|  IP: Logged

I'm not bitter about anything. I just didn't care for it, and thats just my opinion. I'll admit my views on films are a bit extreme. So far this year I've only liked 3 movies, Ghost Dog, Titus, and The Ninth Gate, all movies that I'm sure a lot of people here didn't like, but I don't mind. Its just the way I watch films.

This movie had a lot of potential. The first two hours, while becoming unfocused at points, were excellent. Then the movie went way downhill. The problem with the movie is it didn't have a solid storyline. If the entire movie had been the assualt on the ridge it would have been excellent.

The thing is, I did appreciate the character study. Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte) was my favorite. I still think he should've gotten best supporting actor for his role. This is what kept me from walking out. But a movie needs more than deep characters to keep it going-its called a storyling, and TRL's was all over the place. It made following the characters difficult. Expecially the fact that two of the most closely studied characters, Tall, and that Company leader (forget the name) disapear after the first two hours. Leaving an hour left with two major characters gone and the climax of the movie-taking the ridge-already done.

You folks can go on-and-on about the academy, cimatography, editing, score, which WWII movie was better and why, and all that, but in the end all these films are created for entertainment. As film people we are critical of the former points, but sometimes we forget about the latter, especially when the film has historical aspects to it. I will be the first to admit that I am sometimes guilty of this myself.

I found "U-571" to be a little lacking in most areas, but that is not to say I did not like it. I agree, it is a rip of of "Das Boot" (1983) and some of the scenes are ackward, such as the two guns fireing and three explosions occuring in the water. Even I, an ardent critic of historically accurate movies, needed to remind myself that the set must be bigger than the actual boats were so that we can see what is going on inside the boat and how the men work together. Face, it that is the message of the movie - work together to get a job done, even if that job is more important than you think it is.

On the down side, however, I thought there was way too much depth-charging. The scene were the boat is at 200 meters was very boring because the depth charges anoyingly continued as the crew cautiously listened. Couple that with the buristing of some tubes due to the pressure, and its like, "well, nothing new here, just explosions and bursting. Didn't I see this for the past 20 minutes.".

Anyway, the character development was great and I like how we got a look into the pasts of Mr. Tyler, a fishing boat captain's son who went to Anapolis; Chief, an old sea dog left over from World War I; and Wentz, an Ivy League farm boy who studied German at Brown University. Character pasts are integral to all films, yet some writers miss this entirely, especially in action dramas such as "U-571". As far as some casting mistakes, Bill Paxton was anoying (as usual), and what the hell was the purpose of Jon Bon Jovi's character?

explosions=good
explosions in boring movie=just wake me up

WWII movies=good
WWII movies that are 3 hours with nothing to keep you interested=bad

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

the purpose of Jon Bon Jovi's character was to whisper 'splashes!' repeatedly. that's the closest i can tell, anyway.

Um, that wasn't a "battleship". It was a lowly destroyer. Had it been a battleship, the movie would have ended much sooner! *grin*

(16 inch guns instead of five inch)

My dad was in the navy. The plot was pretty much in sync with what he told us.

We recently took a bunch of cubscout heathens to Pittsburgh to spend the night aboard a WWII fleet submarine. The set was very accurate except fot the nice bedroom hall that the movie portrayed.

In reality, those guys slept on bunks in areas that also housed torpedos! Talk about an explosive roomate!

We were docked on the peacefull Ohio River but the waves would still make the sub rock from side to side. With NO outside reference to look at, you can't tell that the sub is rocking. You just think that gravity is shifting! (and then you fall down)

There was a scene in the movie where the COB tells another sailer of a depth charge attack that rattled teeth out of their sockets. This was accurate.

It was a well made film (as was Das Boot). They were merely told from two different points of view.

Russ

anyway, I saw an Interesting documentary on the History Channel comparing the movie U-571 with historical documents, they also had interviews with both an American and German U-boat captain who watched the film. They both said it was very inacurate, and didn't think it was an accurate portrayal of U-boat combat. They said the depth charges that close to the ship would have imploded it very earl on in the film. Just interesting thats all.