This movies is seriously one of the worst movies of its genre. It is not because the subject matter is depressing and unappealing, which it is. But rather, it is so boring and and terribly acted all around (Liam Neeson is the only one that is even watchable). The idea of Harrison Ford as a Russian is so ludicrous. It is not because of his horrible accent, but rather his star quality (i.e. star persona) does not let him become the role.
There have been some comparisons in early comments about this being similar to "Das Boot" and "Run Silent, Run Deep," but those comments are so of the mark it is scary. The film is filmed so poorly and the cinematography is flat and has not depth of field, nor is there an sense of claustrophobia. "Das Boot" was the master of submarine suspense simply due to its shot selection. "U-571," although a popcorn flick was much more emotional than this cold fish. Oddly the film is so empty of emotion when the entire movie revolves around tragedy (This is not a spoiler).
I am shocked at how poorly Katheryn Bigelow directed this film. She normally has the ability to create visually stimulating films, even if they aren't the greatest. "Strange Days" had some beautiful moments, although the script was a mess and there was no mystery to the the actual plot. "Near Dark" was campy but quite beautiful. And, although her film "The Weight of Water" was derided by critics, the scenes with Sarah Polley were fantastic and wonderfully shot, including some really great handheld camera work. Of course, everyone say that her handheld chase scene in "Point Break" is one of the best shots she has ever composed, but I disagree.
If you want to check out a Bigelow film, look for the gem "Blue Steel" with Jamie Lee Curtis, Ron Silver, and a nice small role by Louise Fletcher. There are some gorgeous shots in it the and some of the lighting is quite nice, if nit a little too much use of blue filters. Although, I do think the storyline is a little cliched at times. But then again, I am not really a fan of Ron Silver. He has his moments, but seems wrong for that part. He doesn't have the ability to match up to Curtis's -masculinity- if that is what it is.
Well, in terms of "K-19: Widowmaker," I place the blame squarely on Bigelow. The idea isn't awful; the notion of tragic dilemmas faced by authoritative figures and how to deal with them psychologically is in interesting concept. But the movie fails so miserably. There are way too many dramatic scenes of Ford contemplating the submarine's problematic scenarios. Additionally, some of the lighting, specifically the scenes filmed with an overbearing red, is so dull and washes out the actors' faces. The rest of the film is brown and and devoid of all color. Not that there should be a myriad of color filling the screen. But color, even in small doses, is important to the psychologically of a film SPOILER (the ice scenes are the only semi-beautiful shots). I don't mean that bright colors should be employed gratuitously. A great use of muted colors, specifically grey, as in the Untouchables, are quite beautiful, but that is usually falls to the art direction, costumes, and DP. Unfortunately, all colors in "Widowmaker" are one color (e.g. blue, red, white), and use lighting and filters poorly for the effect they are trying to convey.
Well, as you can tell, I think this movie deserves all the the bad reviews it received. There are a lot of submarine movies out there that are very good, or at least competent (e.g. "The Abyss," although not really a true submarine movie; "Innerspace," Dennis Quaid was in a type of submarine-- I know it's a stretch; of course there are the standards: "U-571," "Das Boo," and "Crimson Tide," all of which use colors effectively and and have a great sense of camera movement and composition; finally, the best submarine movie ever made (well maybe "Das Boot" takes that honor) is "Below," and amazing David Twohy movie, co-written by Darren Arronofsky).
In conclusion, avoid "K-19" unless you want to sleep or make fun of some of the worst shots ever employed in a large budget film. Hell, even though people seem to hate "Waterworld," although I quite like it for its "Road Warrior" quality, you have to admit that Dean Semler has some of the most beautiful compositions in that film. Or maybe they are Reynolds, or Costners....who knows with that troubled film.
AVOID "K19: WIDOWMAKER" AT ALL COSTS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE REMINDED OF A BAD A 80'S MOVIE, LIKE THAT ONE WHERE KANSAS (OR SOME MIDDLE OF THE US STATE) WAS ATTACKED BY A THE RUSSIANS. THIS MOVIE IS RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE "RUSSIA HOUSE," NOT A HORRIBLE CONCEPT, JUST THE WORST PRODUCTION I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. AT LEAST YOU CAN LAUGH AT "SHOWGIRLS," AND AT LEAST "A LIFE LESS ORDINARY" WAS SO BAD THAT AND WEIRD THAT YOU DON'T FORGET IT. THERE ARE STILL IMAGES I CAN'T SHAKE FROM MY HEAD, AS HARD AS I TRY. NOT THAT THOSE MOVIES HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO "K-19." I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD ILLUMINATE MY TASTES IN CASE SOMEONE MIGHT ENJOY MOVIES THAT I FIND ATROCIOUS.
Well....I guess this was another morning diatribe. I am not sure anyone reads these. Yet writing is terribly interesting and especially when you get to realize the amount of money that is wasted on a film (what happened to Ford? "What Lies Beneath" was such a great movie that borrowed so many beautiful shots from Hitchcock and Welles). But you have to take the good with the bad.
"Master and Commander" was worth every penny they spent. If only there were going to be a sequel based on one of the other books, but I don't see the financial possibility given its current gross. It is never good to say "never" though.
Well.... I am going to stop writing just because I want to stop annoying anyone who put up with reading this unimportant crap; and, I have to say, it is only my two cents. Maybe I should have bought a gumball with my two cents instead of venting. Cherry is the tastiest gumball. Otherwise, if they don't have cherry, I think I will opt for raspberry. Oh decisions. Wow, I need to get a grip. Just a reminder, DON"T SEE "K-19" UNLESS YOU WATCH EVERY MOVIE FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES AND TRY TO DISSECT WHAT MAKES MOVIES GREAT OR, IN THIS CASE, A FAILURE.
DIATRIBE MAN (SANDCAT2004)
There have been some comparisons in early comments about this being similar to "Das Boot" and "Run Silent, Run Deep," but those comments are so of the mark it is scary. The film is filmed so poorly and the cinematography is flat and has not depth of field, nor is there an sense of claustrophobia. "Das Boot" was the master of submarine suspense simply due to its shot selection. "U-571," although a popcorn flick was much more emotional than this cold fish. Oddly the film is so empty of emotion when the entire movie revolves around tragedy (This is not a spoiler).
I am shocked at how poorly Katheryn Bigelow directed this film. She normally has the ability to create visually stimulating films, even if they aren't the greatest. "Strange Days" had some beautiful moments, although the script was a mess and there was no mystery to the the actual plot. "Near Dark" was campy but quite beautiful. And, although her film "The Weight of Water" was derided by critics, the scenes with Sarah Polley were fantastic and wonderfully shot, including some really great handheld camera work. Of course, everyone say that her handheld chase scene in "Point Break" is one of the best shots she has ever composed, but I disagree.
If you want to check out a Bigelow film, look for the gem "Blue Steel" with Jamie Lee Curtis, Ron Silver, and a nice small role by Louise Fletcher. There are some gorgeous shots in it the and some of the lighting is quite nice, if nit a little too much use of blue filters. Although, I do think the storyline is a little cliched at times. But then again, I am not really a fan of Ron Silver. He has his moments, but seems wrong for that part. He doesn't have the ability to match up to Curtis's -masculinity- if that is what it is.
Well, in terms of "K-19: Widowmaker," I place the blame squarely on Bigelow. The idea isn't awful; the notion of tragic dilemmas faced by authoritative figures and how to deal with them psychologically is in interesting concept. But the movie fails so miserably. There are way too many dramatic scenes of Ford contemplating the submarine's problematic scenarios. Additionally, some of the lighting, specifically the scenes filmed with an overbearing red, is so dull and washes out the actors' faces. The rest of the film is brown and and devoid of all color. Not that there should be a myriad of color filling the screen. But color, even in small doses, is important to the psychologically of a film SPOILER (the ice scenes are the only semi-beautiful shots). I don't mean that bright colors should be employed gratuitously. A great use of muted colors, specifically grey, as in the Untouchables, are quite beautiful, but that is usually falls to the art direction, costumes, and DP. Unfortunately, all colors in "Widowmaker" are one color (e.g. blue, red, white), and use lighting and filters poorly for the effect they are trying to convey.
Well, as you can tell, I think this movie deserves all the the bad reviews it received. There are a lot of submarine movies out there that are very good, or at least competent (e.g. "The Abyss," although not really a true submarine movie; "Innerspace," Dennis Quaid was in a type of submarine-- I know it's a stretch; of course there are the standards: "U-571," "Das Boo," and "Crimson Tide," all of which use colors effectively and and have a great sense of camera movement and composition; finally, the best submarine movie ever made (well maybe "Das Boot" takes that honor) is "Below," and amazing David Twohy movie, co-written by Darren Arronofsky).
In conclusion, avoid "K-19" unless you want to sleep or make fun of some of the worst shots ever employed in a large budget film. Hell, even though people seem to hate "Waterworld," although I quite like it for its "Road Warrior" quality, you have to admit that Dean Semler has some of the most beautiful compositions in that film. Or maybe they are Reynolds, or Costners....who knows with that troubled film.
AVOID "K19: WIDOWMAKER" AT ALL COSTS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE REMINDED OF A BAD A 80'S MOVIE, LIKE THAT ONE WHERE KANSAS (OR SOME MIDDLE OF THE US STATE) WAS ATTACKED BY A THE RUSSIANS. THIS MOVIE IS RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE "RUSSIA HOUSE," NOT A HORRIBLE CONCEPT, JUST THE WORST PRODUCTION I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. AT LEAST YOU CAN LAUGH AT "SHOWGIRLS," AND AT LEAST "A LIFE LESS ORDINARY" WAS SO BAD THAT AND WEIRD THAT YOU DON'T FORGET IT. THERE ARE STILL IMAGES I CAN'T SHAKE FROM MY HEAD, AS HARD AS I TRY. NOT THAT THOSE MOVIES HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO "K-19." I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD ILLUMINATE MY TASTES IN CASE SOMEONE MIGHT ENJOY MOVIES THAT I FIND ATROCIOUS.
Well....I guess this was another morning diatribe. I am not sure anyone reads these. Yet writing is terribly interesting and especially when you get to realize the amount of money that is wasted on a film (what happened to Ford? "What Lies Beneath" was such a great movie that borrowed so many beautiful shots from Hitchcock and Welles). But you have to take the good with the bad.
"Master and Commander" was worth every penny they spent. If only there were going to be a sequel based on one of the other books, but I don't see the financial possibility given its current gross. It is never good to say "never" though.
Well.... I am going to stop writing just because I want to stop annoying anyone who put up with reading this unimportant crap; and, I have to say, it is only my two cents. Maybe I should have bought a gumball with my two cents instead of venting. Cherry is the tastiest gumball. Otherwise, if they don't have cherry, I think I will opt for raspberry. Oh decisions. Wow, I need to get a grip. Just a reminder, DON"T SEE "K-19" UNLESS YOU WATCH EVERY MOVIE FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES AND TRY TO DISSECT WHAT MAKES MOVIES GREAT OR, IN THIS CASE, A FAILURE.
DIATRIBE MAN (SANDCAT2004)