Originally Posted by Ula Jolly

@ Kuru:
Why would I want to add THAT? Oh by the way... I'm Norwegian.
(And don't triple post, I urge you)

Crimson Tide is another production based on something Hollywood never understood, submarines. Go ahead and call me a nitpicker and feel free to claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, but if I remember the movie correctly (it's been a year since I watched it), there was an Akula-Ohio engagement. This, absolutely, SUCKED. I mean one thing is that you have the boats not seeing one another till the last FIVE HUNDRED YARDS, another is the dreadfully cliché evasion. That Ohio would be deadscrabble! The story was good, but the movie was a horrible way of trying to get it through. Yes, it was perfectly viewable, but for the same reasons as U-571: If you see things that you know or have good reason to suspect is wrong, you groan inside. Like National Geographic's documentaries about aircraft accidents, and how badly they are made. Perhaps ninety percent of the audience don't know better, and think of it as good enough. Well, isn't it?? YES, these documentaries are good enough for the stories and the education, but not for the visual depicting.

I'm not complaining about, say... the submarine equal to sounds in space, I am complaining about the complete lack of desire to depict ANYTHING in ANY fashion which might not keep the audience glued to the chair. Those submarines should ("should") have engaged at a much greater distance and in a different manner which would have offered perhaps nowhere near the suspense that incorrectly depicting it would have.
The insides of the ships, very nice. The struggle, nice one. Moral point = unbeatable. Visual, crap and toodlefoodles. It's a movie, the picture is important.