"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?
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?