MovieChat Forums > Below (2002) Discussion > One of the funniest movies I've ever see...

One of the funniest movies I've ever seen ...


Except I don't think it was supposed to be a comedy.

Yeah, Surgio Leone took liberties with the American "old" west. But good grief! No WWII sub had a air-lock -- wouldn't work with a vessel pressurized to surface pressure. Boy I sure feel sorry for the guys who came from the "Oil Tank Repair" I hear the bends is a horrible way to go. Coors was lucky to get conked on the head.

Scuba? In 1940 whatever. Granted the first aqua-lung was made in 1943. There was one and it was destroyed by shelling France. I'm guessing those guys swimming round' their civies a hundred feet below the surface would have died of hypothermia in about 5 minutes.

I also found the use of the underwater search light by the German sub hunter, um, improbable.

They should have had Robbie the Robot do a cameo as Eddie the ship board computer.

The hydrogen explosion is the best. A depth charge within a hundred or so feet will kill a sub. So several thousand cubic feet of hydrogen do what? burn the pain a little? OK.

This could have been a good suspense flick. If you set a drama in a historical setting um, use the historical setting. It would have been much more enjoyable if they had even thought of historical accuracy. It's more fun to play the game by the rules.

reply

......but if you watch this film without the detailed knowledge of submarines like you have, it could still be considered a nice piece of 'escapism'

"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it"

reply

Actually; it wasn't funny, nor was it scary , nor was it realistic, nor was it a movie. It is the worst movie ever made in the year 2002 and maybe in the 21st century.

reply

I consider the first reply the worst attempt at sarcasm ever- (if you, for once cannot put historical accuracies at the side for once, you should just keep watching documentaries.)

The third reply however, is just begging for everyone to set the author in the "irrelevant poster" list, as there is nothing more informative coming out from that name aparently.

I personally hope criticism can be kept constructive in the future.

reply


Maybe you need to learn what the word "reply" means.
-------------------------
Ah, los gringos otra vez.

reply

So you're saying it was not a movie, yet it was the worst movie of 2002. Strange.




"Worship me or I'll torture you forever"
-Your loving God.

reply

[deleted]

But according to Christians it's true. Worship ''God'' or be tortured forever.




"Worship me or I'll torture you forever"
-Your loving God.

reply

Why would anyone that is interested in movies or what others might think about movies consider anything you say when you display such hateful and obvious scorn in your sig? Why even go through the trouble to spit on a religion in a message board about movies?!

I dont get it.
Please. You are entitled to your opinion, but like the other lefty flake here (you are no doubt of the 'left' in politics and everything else-they go hand in hand with Christian haters) with the 'Sarah Palin looks like LeatherFace with no makeup' comment in his sig, one finds themselves glossing right past anything the intellectually-elite liberal might have had to say in the first place.

I just dont understand the 'I must attack those I disagree with at any turn, no matter how petty or weak I look' mentality.

Always from those that consider themselves 'above' and 'superior' in thought to the average proles that are not witty enough to grasp the bile that is their ideology too...

Imagine that.

reply

First of all, he (marktarnovetsky) was ''attacking'' ME. Not the other way around. I was talking about movies.

Secondly, I'm indeed not religious, but I'm not ANTI-religious. I find lots of religions very interesting, actually. And I find that extreme left people are just as bad as the extreme rights.

And thirdly, that post you quoted was like a year old. I changed my sig months ago.

You were making all kinds of assumptions just because of a little joke sig I had. You're being way too sensitive, dude. :P



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

I think you missed the point. Friend.

Because of the childishly pathetic smear in your sig, whatever you might have had to say about a movie was skipped over immediately by me and God knows how many others, regardless of your topic.

Why do that? I just didnt get why someone who appears to be obviously intelligent enough to discuss their views on the big stage would stoop to such juvenile nonsense that forces others to just ignore you.

I had no idea how old it was. Not even sure how I stumbled upon it. It was not the first petty little sig I had seen here (both from the tolerant left ideology of course) and I called you out on it.

My two cents. Nothing else.

reply

''both from the tolerant left ideology OF COURSE''? Sounds more and more like you are the troll here. Looking up year old posts to comment about some joke sig. And what's funny is that you probably would've never commented about someone who makes fun of atheism or any other religion.
I changed my sig months ago. Let it go.



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

Im a troll? Is that how you quickly dismiss the points Ive made?
Is it just 'coincidence' that both petty and juvenile sigs belong to the lefty members here? I think it speaks volumes about your 'side' that many of us have come to expect from you and yours.

And although you try to still paint me with the 'George Bush' brush, had I saw a sig that said 'democrats are satan' or some other such nonsense equivalent to your own bile I think I would have said the same thing: why attack ANYONE at a movie-review message board?
It makes no sense.

I also had no idea how old your post was. I came to read the reviews about the movie I found your post in. Nothing more, nothing less.

Moving on...

reply

''Is it just 'coincidence' that both petty and juvenile sigs belong to the lefty members here? I think it speaks volumes about your 'side' that many of us have come to expect from you and yours.''

I'm not a ''lefty'' member. Don't really know what you mean by my ''side''. I'm not American. And even if I was, then yes, that would be a coincidence. Generalizing is for the simple-minded.



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

Yes you knew what I meant by 'side'. Your 'side' of the political aisle of course.
American or not, I stand behind what I said and feel I captured you pretty well.

And being simple minded? Easy for a guy to say that attaches pathetically childish rants about religion in his sig ON A MOVIE REVIEW board. Which is after all, what drove me to comment in the first place.

reply

Wow, you're such a drama queen! Or drama king, perhaps? Hmm...

And how are you so sure I am a guy?




I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

What? You seem to have a serious comprehension problem.
I dont care if youre a guy or a girl. I stated my reason for ever even commenting to you and you just wont let it be.

I think we have expressed ourselves enough on this subject and I dont see the point of continuing this game.

Please. Im done arguing with you.
Im sorry i ever even brought it up. Who am I to call you out for something *I* thought petty. Lets move along. I didnt come here to bicker with you.

Fair?

reply

Yeah, fair enough.



I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

I’m going to have to defend AliGdaB here. Both you and marktarnovetsky WERE the ones doing the attacking. AliG could just as easily have had a section of "Mein Kompf" in his signature if he thought it made a specific point or provided commentary on a particular subject,or not. Either way, it would have nothing to do with his reply to the original poster. To say that his opinion regarding something completely unrelated to movies should influence whether or not his posts here are worth reading is ridiculous. You went out of your way to make an ad hominem attack about a technically true statement (not a smear, and certainly not a “pathetically childish rant”) that AliG obviously felt concisely sums up his own opinion.

Your subsequent posts suggest that you are completely biased and judgmental as you begin to nonsensically take jabs at people’s political affiliations in lieu of making an actual point, and making generalized, pointedly aggressive assumptions (“you are no doubt of the 'left' in politics and everything else-they go hand in hand with Christian haters”).

AliGdaB’s signature was not meant specifically for you or for anyone else. It was his/her’s personal commentary on knowledge that his/her own experiences in life have yielded.

Your own words- “I just dont understand the 'I must attack those I disagree with at any turn, no matter how petty or weak I look' mentality.

Always from those that consider themselves 'above' and 'superior' in thought to the average proles that are not witty enough to grasp the bile that is their ideology too...” -could easily be thrown back in your hypocritical face.


My two cents. Nothing else.

reply

Um. Your 'attacking' me for 'attacking' him over his pathetic little sig? :p

I'm sure you noticed where I said he was entitled to his opinion then offered my own. Why someone would feel the need to 'attack' in their sig at a movie board is what motivated me to say something. Surely you can see the lack of decent judgement on his part? Why say ANYthing to attack ANYthing on a movie board in the first place?! It was absolutely petty and I called him on it with minor jabs here and there as a scathing review of my own.
You talk about my hypocrisy (guilty as charged) but I did not see you or AliG deny a single word of it...and no thats not the 'guilty for lack of defending') theory, I simply dont think I was wrong. If we were betting, I would raise you on it.
Who else but a liberal would be attacking Christians? Its all fine and good to have your disagreements or even disgust...but why spew it on a movie site?! Hello?! Only a liberal (IMO) takes delight in such blatant hatred...of Christianity only (while pretending to be 'against religion').
Where else would you say i was wrong?
Is it an 'attack' when you're right (in your own opinion of course!)? Am I wrong that 'those' that I mentioned just happen to feel just as I said, 'superior' and of course just plain smarter than the redneck dummies that 'cling to their guns, Gods, and religion',Is that not what Dear Leader himself said?

You can call me anything you want (except late for Dinner!). I stand by what I said, no matter how primitive you might think I am. No ones perfect, especially me and yes, I was a hypocrite and did what I called him out on. Sue me. He had it coming for being such a dang dummy (just as I did from you)!

Now, he said it was years old or something and I never thought to look. I was new here and did not know any better. That was my fault. We moved on-done.

reply

I appreciate your concessions concerning the topic but..

Once again, you start off with an attack: “pathetic little sig”.

And..
Once again,, his sig was NOT attacking anyone. It was merely a statement of his own beliefs. Something he felt strongly enough about to provide his opinion. He didn’t say “All Christians are dumb”, or even “Christians have it wrong.” He simply provided commentary on a belief system that probably affects him in some way. AGAIN, his sig did not attack you, yet you felt “motivated” to respond as if he did. It seems more like a personal issue to you rather than a philosophical one.

After that your post becomes slightly incoherent, but I’ll reply based on what I can glean. Your assumption that “Who else but a liberal would be attacking Christians?” deserves dismissal. If you’re saying conservatives are all christian and no liberals are, you’re either completely misinformed or else willingly uninformed. Nobody but you has even mentioned the words “superior” or “primitive”. You seem to be predisposed to playing the victim, claiming oppression where none exists.

AliG’s signature should inspire debate if nothing else. If you disagree then say so, and why, instead of pointlessly claiming you’ve been attacked

reply

Um. You can call his sig anything you want. Thought provoking it is not. 'Worship me or I'll torture you forever-your loving God'. Oh yeah, thats not hurtful, attacking, or anything other than simply brilliant and worthy of debate.

To those that believe in a God, it is meant to anger, provoke, and ridicule. If you cant grasp that, I dont know what to say. We see things differently. Fair enough?

And no, I never claimed conservatives are high and mighty in the God department. Im conservative and the last thing I want to talk about is God/s. I hope to just 'skate-by' with the herd and hopefully go unnoticed!

My point was you wont see conservatives/republicans (not the same thing!) blatantly butchering religion in their sig AT A MOVIE WEBSITE. They usually dont stoop to that level unless their attacking Islam (i'd guess), and in that case, AliG and all other liberals will chime in to show support for any other religion besides Christianity.

Liberals are known to attack anything Christian, that is why I ASSumed he was a liberal. I didnt see him deny it either.

So, say what you will. Unlike a liberal, I have no problem with different opinions. I wont march at your kids school, or bullhorn your local church (for liberals I guess that would be a coffee-shop) to get you to hide and keep your opinions quiet. I wont attack the police with bottles and bricks because I have been offended.

And if someone is going to put petty, attacks in their sig, I will probably continue to call them out on it. See you at DailyKos! :p

reply

Your posts have become so self-contradictory, I have to assume you’re just messing with me at this point. Congrats if so, well done.

reply

Go *beep* yourself, you idiot.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

reply

You can't smear someone with the truth. The fact is, your "god" WILL torture you for eternity if you don't worship him. Why pretend that isn't true and call it a smear?

I hate two faced people. It's so hard knowing which face to slap first.

reply

Oh so intellectual. Back from an OWS rally? Let me guess, this whole 'God' thing came up for you during your 'gay marriage' quest? Hard to buy into the God thing when everything you do is spitting in his face, eh?

And for your record, I dont buy into a God thing myself. BUT I dont pretend to be superior to those that do, and I tend to value their honesty and ability over those that only seek to ridicule them and mock them.

But you are the minority, both in your liberal-leftist ideology, or your mocking of religion. More believe in something than they do nothing. Your 'side' needs there to be no God/s, the other side has faith that there is something beyond themselves. Just because Bill Maher thinks hes above them does not make it so.

Oh well. Back to HuffPo with you.

reply

It sure is weird how you seem to think that a generic reference to a loving God is somehow directed at YOUR god. For all you know, he was talking about a god you have a problem with, like the muslim God. You aren't so silly as to think your religion has a monopoly on the concept of a loving god, right?

reply

Learn to read oh clever liberal loser.

Where did I say *I* believed in anything? Didnt I say 'I dont buy into the God concept-BUT...'?

Trying to be cute and clever doesnt work for you.

reply

Learn to read oh clever liberal loser.

Where did I say *I* believed in anything? Didnt I say 'I dont buy into the God concept-BUT...'?

Trying to be cute and clever doesnt work for you.


Deflection and kind of an ugly deflection at that. So I didn't read every single word of every single one of your posts and missed a very minor detail. It is really a distinction without a difference.

The point is that you assumed he was "attacking" christianity as if christianity had a monopoly on the concept of a loving god.

So after your chastisement I did go back and read every single tedious word of every single post you made in this thread. And you know what? It became crystal clear that you are so locked into this liberal/conservative dichotomy that you can't conceive of anything that doesn't fit those stereotypes.

From where I am standing, it looks like that dichotomy itself has become your religion.

reply

Oh, ok.

So show me one liberal mocking Islam? How about a funny cartoon depicting their God in an unflattering way? Oh I know, we'll put the Koran in a jar of urine and call it art! Surely theres a liberal out there willing to display THAT art?

Or a widely known comedian mocking the 'religion of peace'? I mean, think of the fun you could have with that little phrase alone!

No. When liberals mock a religion it is ONLY Christianity. Even the pathetic DNC poster child 'Comedy Central' had to bow after SouthPark dared to barely make a funny concerning Islam.Make fun of Jesus though-get accepted by the intellectuals and instantly youre a 'hit'. Sound familiar?

And you might be on to something about 'that dichotomy'. Who knows. Show me a Voltaire liberal and I might change my mind.
Very rarely have I come across a liberal willing to actually listen to the other side of an argument without being condescending or petty.

They're usually along the lines of 'putting blacks back in chains', running old ladies off of a cliff AFTER they've been forced to eat dog food, slandering a 'white hispanic', or getting 'tingles' up their legs when THE ONE speaks. Doesn't leave much room for mocking religion equally does it.

Did I miss something?

reply

So show me one liberal mocking Islam?
Bill Maher.
How about a funny cartoon depicting their God in an unflattering way?
Trey Parker & Matt Stone.

Your faith in liberal stereotypes is your religion. Case closed.

Very rarely have I come across a liberal willing to actually listen to the other side of an argument without being condescending or petty.
That's probably because your presentation is hostile and exhausting.

reply

And they all apologized and promised not to do it again.

Whereas, anything about Christians and their God is open game, intellectually funny, and always welcome no matter the venue.

All I ask for is equality in the liberal hatred of God/s. Is that asking too much? I only wish liberals had more exposure to Islam and Sharia Law. Just the mention of it makes them quiver with fear, be nice to see it practiced on a few of them. :p

reply

And they all apologized and promised not to do it again.
No they did not. That is your faith blinding you.

Here's more:
Jim Jeffries - Mohammed is his gay microphone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEbRSjnuEo

Tommy Tiernan - If the Irish became muslim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu_ftaCg1g (part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2PixI5afzM (part 2)

Robin Williams - 72 Virgils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osvvTOzzQBE

Billy Connolly - 53 Duran Duran Fans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xwPVgRaROA

All I ask for is equality in the liberal hatred of God/s.
For the third time - Christianity does not have a monopoly on the concept of a Loving God.
The sig you flipped out over is precisely what you have now just asked for.

reply

I stand corrected! Ive only heard of two of those people, the others must be English.

A little equality on this side of the pond would be wonderful, and I dont mean 'go bash Muslims!, I simply mean to spread your contempt around.

Kinda like the way American liberals were all screaming, 'Bush is Hitler', 'NO war for oil', stop killing innocent children!' when we went into Iraq/Afghanistan, but are all very SILENT now. What happened? A different boss came into the picture, one with which they agree.

Suddenly there are no more 'protests', no more 'OWS rape parties' (where they handle the rapes 'internally'), no more screaming about dead babies.

Where are they all now?
Gitmo is still running, the Patriot Act renewed, warrantless wiretapping, drones in the air, you name it, Obama has taken Bush's 'war on freedom' and multiplied it and the 'liberal progressives' are SILENT.

Thats transparency you can see through.

What the English do does not concern me. The last I heard they were bending over backwards to accept Sharia Law, killing 1200 from neglect at one NIH hospital, and working to kill babies already born.

But you DID find someone kinda poking fun at Muslims and for that I have to admit I was wrong. I appreciate the effort you put into it.


reply

> I stand corrected! Ive only heard of two of those people, the others must be English.

Jim Jeffries is an australian in the US who currently has his own sitcom on FX called Legit which was just picked up for a 2nd season. Robin Williams and Billy Connolly are not particularly obscure either, regularly performing in the US. The irish guy is, presumably, mostly in Ireland.

> But you DID find someone kinda poking fun at Muslims and for that
> I have to admit I was wrong. I appreciate the effort you put into it.

I count 7 not one. Furthermore, Maher is both bombastic and frequent in his criticism of Islam, never missing a chance if the topic comes up. Jeffries specifically compared his microphone to a gay mohammed. Don't minimize what is out there - it was not an effort to find these examples, took about 30 seconds with google. I spent more time watching the clips than I did finding them.


> Thats transparency you can see through.

I'm not particularly interested in going down that rabbit hole with you. My goal was simply to show you that something you took as rock-solid truth was in fact not so. That 30 seconds with google was enough to disprove one of your foundational beliefs ought to cause you to re-evaluate the rest of your faith too.

reply

Dude. Nothing Ive said is 'rock solid' truth. Its an observational hypothesis based on what SEEMS to be the case. The only rock solid truth is that we will all die someday, beyond that, anything is up for debate.

And I thank you for giving me examples. Its NICE to see Im wrong in this aspect.

As Ive said before when its come up, these beliefs and ideas I have did not come about by listening to Rush Limbaugh or Oreilly.

Its come from being called a 'racisthomophobezionistcapitalistnatioalist' hate-monger over and over by the media elites, the Hollywood intellectuals, and the left-wing activists masquerading as legitimate talking heads.

The more I looked around, the worse it got. I cant just vote differently and have different ideologies, I have to want blacks in chains, women forced to carry babies, the elderly to die, and of course evil corporations to make a profit!

Why must I be all that?
Because I dont tow the party line and I think outside the liberal box. I cant help it, I was raised this way. I think it would be so much easier to be a democrat/liberal!

The republican party lost me a long time ago. I dont follow any 'republican' talker or tv show. I havent watched FoxNews in years. Im basically a person with no party because I would have none of them.

Like I said, I appreciate you citing examples and have a page open now on Youtube to watch a few of them. I had no idea who to google for. I tried 'liberals mocking Islam' and got a bunch of right-wing sites talking about the LACK of it, but not much else.

Ive never heard of the Jeffries guy as I dont watch tv at all these days. Ive been sitting here watching tv for so long (only 14 channels though-the hospital filters out ANYTHING interesting not 'family' friendly) that I prefer to stare at the door instead.

Um.
Sorry for the rant. Bored here. Conversations are few and far between. Why else would I be arguing silly $hit on a movie review board?! :p

reply

> I had no idea who to google for. I tried 'liberals mocking Islam' and got a
> bunch of right-wing sites talking about the LACK of it, but not much else.

I searched for "comedians who joke about islam" and only looked at the first hit which was a list of 10 comedians, I skipped six that I thought were weak for one reason or another.

You may not get the same results I did unless you have taken steps to break out of the Filter Bubble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble and http://www.thefilterbubble.com/) chances are that Google is working hard to reinforce the right-wing echo chamber for you. Especially with your focus on the term "liberal." A search for "liberal" plus any other word is going to mostly get hits on those right-wing websites because their favorite thing to talk about is the latest terrible thing "the liberals" are doing. I expect right-wing websites way outrank all other websites in the use of the word.

reply

[deleted]

You are brain dead.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

reply

It's it better to not have a gun around when you are depressed or have young kids in the house

reply

Your user name is a good reason as to why your comments cannot be taken too seriously. Being a nerd you look to much for detail and accuracy where as your general audience can happily just accept these things.

Hey I can be a bit of a nerd too so I do the same on subjects I know a bit about. :)

Chris Thorpe

The lore of the mind counts further than the words of the mouth.

reply

another fool not understanding that films are for entertainment, NOT WW2 DOCUMENTARIES, for that, go watch Military History channel.

reply

He's also not a nerd, if he was he'd probably know the difference between an aqualung and a rebreather, and he'd probably know the difference between hydrogen and gas gas. The hindenburg did not go 'BANG!', as was even referred to in the movie, it burned.



With your feet in the air and your head on the ground, try this sig with spinach!

reply

If the original poster was really a nerd he might also be aware that ghosts do not actually exist, yet he doesn't seem to have had a problem with them!

reply

You saying the holy ghost don't exist? We all goin' to hell.

When you're green, you're growing, but when you're ripe, you rot.

reply

This film I just watched on Netflix instant viewing and it was listed as sci-fi so I was expecting and suspension of reality. Normally I get upset at movies that purport to show military action or life but I never thought of this as that kind of movie. A ghost story and mystery set in WWII - actually reminded me of the novel and movie Ghost Story about a group of men who commit a crime and hide it and are pursued by a ghost. All in all it was entertaining as long as you don't take it seriously.

reply

The divers didn't use SCUBA tanks...they were using "rebreathers."

reply

Subs as far back as the Alligator in 1862 had diver's locks, as the principal form of attack was having a diver leave the submerged vessel and plant explosives. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense about "surface pressure" - if that were true, torpedoes wouldn't exist, as every torpedo tube is basically an airlock. Your statement about the "bends" is equally ignorant - dive tables show that one must spend at least 20 minutes at 110 feet before any decompression treatment is required.

Rebreathers were in use by the British military for escaping sunken subs as earlier as 1900, and were used extensively by all sides in WW2 in their respective "manned torpedo" programs.

Anti-sub aircraft were frequently outfitted with searchlights - their use on ships is hardly a stretch, especially as such vessels would have searchlights for numerous other jobs, such as minesweeping and signaling.

Hydrogen gas, in many situations, burns, and doesn't explode. I don't know why you think the presence of hydrogen gas guarantees a sub-crippling explosion.

The next time you try to live up to your name and "nerd out" on a movie, try doing the tiniest bit of research first - it'll help keep you from again looking like an ass.

reply

Comedy? I'm guessing the joke's on you nerd.

Scuba? In 1940 whatever. Granted the first aqua-lung was made in 1943. There was one and it was destroyed by shelling France. I'm guessing those guys swimming round' their civies a hundred feet below the surface would have died of hypothermia in about 5 minutes.


Actually they were Davis Submerged Escape Apparatus not scuba, if youlook at a picture you'll see they are clearly the same as depicted in the film. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Davis_Submerged_Escape_Apparatus.jpg

They were used many times by submariners to escape from submarines both pre and during WWII. They were used extensively in WWII not to mention used to lay mines on ships from X Class Submarines, so I doubt the wearers would be dead in five minutes.

No WWII sub had a air-lock -- wouldn't work with a vessel pressurized to surface pressure. Boy I sure feel sorry for the guys who came from the "Oil Tank Repair" I hear the bends is a horrible way to go. Coors was lucky to get conked on the head.


Wrong again. The above mentioned X Class subs had an airlock for the divers, that was back in 1942, so I am sure that other subs did too during WWII, after all they all had pressurized air that could be used to clear a sealed room just as well as blowing the ballast.

As for the bends, I am no expert but I am fairly sure that the bends comes about from rapid changes in pressure, i.e. rising from depth to the surface too fast. In which case one would need to enter a decompression chamber. Now I don't know how deep they were but say periscope depth - that is just 12m. Regardless they stayed the same depth, didn't surface and then re-entered the sub, which itself is a kind of decompression chamber, so I am not sure the bends apply at all.

I also found the use of the underwater search light by the German sub hunter, um, improbable.


I don't remember that scene but it is not improbable. They used search lights when hunting subs at night in WWII, primarily to detect surfaced subs and periscopes but depending on the water and the depth of the sub a search light could show a sub below the surface as a darker shadow.


The hydrogen explosion is the best. A depth charge within a hundred or so feet will kill a sub. So several thousand cubic feet of hydrogen do what? burn the pain a little? OK.


Not true, otherwise why bother with a depth gauge on the depth charges? If a sub is at 150m (450ft) and the a depth charge goes off at 135m (400ft) the sub is undamaged. Depth charges are only effective at less than 15m and lethal at less than 5m, despite what they usually show in films, indeed hedgehogs were the most effective anti sub device, depth charges were really just pot luck.

I admit though, I didn't get the hydrogen aspect at all. Never heard of such a thing before. Aside from that though the film was highly historically accurate, assuming of course that unlike you, one doesn't get their knowledge from other historically inaccurate films.

reply

[deleted]

Don’t think you realize just how silly your comment makes you look and how much better the Internet would be without their kind contaminating every forum.
That formula has got to be vying for top place on the “most annoying and pointless display of stupidity on the Internet” list.
Sigh.
So effin’ futile and annoying; foolhardiness at the helm of a self-appointed dictatorship! Should people bow down and kiss your ass once it’s out of theirs?
“Think less! Just consume! Insult those that don’t!” That’s your motto? Wow. Let me guess: you’re always amongst the first to shout "free speech", right?

Granted, the OP should have approached the subject differently instead of taking such a smug slant, more so considering he’s been proven wrong on many points. But no matter the show or film, particular areas or details always grab the attention of members of special interest groups or hobbyists in the know, and what the hell’s wrong with them discussing those things, especially on a film and TV site? D’uh!
Technical details are interesting and such topics can be a good learning opportunity. I do expect a certain amount of realism that corresponds to the film, and I like knowing the info is out there should I question certain facts. You honestly think people don’t absorb a lot of BS from films they go on believing as truths? Is that better?
Goofs, anachronisms, errors, etc., interest many, that’s why sites like IMDb lists them. Why not go insult site owners?

So, pray tell, Mein Herr roncoallstar, what should the populace discuss? A starlet’s boobs? What star would have been better? Asking, “Am I the only one who found this boring?” Or better yet, offer two lines or less proclaiming X to be the absolute best or demanding that the director be decapitated for making it, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a moron? Those are popular.
Heaven forbid people should discuss real topics that are of interest to them!

Or hey! Here’s a novel idea: if you don’t like the topic, sfu and move on.
I wish people would try that instead of rudely promoting mindlessness and polluting discussions.
Or is verbally abusing random people who enjoy details your way of compensating for whatever ails you? And let me guess: you’re also for peace on earth?


Ignorance is bliss... 'til it posts on the Internet; then, it's annoying.

reply

Your information is in error. Let me start by saying I was a US Navy Submarine Radioman for many years, aboard the USS Dallas (SSN-700).

First, there were diving apparatus in use well before Lt. Cousteau invented the regulator that made SCUBA possible. Both the Drager and Davis rebreather systems were in use in the 1930s and Italy, Germany and Britain had frogmen well before WW-II.

Most submarines had airlocks since 1908, to facilitate escape in the event of a emergency, using Momsen lungs.

In WW-II, a depth charge had to almost be a direct hit to kill a sub. Otherwise, the water would cushion the blast and just rock the sub around. The main idea in depth charge attacks was to catch a sub between two charges so that it couldn't 'roll with the blow', which is why charges were fired in groups of two off of each side of the destroyer.

While underwater lights were not normally used in antisubmarine warfare, they had been around for quite some time before the war, so it is not inconceivable that one might be used in an emergency to locate a submerged submarine.

The movie may not be a blockbuster, but let's be fair about our criticism.

reply

You're a moron. Very good movie.

reply