Kursk (2018) Reviews

• The movie is really good, but it does not tell the whole story.

  sergey-vasilyev20072018-09-07

  The movie is really good, but it does not tell the whole story. The director explains it by telling that he wanted to show the humanity of the Kursk's crew members from one side, and the bureaucracy of the upper military officials on the other side. And that he wanted to leave the politics out of the movie. In my opinion, the director missed one important fact from the Kursk's story. As you know, the sailors in Russia are drafted to serve in NAVY. And many of them are not willing to sacrifice their lives for sake of competition between superpowers. This movie misses the fact that sailors in one sinking compartment heavily beaten their officer who closed the door between the compartments, thus preventing them to escape from the doomed compartment. This fact was discovered by investigators after reading the note found on the drown officer. I think, this fact should have been reflected in the movie, too. The second important fact is that all families of dead sailors received, first time in the history, serious monetary compensation (ten-year salary) and apartment for living in major Russian cities. And almost all of them accepted this compensation, and we cannot blame them for that!

• An excellent made French-Belgian dramatic production.

  TheTopDawgCritic2019-02-21

  This film was excellent in every aspect. Directing by Thomas Vinterberg was amazing (except for the annoying black edges at the start and end of the film - why?). Writing/screenplay by Robert Rodat was great. Cinematography near perfect. Casting was outstanding - as were the performances by all. The score/music was bang on. S/VFX were perfect. My only critique is that the almost 2 hour length felt longer due to some slow pacing issues. Otherwise, an excellent film that leaves an uneasy feeling in your stomach, knowing that this film is based on actual events. A well deserved 9/10 from me.

• Less melodrama and irrelevancies in plot please. Amazing amount of incorrect assertions in comment section

  random-707782019-03-02

  Firstly some facts: 1) despite half dozen or so peacetime submarine accidents with casualties of about 100, in comparison to peacetime army, surface navy, air force, both the US and USSR/Russian submarine services have been relatively low causality. Peacetime submarine service is less fatalities per man year than occur in land vehicle accidents, air crashes etc. 2) In the US and USSR and Russian Navy's NO ONE is forced into submariner service. During conscription and volunteer (US) and conscription (USSR/Russia), assignment to submarine is elite and sought after assignment for both officers and enlisted personnel. 3) No one, not the US, not the Chinese, not the USSR/Russians is going to ask or allow help from an adversary in raising or rescuing personnel on a nuclear submarine, especially a advanced one. Both ballistic missile and attack submarines are closely guarded secrets. The US spent present value four BILLION dollars to pull up a few pieces of a sunken Russian submarine, whose wreckage was at 16,000 feet (5 kilometers deep) in the pacific. It was a massive secret operation because learning anything of a soviet submarine was of huge value (google: Project Azorian). These are high order state military secrets. Yes most anyone who goes to sea, even adversaries, are inclined to help. But refusal to take assistance is also the rule with nuclear armed submarines on all sides. Ballistic and nuclear submarine service is in essence war footing all the time including during peacetime. Any and all information about a submarine is useful to the adversary and even seemingly trivial data puts all other submarines on your side at risk -- and therefore reduced the deterrent effect of your submarine force. 4) it is a virtual certainty that US, UK or other NATO assistance could not have saved a single life on the Kursk. Kursk's bow was 75' into the mud and the boat was at a list of 60 degrees; meaning given all the rescue methods that at the time relied on vacuum seal would not work. 5) Some commentators here are repeating long debunked myths that the Kurks was sunk in a collision with a US boat or some other external cause. While that was always an unlikely scenario, it could not be ruled out at the time -- BUT for a decade they Russian Navy and sober Russians have known,with 100% certainty, this was a torpedo malfunction inside the Kursk. Ok, I am not fan at all of Soviet communism, of Russian nationalism under Putin, but this film is not bashing those evils -- it is bashing the Russian navy and doing so with falsehoods. it is political elements in Russia that underfunded and rushed the Kursk dangerous and haphazard refitting, that pushed early deployment, not their navy. Now on the film itself I just can''t recommend it. It comes off like a "Lifetime Network" cheesy melodrama. The bleeding edge technical aspects, the high stakes already make the Kursk's sinking and the rescue attempts under extremely difficult storm conditions compelling drama and action. Why it was turned into a soap opera is beyond me.

• Trying to save the Kursk crew

  chong_an2018-09-07

  This is a fictionalization of the Russian submarine disaster that made world-wide news. Adapted from a book, the story runs in multiple alternating stories. Matthias Schoenaerts stars as the submarine officer who has to keep the survivors alive. Léa Seydoux co-stars as his wife, battling for information from the naval authorities who are stonewalling. Colin Firth has a bit part as a British officer, representing the international offers for help. Meanwhile, the severely underfunded Russian navy has only one ill-maintained rescue vessel, and, for political or other reasons, is resisting offers to help from various NATO countries. The underwater scenes were suitably claustrophobic. While different (sometimes under-trained) crew members exhibited different reactions, there was general camaraderie, as also shown in an early sequence where various underpaid crew members sell their watches to help finance a colleague's wedding. A significant bit part is the young son of Matthias Schoenaerts' character, who opens the movie practicing holding his breath underwater - a skill needed for future naval / submarine work. The kid represents the children of the whole crew. I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival, and was surprised to see that Kursk was in English. The director reasoned that he didn't speak Russian, and the film was about various communities coming together, something that was more universal than it being just a Russian story. Note that I am reviewing this as a movie, not as to whether this is a complete historical document.

• A really good film with strong emotional engagement.

  timvandenbranden962018-10-13

  Since it is based on the true story of the K-141 Kursk submarine disaster, we already know the end of the story. So it was a true challenge for director Thomas Vinterberg (known for Jagten, Festen,...) to take a special approach for his movie. He made the clear choice to focus on the emotion and the human side of this tragedy, rather than on the political side. The result is a strong movie which succeeds in dragging you into the submarine itself and it's victims (and wifes). It's no coincidence that the aspect ratio shifts to wide during the whole submarine sequence and back to narrow (16:9) at the beginning and conclusion of the story. Or like the director himself said at the moviepremière in Ghent, Belgium: "Well ... you should see it"