If you like movies like "Gladiator" (2000) then you'll love this: all meat, no nutrients.
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: This is a very poor attempt to meld two very good stories: "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935 and 1962)* and "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958), both of which are excellent films. This is simply modern tripe (tripe can be both meat or something useless, which is why I call these types of films all meat, no nutrients).
It has scant "character development" and it's "story" is hollow ... yes, like a sub. There's endless male choral / epic-sounding music, and proficient use of the "f" bomb, but that's it. Endless music is a near-guarantee that a film lacks substance, even among the classics I love so much.
* Note: Both are excellent and very well acted. The question is do you prefer Gable or Brando?
ACTING: You'd expect solid acting from Washington and Hackman, and they deliver. But that's all you get.
Neither is giving us anything new in range of character quality, just the same personalities in different costumes.
ENTERTAINMENT: For males who want constant tension and testosterone, this is for you. Otherwise, value is low.
TEMPO: OK, I suppose
CINEMATOGRAPHY: It's the inside of a submarine ...
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Tony and brother Ridley (not on this film) churn out the same male-oriented drivel, over and over ... ad nausea. On a rare occasion one of them delivers something interesting, e.g. "Enemy of the State" (1998), "Alien" (1979), "Black Hawk Down" (2001). Between them, Ridley appears the far more capable. But as a whole, the cache of their work is fairly predictable and is confined to a sliver of genre.
Writers: Both writers have very small portfolios, and there's not much in those to speak of, if at all.
Is it a good film? Yes, and no
Should you watch this once? Maybe
Rating: 7.0 (not a drop more)
Here's my breakdown:
STORY: This is a very poor attempt to meld two very good stories: "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935 and 1962)* and "Run Silent, Run Deep" (1958), both of which are excellent films. This is simply modern tripe (tripe can be both meat or something useless, which is why I call these types of films all meat, no nutrients).
It has scant "character development" and it's "story" is hollow ... yes, like a sub. There's endless male choral / epic-sounding music, and proficient use of the "f" bomb, but that's it. Endless music is a near-guarantee that a film lacks substance, even among the classics I love so much.
* Note: Both are excellent and very well acted. The question is do you prefer Gable or Brando?
ACTING: You'd expect solid acting from Washington and Hackman, and they deliver. But that's all you get.
Neither is giving us anything new in range of character quality, just the same personalities in different costumes.
ENTERTAINMENT: For males who want constant tension and testosterone, this is for you. Otherwise, value is low.
TEMPO: OK, I suppose
CINEMATOGRAPHY: It's the inside of a submarine ...
DIRECTING / WRITING: Director: Tony and brother Ridley (not on this film) churn out the same male-oriented drivel, over and over ... ad nausea. On a rare occasion one of them delivers something interesting, e.g. "Enemy of the State" (1998), "Alien" (1979), "Black Hawk Down" (2001). Between them, Ridley appears the far more capable. But as a whole, the cache of their work is fairly predictable and is confined to a sliver of genre.
Writers: Both writers have very small portfolios, and there's not much in those to speak of, if at all.
Is it a good film? Yes, and no
Should you watch this once? Maybe
Rating: 7.0 (not a drop more)