Prob the worst submarine movie I've seen....
 

Last night I was browsing the movie channels for war movies and noticed a few, mostly the usual but noticed on TCM that a movie called "Submarine Raider" was on, plot sounded ok, so I set the DVR to record it.Watched it a little while ago.

I LOL'd at parts of it, movie was very corny, story highly unrealistic.Add in things like a lone IJN carrier, no escorts or other ships.Single in line engine fighters(Japanese Navy certainly didnt deploy carrier based in line fighters in 1941 or ever.I know the IJAAF had the "Tony" but not the Nacy and esp in 41.The son of the Admiral failed to sink the ship, so he sent out a pilot who failed to, who then committed suicide in a lomost comical manner.The guy did like a joyful leap off the side of the ship, it was pretty corny.I know the movie was made in 42 and all but man, it was bad even for the time.Other comical scenes were the use of a lone 50 cal machine gun to fend off a plane attack.The manner in which the Captain ordered a "crash dive" lol The way the crew talked to one another etc lacked realism.Movie was hollywood, can tell the Navy prob had little or nothing to do with this movie.

Prob the interesting part was the sub was supposed to be an S-boat.The exterior scenes were obviously models but it looked like an S-Boat.The interior may have been real, looked like an S boat mostly.


anyone else seen this movie?


A plot description from IMDB.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035391/plotsummary

I haven't seen the movie but I checked out your link with the description. This is classic Hollywood (and that isn't a compliment - they can screw anything up).

I really loved this part:
"The next morning, December 7th, the men on the sub hear the story of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and devise a desperate plan to sink the Japanese carrier by letting the carrier know their position. The carrier comes in search of the submarine" :har:

U571

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/

However, the movie right after it, "Air Force", by Howard Hawks, is one of my favorite war movies of all time. I love how you know "the Kid" is gonna get it when his mom shows up to wish the crew a tearful goodbye!

Plus, B-17D model!

Has the greatest "we can't start the engine" scene before "Flight of the Phoenix"

Battle of the Coral Sea with Cliff Robertson...think 50's movie was the worse. Movie was great at the start, lot's of real footage, but based on a sub raiding Rabaul or some port.

Sub sat on the bottom to hide from attack, then all goes quite. Skipper talking and out of nowhere you hear a JP talking in English..pan, A JP scuba diver was outside the boat telling them to surrender in english, had attached explosives and they had an hour to give up. He had some mic attached to the hull. Even though it was serious, the movie became so funny I couldn't stop watching it.

Scuba gear was never used in WW2, invented later by the French I think

Wow, Hollywood really CAN screw anything up. :rotfl2:

A bad movie to be sure but you might wish to place it into the context of the times when it was made.

In 1942 America was still picking itself up from the kick in the gonads administered at Pearl Harbor and Hollywood's goal had become less one of entertainment and more to be an agent of national unity and instrument of propaganda.

Submarine Raider should be looked at in that light as it reinforces the USN's percieved superiority and bravery while making the enemy appear rediculous; both aims of successful propaganda. The people watching it in the theatres would have just sat through newsreels that in all likelyhood highlighted Axis victories in Russia and North Africa and so would be in the mood for some positive war news, even if only fictional.

Don't forget too that the USN's submarines were still the "Silent Service" and few Americans knew anything about them other than that U-Boats (and perhaps all submarines as well?) were evil. In 1812 and 1917 America had gone to war over freedom of the seas and had threatened to do so again in 1861 and yet now, the USN was fighting exactly the same sort of commerce war as the Nazi's. Getting the country on-side with the USN's submarine force was important and films like Submarine Raider were one way of accomplishing that important Home Front objective.

Like many wartime propaganda oriented films Submarine Raider has not aged well but don't look at it as a very bad war movie, consider it a snapshot of the sort of story that the American public was longing to see in 1942. The movie's aim was social reinforcement not technical accuracy.

Oh very aware it was like many wartime films, propaganda basically, BUT many of the other war times films were much better done, this movie was just laughable.

To you perhaps and indeed it looks silly in many ways to the jaded 21st Century entertainment palate but I doubt that the audiances of 1942 thought it a comedy. It should be judged by what it was intended to be rather than what it seems to be today. Just one opinion.

I think John Wayne being a draft dodger made some great ones to make up for his ...er...cowardness.

That's a rather harsh interpretation.

Study the facts....harsh, but true. He did get a 3A family deferment due to his age, but many other stars his age and older served. Likely Wayne didn't want to hurt his career that was doing well. He stated he would make a few more movies and join, but he never did...always another movie to make. He and the studio that held his contract always kept him exempt from draft status, studio said they would sue, but that was a ploy to protect him, no one would sue a star going to serve, that would've been motion picture suicide then.

Many famous stars, sports heros served. Wayne could have...didn't either for greed or cowardness.

Your sick, take a pill and lie down for awhile. :salute:

I've got a movie called "Submarine base":down: in a war collection that's pretty bad. This guy ends up supplying the Germans with rigged torpedoes that sink the U-Boats using them. The fact that the Germans (in the movie) need to get 'black market torpedoes' is by itself ludicrous and hilarious.
"Submarine Base" 1943

D40:salute:

Well, actually not true. You called John Wayne a draft dodger. That is simply wrong. He was never drafted, hence he can't be a draft dodger. Nor did he take positive actions to avoid being drafted in the future. A person would have to do one of these to be a dodger of the draft.

He was 34 at the time the draft started and age waivers were common. The max age when the draft started was 35.

During the war, his studio requested and was granted an exemption to the draft for John Wayne. This was due to his "national service". Whether that is justified or not can be debated. But John Wayne did not, and could not, request such a waiver himself. It had to come from his employer. One could make the argument that John Wayne did not fight the waiver, but that hardly qualified as dodging the draft. :nope:

Now if you wish to criticize John Wayne for not voluntarily enlisting in the military, then you have a valid criticism. You may even be justified in calling John Wayne a coward for not voluntarily enlisting. Perhaps your would be right.

But he did not dodge any draft as the government never drafted him, or indicated that they would be drafting other 34 year old men with families at that time.

I liked John Wayne as an actor, but had little respect for him as a man. But despite my feelings, labeling him as a draft dodger is not fair.

He choose not to volunteer and he did not actively try to avoid the exemptions. His "crime" would be that he passively avoided the draft by not doing anything. We can all make our moral evaluation on that. But not the case of dodging the draft.

Very well said, Platapus. I've never been that big a fan of his movies, and could not care less one way or the other about his personal actions. As to your last line on moral evaluations, I would like to add that even if one were to condemn him for not serving, that would still only be one's opinion, and should not be stated as fact. A very great number of men who did serve honor and revere him despite his lack of military service, and their opinions are just as valid as anyone's.

I'm not a big fan of the "Duke" either but fair is fair. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because I know for a fact my Dad was told he couldn't join because his civilian job was more important to the Nation than him enlisting.

Like someone up there said, in "the Duke's" circumstance his value as an actor to the country may have been greater than had he enlisted - in the eyes of the government. I don't know. I know nothing of his situation but I do know they wouldn't let some people enlist.

Happy Hunting!

Art

If we are to judge one man on this subject, then we would have to judge half of Hollywood at the time of the war. I need not mention the numerous actors who we all know served, however, there are just as many who didn't and the country never balked at them. John Wayne did do some service by playing the parts that he did. There are not many actors who helped the morale of this nation like the Duke could, he had that particular magic, that is undeniable. So as time goes on and History and memory's fade, we must not forget that John Wayne along with many other actors did his part best on the screen.
PS: I don't think he's the best actor in the world either, but he did pull off some good WW2 movies, "They were expendable"...et al.
We really do not know what the "Duke's" motives were for not joining. John Ford had no problem with Wayne.
D40:salute:

I can't verify the accuracy of the info at these pages but it's an interesting look into the various movie stars who served in one capacity or another;

http://www.valdezlink.com/pages/actorheros-more.htm

http://www.suite101.com/content/holl...war-two-a82469