Hell and High Water (1954)

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

I wish sometimes that IMDb had two ratings for each review--one for the technical quality of a movie and one for its watchability. HELL AND HIGH WATER is very, very watchable and enjoyable, though the film has several big shortcomings.HELL AND HIGH WATER begins when there is evidence of nuclear testing going on in the Pacific. Who and where exactly and why this is occurring is unknown. In an odd move, a group of scientists have formed their own private investigating organization to look into the mystery. So, they pay to have a WWII vintage sub rehabbed and buy a crew--led by Richard Widmark as the skipper. Now where this money and organization came from is never explained in the least in the film--a rather big shortcoming--especially because for all any of the crew knows, this shadow organization is behind the nuclear testing (which they weren't).Eventually, the sub is able to locate a secret base that is run by the Chinese Communists. On it, a fake B-29 bomber is waiting to take off--and drop a nuclear bomb in Korea or Manchuria in order to make the US look bad and start a new war. The final scene where the sub takes out the bomber is pretty exciting and possible as the bomber would be very vulnerable at take-off.Let's talk about a few problems with the film. When Widmark is ready to take the ship out there is a GIANT cliché thrown into the plot. A top nuclear scientist and his young, sexy and brilliant assistant (Bella Darvi) accompanies him. The idea of a hot female scientist is such a bad cliché from the 1950s (in such films as THIS ISLAND EARTH). First, why couldn't it have been a man or an unattractive or unattached woman. Second, while this COULD have been a big step for feminism, in the end she is really just a piece of meat (albeit a very sexy one). Third, because it is a cliché, the entire crew behave like the wolf from a Tex Avery cartoon--even though they are just going to sea. Now if they'd been on duty for six months or longer, I might understand the panting wolf routine, but not in the case of this film.Another problem about the film is one that might not be a serious one. Last time I checked, I was not a submariner or specialist in underwater warfare, but the idea of a ship without torpedoes fighting and sinking another sub by repeatedly ramming it seemed,...well,...stupid. It was tense and cool...but stupid. However, I actually am pretty good when it comes to aircraft and was surprised at how wrong the B-29 bomber looked in the film--like a model made by someone who had only briefly seen a B-29 and made it from memory. But, having a B-29 as a weapons delivery platform for a nuclear bomb DID make sense, as the Soviets "appropriated" several that landed in their territory during the later days of WWII and the Russians DID make their own knock-off (an exact copy) of this bomber. So the idea of the Chinese using such a bomber is plausible--just very unlikely.The final silly cliché involves the nuclear scientist selflessly giving up his life to sneak onto the island with the bomber. He seemed to do this more because it was a cliché (thus allowing Widmark to live and supposedly have Darvi for his very own) than because it made logical sense. That's because only a few minutes earlier, the Doctor had argued against taking out the bomber--he wanted to rush back and report on what they'd seen. Now, he volunteers to be a commando! And, what really makes no sense is the idea of sending an old guy (with no military training) on such a super-duper important mission. Everything hinges on this old thumbless guy! Now although the story is very tough to believe and Darvi really has no reason to be in the film (apart from her boobs), the film is still well worth watching. It's one of these cases where you can really enjoy the film if you suspend your sense of disbelief. That's because the action is very good, there is a lot of tension and because although it's implausible, it's exciting and a wonderful "what if" scenario. Widmark, as usual, is great and the direction by Sam Fuller is excellent--though he is usually not a man for so many clichés.

When yet another atomic scientist goes missing behind the Iron Curtain, a private submarine expedition is put together to trail a freighter suspected of being able to lead the crew to what is believed to be the place where the Chinese are conducting nuclear research in preparation for a war. Former submarine commander Jones is contracted to lead the exhibition with a ragtag crew and a submarine in need of maintenance time that is not available to him. With Professor Montel technically in charge with his (female) assistant Professor Gerard by his side, the boat sets out on the mission of observation but with the ever present threat of danger in the hostile waters.A bit of a romp this one as it revels more in the gaudy sweep of the telling rather than the tension from narrative detail. The plot doesn't really matter so much as it is a simple device for the voyage. Along the way we get personal conflicts, crew tensions and underwater stand-offs as well as some fire-fights. At no point was I hooked but it is rather entertaining in the way that school-boy adventure stories are – full of tough men, sacrifice and action. In this regard it suits the people making it and Fuller directs with simple but bright colours – easy to understand and engage with even if they are too simple to be real. So it is with the characters and plot but it still works. The romantic side of the story is a flop and I didn't see why a female character couldn't just be a character and had to be a love interest (well, obviously I understand why this decision is made, but I didn't see the value of it in the story).The headlining of Richard Widmark is rarely a bad thing and he fits this tough action drama with his stern delivery and commanding presence. There is no doubting that Darvi is sexy and a good presence when it comes to being coy and flirtatious however when more is asked of her she is found wanting as she lacks the range. The rest of the cast fit in well around them – nobody brilliant of course but everyone able to be at the level required by the material.Not that intelligent or complex a film but a solid enough wartime action film which will do the job if that's all you're looking for.

While I was earnestly waiting for some of the moments of hilarity one of the reviewers wrote about (which I never found), I thought it would be worthwhile to point out some of the sillier criticism also made.First of all the bucket scene happened before the ramming scene - not after. Plus, submarines have buckets on them. Isn't that strange. It seems the makers of submarines sort of figured stuff like that out - sometimes subs take on water and it must be moved. And yes, they would have lots and lots of buckets. More than one sub in WWII was saved because of them. The reviewer may also not have seen the part where the buckets are being returned.He also comments on if the sub was already underwater, where were they taking the water. Again, submariners got that one figured out too. They were taking it to a place where there was a working pump to pump the water off the sub.Overall it was a decent diversion. But then I'm a fan or Richard Widmark so I may be biased.

I just saw this movie on TV and it was awesome.I won't go into the plot since it has been covered but if you want to see a stereotypical submarine movie using every cliché in the book watch this movie. I don't think you could make a funnier satire if you tried. (Think of 'Airplane' except in a sub.) And interesting highlight of the film is the use of tracers fired by the machine guns. This is the first and only of that era films that tracer rounds were shown.A bit of dialog is worth highlighting.Widmark to the Professor: "Well professor, how did a girl that looks like that get mixed up in science?" My 16 year old daughter broke out laughing when she heard that.Another unintentionally funny scene. After being damaged from ramming the Chinese sub, and while still submerged, Widmark walks through the sub from one end to the other. During his walk and talk with the crew there is a steady stream of water buckets being passed back. I mean a steady stream, as in dozens if not hundreds of buckets of water being passed. Finally Widmark makes it to the forward torpedo room where he observes men passing up the buckets of water from below the floor boards of the sub. The question to ask is "where did they get all those buckets?" and "What are they doing with the water since they are still submerged?" Also watch for first use of a SEAL team when they go ashore on the island.The editing in this movie is horrible, the continuity is horrible, the dialog is horrible. The movie is hilarious as a result.With Hollywood's habit of remaking nearly every movie ever made this one should be on the top of the list. It would be a hit comedy with no changes at all.