This is stupid!


Ok..i'm prepared to suspend my disbelief and accept the whole ghosts of dead sailors posessing the living thing but... They tried to attack a Russian naval base at the height of the cold war (strangely devoid of ships in the periscope view!) with world war two unguided torpedoes. Which means they had to be close to the targets in the harbour. And yet when they were blown up the explosion was witnessed off the bow of the British navy ship. Which means that ship had to be virtually inside the Russian naval base. During the cold war.And none of the Russians noticed? Doesn't anyone else think this was a bit rubbish?

reply

[deleted]

Damn! You got me there, touche. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy this, it was ok. But David Jason is one of my favourite actors and i was really looking forward to this. I just found it a bit disappointing that they had a lot of "treat the audience as stupid" scenes in it that spoilt it for me. Like the ex submariner who posted on the front page pointed out about the batteries giving off chlorine gas. The writers must have researched stuff like that but they put it in anyway thinking that no-one would notice it was bull (i certainly didn't until i read that post!). My point is none of these scenes or errors helped the story or heightened the tension so why put them in? And before someone points out that the batteries giving off gas was crucial to the story, obviously yes it was, but why not pour salt water on them like the guy on the first page said instead of making something up?

ok rant over. Maybe i just need to get out more?! lol

By the way TunaSalesman...you smell ;-)

reply

[deleted]

Not the sub the Royal Navy ship. When the sub exploded the water fountain was seen by the British guys standing on the deck. One of them said "what the hell was that?". To have seen the explosion they would have had to be really close to the base themselves. Which is, as i said, STUPID!

reply

[deleted]

I noticed this too. The ship should have also been visible.

reply

my dad is a submariner, and has been for a good 30 years, and all the way thru he was saying things like 'thats wrong' or 'that would never happen' etc. we also watched K-19 the widow maker the other night and he did the same thing. the guy that had the door backfire on him: that would never have happened in reality. my dad did explain why but i dont remember exactly. basically something about safety locks i think. and he said about the chlorine gas too.

I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by.

reply

ok, granted that there are safety locks, but if it was one of the first submarines perhaps they didn't think of them then?

reply

first submarines? sorry but thats a bit weak. The submarines possesed by the US/Germany/Britain were pretty advanced and weren't the "first" submairnes. The first submarines were launched in the 1900s! Well before WW2!

PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION

reply

I just found it a bit disappointing that they had a lot of "treat the audience as stupid" scenes in it that spoilt it for me.

I agree completely, though I see you wrote this 7 years ago so you may not be around. Not assuming intelligence in the audience is my biggest pet peeve in films.

I was hoping this would be as entertaining as "Below," which no one can argue is a cinematic masterpiece, but which I thought held the tension and creepiness throughout. I'm also an admirer of David Jason, so my hopes were high. Not that I know enough about the details of WWII submarines to spot the mistakes, but I think your points were all quite obvious to the lay audience and as such were mistakes. The biggest fault of the movie to me is that they do not sustain the tension throughout. It goes a bit slack in the middle (Again, I would say unlike "Below.")

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]