MovieChat Forums > Greyhound (2020) Discussion > What a disappointment

What a disappointment

posted 4 years ago by maximmm (3093)
14 replies | jump to latest

Before seeing this film, I read Hank's complaint about this not being shown/seen in big screen theaters, for which it was designed. I figured this would be a massive war film, like saving private ryan, but instead... what we got was lots of technical jargon, a small firefight, another crapload of technical jargon, another minor skirmish - basically, that's the whole film. No character development, no plot beyond technical jargon+battle - nada.

The whole movie is 1 hour and 20 minutes, with 9 minute credits at the end - and even that 1 hour 20 minutes felt like they were stretched out, with a crapload of technical jargon spewed out with no coherency or particular meaning to the audience. I mean, cut down on the technical lingo exchange scenes, and show more action. I suspect if they cut down the technical lingo exchange scenes in half, this movie would be around 40 minutes long (though if they slow down the credits, they could stretch those to 30 minutes instead of the existing 9).

I felt more intrigued and excited reading the wiki entry about this battle and the fate of the numerous ships involved, than watching the movie - and that's not a good sign, is it? Read the wiki entry for a more entertaining story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

[–] Artisan (3464) 4 years ago

I didn't even last 5 minutes it was like watching a video game, everything was CGI.

[–] BeaSouth (2843) a year ago

Imagine being an actor in a movie like this. A couple weeks in front of a green screen nowhere near an ocean or a ship while the months of real work get done by computer animators.

[–] wrlord (1086) 4 years ago

ok, we get it: you don't speak navy. That's your problem.

[–] maximmm (3093) 4 years ago

True - perhaps there was a crapload of character development hidden in that navy lingo ^^

[–] wrlord (1086) 4 years ago

It wasn't that kind of movie.

[–] Windsaar (323) a year ago

2 years later, but THANK GOD it wasn't that kind of movie.
It's the absolute worst when you go to watch a war movie and get hit with all this sad/side story BS drama.
The war always takes a backseat to whatever drama is going on.

It was an incredible breath of fresh air to see a war film about the war.

Also, although I don't speak navy either, I liked that the movie stuck to the jargon and didn't dumb it down and turn it into a "slick/great script" or something equally stupid.

[–] Paedokiller (298) 4 years ago

Hollywooden barely makes intelligent character development any more

[–] Redsfan001 (6029) 4 years ago

The big problem with making a sub movie is that it will always be compared to The Hunt for Red October (1990), and inevitably it will not measure up.

[–] maximmm (3093) 4 years ago

Das Boot was probably even better - and it predated the hunt for red october

[–] CG23Sailor (82) a year ago

This wasn't a sub movie. It was a Destroyer Movie.

[–] Heisenberg (6396) 4 years ago

You stole the words out of my mouth, I felt exactly the same.

[–] TheDemon (484) 4 years ago

I didn't mind it. Not GREAT but watchable.
For me, Naval battle movies seem to work better in the days of sailing ships circa Napoleonic wars.

[–] janoss (207) 9 months ago

I was quite impressed by it. No shoe-horned love story. No excessive character development. No message. Just a story.

I have a "How to" textbook written by a destroyer captain just after WWII. This movie watches like that book reads. "How to fight a wolf pack, chapter 1"

If you're not into WWII destroyer vs. submarine kind of stuff, you won't like it. I wouldn't expect you to.

I thought of a line from the book when watching the movie, "If you haven't dipped a rail, you aren't a destroyer captain."

[–] maximmm (3093) 9 months ago

I suppose the question is, why is the wiki entry a lot more interesting than this film - at least for me?
No shoe-horned love story there either, btw.