I won't state the old cliché of "the book is better", because it really isn't. Both film and book have their strong points, and a couple of weak ones, but as far as the film goes there're only two major flaws, both of which stem purely from the from the period in which it was made. Beyond that, what we have is essentially a snapshot, an encapsulation of the literary origins of the tale.
There's conflict. In Hollywood tradition the show revolves around the interpersonal collision between an experienced veteran officer and a younger officer who has the hearts of the men he commands. But there's also an antagonist. A Japanese naval anti-submarine warfare ace. An expert in killing US Navy submarines. The two US officers must put aside their contention and sync their personalities enough to help spear one of the many tentacles of the Axis kraken that has sent many a US sub to the bottom of the Bungo Straits and elsewhere.
One of the highlights of this film is seeing a Gato Class sub in all her post WW2 glory actually surface and dive in the Pacific on film. And it is an impressive anachronism. Another highlight is that the sets for the film (if they are sets) accurately simulate the confined spaces of a WW2 era submarine. The drama that unfolds mimics the literature in spirit, but for the purpose of cinematic alacrity truncates some of the more extraneous elements of the original book.
There are of course two thespian giants on screen, Gable and Lancaster, playing the US Navy officers at odds with one another. The performances are of course solid. Lancaster is the well disciplined if ever so somewhat brash CO temporarily turned XO to make way for the troubled Gable, the skipper with a score to settle. There are others here, but will refrain from listing them. There are no bad performances here, just as there are no over the top moments so prevalent in today's films.
The flaws; first, the special effects. The technology of the time shows itself with the models on the screen. They get their point across, and that's about all we can ask for. Dated, but functional. We of course understand this, and nod at the effort. Ditto with some of the front screen projection work. Again, we acknowledge the period of film making.
The other "flaw" one might cite is the music. It too comes from a period when the industry sensationalized all aspects of the film, and before certain modern musical trends and sensibilities were introduced. It's very traditional. No chances are taken with the music.
All in all an excellent sub-genre film (no-pun intended) of the war film. Some very minor technical flubs that even WW2 aficionados might miss, but should probably forgive. There are also some film particulars that experts should forgive, for they were stylistic choices for the sake of abbreviating both film and the tale it tells.
If you're a younger movie fan, give it a chance.
If you saw this in the theatre, or grew up watching it rebroadcast in the 70s, then pick up a copy.
Definitely one to see.
Enjoy.
There's conflict. In Hollywood tradition the show revolves around the interpersonal collision between an experienced veteran officer and a younger officer who has the hearts of the men he commands. But there's also an antagonist. A Japanese naval anti-submarine warfare ace. An expert in killing US Navy submarines. The two US officers must put aside their contention and sync their personalities enough to help spear one of the many tentacles of the Axis kraken that has sent many a US sub to the bottom of the Bungo Straits and elsewhere.
One of the highlights of this film is seeing a Gato Class sub in all her post WW2 glory actually surface and dive in the Pacific on film. And it is an impressive anachronism. Another highlight is that the sets for the film (if they are sets) accurately simulate the confined spaces of a WW2 era submarine. The drama that unfolds mimics the literature in spirit, but for the purpose of cinematic alacrity truncates some of the more extraneous elements of the original book.
There are of course two thespian giants on screen, Gable and Lancaster, playing the US Navy officers at odds with one another. The performances are of course solid. Lancaster is the well disciplined if ever so somewhat brash CO temporarily turned XO to make way for the troubled Gable, the skipper with a score to settle. There are others here, but will refrain from listing them. There are no bad performances here, just as there are no over the top moments so prevalent in today's films.
The flaws; first, the special effects. The technology of the time shows itself with the models on the screen. They get their point across, and that's about all we can ask for. Dated, but functional. We of course understand this, and nod at the effort. Ditto with some of the front screen projection work. Again, we acknowledge the period of film making.
The other "flaw" one might cite is the music. It too comes from a period when the industry sensationalized all aspects of the film, and before certain modern musical trends and sensibilities were introduced. It's very traditional. No chances are taken with the music.
All in all an excellent sub-genre film (no-pun intended) of the war film. Some very minor technical flubs that even WW2 aficionados might miss, but should probably forgive. There are also some film particulars that experts should forgive, for they were stylistic choices for the sake of abbreviating both film and the tale it tells.
If you're a younger movie fan, give it a chance.
If you saw this in the theatre, or grew up watching it rebroadcast in the 70s, then pick up a copy.
Definitely one to see.
Enjoy.