launch the preemptive strike. Then communications break down, but not before a last garbled message comes through.Now the captain, played by veteran Gene Hackman, and his second in command, played by the gifted Denzel Washington, face off: fire as ordered, and possibly trigger a global nuclear war, or reestablish communications, and thus risking the submarine and cause a delay with possibly disastrous consequences for the US. A rebel submarine makes matters more difficult.The movie is commendable in that it remains focused on the crew and we know not much more than they do. This makes us feel as they do. However, Crimson Tide lacks flow. Flow is when events in the movie feel as being part of a natural progress that makes the story move forward. A movie lacks flow when we start to wonder.With Crimson Tide it starts with the assignment of Washington to the Alabama. It somehow feels strange that an important ship like the Alabama gets a second in command assigned who knows nothing of that particular ship, has no experience and seems of a different disposition that his commanding officer. But then stranger things happen.Next is the garbled message. Just when the Alabama loses contact with central command they get this garbled message. Is it a recall of the previous order? Nobody knows..but how convenient that it arrives just in time to lay a seed of doubt and stir the fires of conflict. But it could happen. Stranger things have.Next then is that when Washington convinced Hackman to reestablish contact with headquarters using a buoy, the winch breaks down and makes such noise that it alerts the rebel submarine. How very convenient. But stranger things have happened.Next, the Alabama succeeds in destroying the Russian submarine even though the latter fires four torpedoes first on the latter. But the only two torpedo's fired by the Alabama do hit. It could happen. Stranger things have.However, the last torpedo damages the Alabama and it sinks to the bottom of the sea, reaches hull crushing depth, but just in time regains buoyancy and escapes in the nick of time. Well. It could happen, stranger things have.Then when the Alabama is in the position to reestablish contact with central command the transmitter is broken. And when the confrontation between Hackman and Washington reaches boiling point, it suddenly works again. It could happen.Stranger things have.But having so many events conveniently happen breaks the flow of the story. Strange things happen, a series of strange things is extremely rare. And if a story requires them to be there otherwise there would be no story is bad story telling.Compare Crimson Tide to the Caine Mutiny which has no such odd incidents. It is a natural story that has flow. Crimson Tide can only exist because it requires exceptional strange things to happen. This is its main flaw. No excellent acting by Hackman, Washington and Mortensen can repair that damage.

"Crimson Tide" could be simply described with adjectives such as: Intense, powerful, dark, suspenseful and full of heart. Absolutely flawless, this is one of the best of 1995. And I will throw it right at the beginning: like the movie suggests it itself by including one and only woman (!) and only for about 3 minutes, this is no film for the ladies. Both leading men topped themselves with this one. Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington at the time seem so hungry for film-making! This movie is a proof of their talent and their charisma at delivering lines with such focused drama and power; no way won't you be amazed. I dare to compare them to great names after this and so should everyone. Great factor for what is the final result of course is the one who mastered it. Can't praise enough the great director Tony Scott. Picture and performances are superb and of total high quality and it's because of him. This is a film hugely underrated for absolutely no reason, except the one mentioned before on women. And that is kind of a minus but so obviously necessary.Commander Ron Hunter is one skilled, family, officer man. Under the directions of Captain Frank Ramsey (an experienced war hero with years of service on his back), the two of them embark upon a mission underwater. While introducing themselves on the US nuclear missile sub, we get to know 2 different men: a man approaching the topic of war as a family man, who's drawn to views of preventing disastrous outcomes and intends to keep peace; while the captain is a man resilient and tough who, spending the years in conditions of war, has come to embrace disastrous situations and in the fear of danger (as a fearless Captain) is willing to do anything before risking his sub, even if that means risking a nuclear war. Those conflicts may be disclosed at the beginning of their encounter, but when the boundaries are crossed and the status changes, that conflict becomes the heart of a mutiny that produces madness, fear and danger on massive levels; and that happens on underwater terms and also risks consequences of sure war on the outside world.Right from the start and continuing in the heart and heat of the movie, we feel disturbed by one unintentional feeling to disagree with both of them and at the same time, agree with both of them. We are never demanded to sympathize or understand neither opinion fully, even if we have a personal preference. In the end, they were both right, right? The bar of the movie is so high, it never provokes the standard sense of righteousness of the hero and the viciousness of the villain. This time they are both on the good side; just failing to make us (and sometimes themselves) understand it. It's sort of like they both shared a misguided sense of right and wrong; one relying completely on rules (Ramsey) and the other one leaning more towards principles (Hunter). By the time the end comes, I understand it as it was all just a play between the safe choice and the wise choice. Does anyone else think that's the coolest dilemma ever?

Excellent acting by Gene and Denzel, but... Mild spoilers ahead...Starts out well as you feel the tension of their mission ahead. But about 30 minutes in, it totally goes into the realm of lunacy. How any captain of a nuclear sub suddenly goes into the insane act of wanting to launch warheads without even knowing if there's a war , is stretching any sense of realism to the film. And add on top of that, not one but two acts of mutiny is the span of 20 minutes, that is totally ridiculous. It became just a total farce. If they just stayed on the psychological battle between Gene and Denzel's characters and not the over the top nonsense, it would of been so much better.

Prior to Tony Scott's recent suicide, I hadn't seen most of his movies. But now I've seen "Crimson Tide". This portrays tension aboard a nuclear submarine when the hot-headed captain (Gene Hackman) wants to go ahead with a launch while the restrained executive officer (Denzel Washington) wants to wait for another signal. I didn't think that it was a great movie, but the context of rebel forces in Russia threatening to launch nukes brings up the issue of how secure weapons of mass destruction anywhere are, combined with the risk that a trigger-happy might ignore an incomplete message and decide to launch weapons. The point is, who can truly be considered sane in a completely insane situation? Like I said, it's not any kind of masterpiece, but still worth seeing. Great tension between Hackman and Washington. Appearing in early roles are James Gandolfini, Steve Zahn, Ryan Philippe and Daniel Von Bargen.