User Reviews

It is debatable whether one should put down this film because of its inaccurate portrayal of the book it's based on, but as a TV movie this proved very tight and and absorbing. Director David Drury has done wonders on what I assumed is a very small budget. Rutger Hauer is excellent as the Captain forced to make impromptu decisions with life and death consequences. His challenge was how to keep the pride and dignity of the Soviet people in such dire circumstances. Sadly, the Soviet captain may be revered as a hero by America but in the Soviet Union he has been labelled a villain.

Admittedly the roles of people like Martin Sheen and Max Von Sydow were much underplayed, but this is excusable considering most of the tension centered in the Soviet sub. Besides Hauer, the acting by the rest of the Soviet crew was superb. There are many submarine-based movies of late, and although I'm watching this three years late, Hostile Waters certainly has kept it's head high. I'd rank this movie as good as "The Hunt For Red October".

This movie is worth looking at if you can catch it on HBO or something without too much bother.

*** Warning: I talk about the ending of the movie, so if you're going to be bothered, don't read further. ***

I found some of the movie a little annoying because it builds suspense for too long at times without really having anything much going on. The final scenes where they are trying to lower the rods in the nuclear reactor just go on for too long--especially since there are a bunch of people in the reactor room who just stand around and gawk instead of helping the one guy actually lower the rods.

Even though it has flaws, this movie does well with a small budget and is still much more interesting than a lot of hollywood movies with much bigger budgets. It's not a classic, but it's worth seeing if you just want something to watch for the night.

The movie portrays a tightly scripted drama when a disaster occurs on a Soviet nuclear sub. It places the viewer in the narrow confines of the sub and reminds us of the dangers constantly faced by the crew. Potential weaknesses of nuclear fail-safe systems also become apparent.

I spent 24 years at sea and I liked this film because of the accurate portrayal (of the Russians ) in an emergency situation and the way the situations were assessed and dealt with was pretty genuine.

Like Sailors everywhere ( well most sailors with some sad exceptions ie Flag of convenience Passenger ships where the crew take to the boats first in recent years)

They realise they have to pull together and get things sorted in order to save their Ship ,themselves, and the Eastern US Seaboard

When I was at sea we had a typical British tongue in cheek saying

'If in Danger or in doubt run in circles scream and shout'

Which luckily never happens in reality (I hope..)

No Nationalistic ranting or Stars/Stripes/Hammer and sickle waving -But do we need that anyway?

lots of flaws blah blah blah blah watch the movie so it was a cheap movie to make. back then HBO was making smart movies not BS main stream movies this one just like others made at that time were made to be watched and not picked apart so what just watch it and enjoy it.This was a different kind of role for Rutger Hauer he is very convincing in his role I liked it it will make you think listen to the sub-plot. lot of things happened in the cold war era. that most people will never know about so their are flaws the story is true and people died and people survived remember that and forget the flaws... there is always a bit of truth in every story

Decent Cold War submarine drama.

Good plot (apparently based on a true story), reasonably edgy, and militarily accurate.

However, maybe too predictable. In addition there is very little character development. Characters are pretty one-dimensional and stereotypical: the Americans are mostly gung ho and the Russians are cold bureaucrats.

Solid performances from Rutger Hauer, Martin Sheen and Max van Sydow. Some of the supporting cast, particularly those playing American senior staff, are a bit hammy though.

Not a bad film. The acting depicted the heroism and desperation that, as far as anyone (not in the submarine or military intelligence community) can know, really occurred. Based upon the truth (or at least what is generally known). After the 'Kursk' incident, this film seems a lot better and probably more realistic than other submarine movies... with the exception of 'Das Boot'. May not be 'edge of your seat' excitement, but certainly more real than "U-571".

This is based on an interesting story that might even be true, and for that reason I'm glad I watched it. In fairness, it is quite good for a made-for-TV movie, but don't get your hopes up too high before you start watching. Unfortunately, I had high expectations, based on someone's comment that it's just as good as Hunt for Red October. It really isn't.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on how faithful the movie is to that, but I can say that in terms of science, a lot of scenes just don't hold water. If you hear someone shout out a number that cannot possibly be right, best to just smile and ignore it.

Others have commented that this is a gripping story, and while it had its moments, I was mostly disappointed. Despite a naturally suspenseful storyline, a combination of budget production and a mediocre script conspire to spoil too many scenes. It might have benefited from more of a subplot, and with the political tensions at the time, you would think something could've showed up in the script.

Ultimately, if you are interested in submarine stories, this one will be worth watching, but don't expect much.

This is a very good Cold War drama about a cat and mouse game between American and Soviet nuclear submarines in the mid-Atlantic that turns potentially deadly after an accidental collision. Supposedly based on a real incident that took place shortly before the Reykjavik summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in 1986, the movie managed to capture well the level of mistrust between the two opposing subs and the dangers caused by that mistrust. Most of the action takes place on the Soviet sub, badly damaged after the collision with the crew desperately trying to get everything under control, while the Americans try to figure out exactly what the Soviets are up to.

This is a relatively low budget, TV movie - and the low budget sometimes shows a bit, but all in all a worthwhile piece of entertainment. 8/10

Let me not mince words... that's a rather silly thing to mince, anyway, why not mince meat, instead, unless you were a vegetarian, or didn't want to be asked the relatively appropriate question "have you been mincing?"(credit for that joke goes to "'Allo 'Allo")...but I digress. What I wanted to get out of the way up front, as opposed to down below(Seagal, you might wanna see a doctor about that Fire...), is that I did not set out to watch this anticipating a u-boat flick... the title had me thinking it'd be about sharks(not that I'm really that much more into that, really...); my fiancée said it made sense to think that aforementioned sea-creature would somehow be involved, which made me feel better. Anyway, me viewing this and now writing this review is basically me making lemonade. It was an enjoyable enough 90 minutes or so. The plot isn't bad and develops fine. Pacing is satisfactory. There is an OK amount of suspense. I wouldn't advise someone looking for a terribly action-packed picture to choose this. The cast boasts some good names, and the acting, all the way, is at a decent enough standard. Writing is adequate. I can't claim that this had me spellbound, but I never really felt that what was on the screen was downright poor(and again, this is not the type of film I normally go for). It's a cold war piece of overall reasonable quality, so if you dig those, or cannot live without having had everything that features underwater stuff and/or submarines, hey, knock yourself out. I recommend this to anyone found in aforementioned groups. Fans of the people who helped make this may want to give it a torpedo launch, too. 7/10

Can anyone confirm if it's really so difficult to lower the rods in the reactor as shown in this film? I'd have thought that for a mechanism so important as this, there'd be a "release" button which dropped them. Or at least the pivot would be easily turned.

Apart from that, as other posters have written, this is a fun Saturday night movie with some basis in fact. There are plenty worse. Why employ great actors like von Sydow but barely use him? There are clear influences from Das Boot and so on, but for the budget they have done a pretty good job. An experienced sailor commends it for its accurate portrayal of men under pressure, I note.

First of all, to Robert Johansson, the political officer (or Zampolit) and the KGB officer are one in the same. They are a presence on all Soviet nuclear submarines to assure the crew's political education away from base. The story (adapted from the true-life account by the same name: Hostile Waters) is well directed by David Drury despite serious budget setbacks and production pitt falls. The crew is represented in all the authentic Soviet insignia and lapel tags. As is the American crew in the Los Angeles class submarine. The film builds to extreme suspense as the viewer ponders what will happen to America, to the world, as the brave and loyal Soviet Navy attempts everything to overcome the fire in the missile bay that resulted from a collision with the afformentioned US sub. The climax takes place in the Nuclear Reactor room as a brave young cadet is forced to stay inside while his crew desperately attempt to push through the hatch and pull him out. The Graphics are cheap but convincing and the Soviet Naval atmosphere is captured very authentically. A fine Saturday night movie. It takes the cake in the suspense department along with Crimson Tide and The Hunt For Red October. I give it an 8.5 out of a possible 10.

There is nothing that is presented in this film that would allow the viewer,that is you or I, the ability whereby this particular offering entitled,"Hostile Waters" was anything more than an entertainment vehicle.The Motion Picture culture has created a false sense of identity or the equal if you will of a false sense of importance which by its very make-up provides nothing more than a spectacular premise to an already outrageous lie.This however deflating such care is, it is such care that would not lie merely to save face but would indeed provide the kind of information whereby time would be better spent than being entertained by a pompous blow hard with nothing more than pulling a fast one and making money as well.There is hardly anything more than a sound stage, and performances being what they are, are as well performances designed to provide, or at least make the effort to convince the audience that what the audience is viewing is believable.This is in principal what there is to look at if in fact there is anything to the premise or in its presentation that is to be believed.Entertaining most certainly but entertaining to be certain.The purpose had in being entertained is not always quite the entertainment vehicle that perhaps entertainment is customarily associated with, and it is this association that is where the difficult problem that this entertainment vehicle is often associated.It is truly a demanding task to ask of the audience to believe that what we see is what we get when we are looking at for our viewing pleasure a motion picture.It is in fact a virtual impossibility that what you see is what you get,unless you see more than is provided you will never see what you get nor will there ever be a need too.The reason is that these films should never be provided with the ability to enter into such areas and even more so there is so many outrageous lies that if attacked in truth there would be those that would believe and defend a lie because of another reason all together.The cumulative effect of such a defense is that the mis-guided idealogy is basing its own idea of importance on a false set of assumptions thereby providing society with a lost character and indeed a rather volatile chemistry is established that is in fact deviant.That is most of this world and much of what this industry has provided has been further enhanced with a underpinning whereby importance,self esteem and self acceptance are all part of the premise to entertainment and the entertainment medium.The ever dangerous encroachment is that Fascism and a related idealogical underpinning are very much on the side of this kind of problem and indeed it is this that provides a measure of justification to its own existence,they both are in fact the same problem.This film entitled "Hostile Waters" is only an example as would be any whose pedigree sought justification for its outrage against humanity.This being what it is,it is not anything new, nor is what this world has been up to for a time entered into anything new as well.This information can be found in the latter days of the 19th century with other informed positions suggesting quite well that there was something to the "Mass Psychology of Fascism".It is what has transpired and there is more to come.This measure of encroachment has sought to supersede nature and it is the cause as to its ability to over-ride normal sensibility,indeed we are in the throes of a new world order and a new world order is going to come around again.This is the real deal and either you get rid of it or it will get rid of you.This vehicle is most certainly entertaining however most certainly entertaining is not all there is to this vehicle.

I catched this movie on TV when it had already been started. I did know the story about what happened in 1986 and was intrigued. The beginning is exciting when the boats collide, and there is some decent CGI there. However, as the movie progressed all the American actors like Martin Sheen dissapear. On the Russian ship alone the climax just isn't cinematic enough. All in all a very intresting story too simplisticly told.

Why is this a better than average sub film? The actors are top-notch. Even though Rutger Hauer is featured as the lead, it is because he is better looking than Martin Sheen. Martin Sheen is, by far, the better actor. Just look at both of their filkmographies. Hauer takes any role that comes his way as long as its a payday, and Sheen is more selective. More selectivity, better acting = better pizza. Most sub films are tedious and boring. Run Silent, Run Deep; boring, Crimson Tide; boring, The Hunt for Red October: boring, and so on. The only good sub film that is better than this one is Das Boot, so that is pretty good company. See it.

Despite of being a TV-Production (and showing this sometimes) "Hostile Waters" is a tense and absorbing film about a drama, that took place in a strange and dangerous period of time, we call the "Cold War"; a military disaster, that is still threatening us today. The important thing about "Hostile Waters" is, that it shows the story from a unusual point of view (the soviet submarine- crew), without high-tech gimmicks and without the "..it must be a historical fact, because I saw it in a John Wayne Film.." nonsense (or: "..because i read it in a Tom Clancy book"). Oh, and good work by Rutger Hauer, who had a break from B-Movie time. Don´t get me wrong, I like many of his B-Movies, but would somebody please give this man some really big-movie-parts to do ?!.

After reading the book and absolutely loving it, I had high hopes on this movie. It was a huge letdown.

The book is written based on interviews with almost all crew members, a lot of Red army generals and even Mihail Gorbachew. The interviews were made after the fall of communism and Soviet Union.

What is important when you make a movie that is based on a true story ? How about giving credits to those, who died or risked their careers to save their fellow crew members ? This is a key element, where this movie fails miserably.

In the movie the Red Army is helping and giving medals to the crew. In real life the Red Army did everything to kill those men. The chief propulsion officer and the captain was close to been executed because of that. The Red Army ordered the crew to go back to the sub full of poison - without any protection against the poison. The captain had balls to countermine that order and save his crew. The crew stood in lines when they were taking the captain to be investigated and those men were shouting his name proud of it. The same thing happened 10 years later when the crew met again and the captain arrived.

In the movie the guy who shut down the reactors was ordered to go in. In real life he volunteered. Isn't that a huge difference ? No collision happened in real life. The explosion was due to a leak in a missile hatch. In the movie, the bad and shameful guy is the officer from KGB. In real life the bad guy was the political officer, who escaped the sub with wounded crew members and turned against them all when in a safe place. Where is the political officer in the movie ? Nowhere. The KGB officer was supporting the captain and crew 100% and doing really well. And where was the doctor, who saved the life of the KGB officer by lending his mask to him in the missile room for a short moment ?

The list goes on and on. The breathing equipment in the russian sub were not as modern as in the movie. The sub didn't dive to turn off a fire. The fire wasn't even a problem. Poisonous acid that comes from the mixture of rocket fuel and water was and breathing that turned your lungs to a factory of green foam.

I have seen many movies after reading the book and the movie is usually worse as there are things that are missing or wrong. But this movie was the worst ever as nothing was right.

This is a well done nail biter with great effects, sensitive acting, believable characters and gritty realism. It's been criticised for taking liberties with the book. Yet little is really known about the incident which legitimately opens the door to dramatic licence. It's right up there in the top five submarine movies of all time.

Although a limited budget film, what makes this movie so relevant is the soviet point of view, and a struggle from the crew, and certain naval staff to prevent an exponential catastrophe.

Compared to K19, Hostile Waters plot is way better and may have been a huge hit if produced in the way K19 was done. It's based on true facts and really shows how "small" people can make a real difference when knowing what to fight for.

It's more technical than any other submarine movies, and in the beginning it details all the compartments which is relevant to understand as the movie goes along.

I really liked this movie, and considered one of my best - if you oversee the production limitations.

It is difficult to portray several days of events in two hours of TV, but "Hostile Waters" captured most of the emotions of the situation. It is not a documentary, nor even a docu-drama, but a dramatisation of events that actually occurred. Once again I was impressed with the quality of Rutger Hauer's craft in his portrayal of the Soviet captain who earned the respect of his crew by simply being "the Captain" in every respect (in fact, since the film did depart from the real events far enough, it might have better been titled "The Captain"). I was not wildly impressed by the character portrayed by Martin Sheen: either the director deliberately portrayed the pampered US nuke drivers as insecure martinets, or Sheen acted badly. The juxtaposition of the living conditions aboard the US submarine and the Soviet submarine was obviously done to make a point, but what that point is I do not know, and this is what will make this film a classic for those who want to interpret characterisations in the light of the director's perceived aims.

"Hostile Waters" tells of Soviet nuclear sub K219 which sank in 18,000 feet of water 600 miles east of Bermuda in 1986 just prior to the Regan/Gorbachev summit in Iceland. The drama spends 70% of the run on the Soviet sub (Skipper: Hauer), 10% on an American sub (Skipper: Sheen) nearby (with which the Soviet sub allegedly collided), and 20% divided between the Soviet and US situation rooms. The bulk of the film is a bunch of sweaty Submariners grunting as they struggle with wrenches while bemoaning gauges which are red-lining (a bad thing), etc. The suspenseful moments in this dumbed-down flick are dragged waaaaay out in an apparent attempt to squeeze the most out of what little story the film has to work with. An okay watch for action/drama junkies but keep expectations low. "Das Boot" it ain't. (C)