If you’ve read Tom Clancy’s novel The Hunt for Red October, you’ll be comparing the film to a book. It is clear that it is simply impossible to transfer from the book in full to the film panorama of all events. Clancy in the pages of the novel unfolded such a scale of military operations that if the filmmakers risked repeating the plot in detail, they would turn the film into a series. And still could not tell in detail. Where to get so many ships and planes? Especially the Soviets. Try to recreate on the screen in a large number of YAKI - deck aircraft vertical takeoff, or aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kiev". And computer special effects in this case would spoil the "live" picture.
However, even what is shown in the film is enough to impress the viewer. I am talking about the technical side. First of all, it is a huge submarine "Red October", belonging to the NATO classification of the type "Typhoon". Submarines of this type do exist in Russia. We have a type of submarine called "Shark". Without exaggeration, they are the largest submarines in the world. Therefore, when the American film shows this giant and how the enemy, amazed by its technical perfection, with trepidation tries to find the boat, then you undoubtedly feel pride. Are there many American films where you feel the same way about Russia? Well, except to remember Lev Andropov (Lev Andropov) from Armageddon.
Secondly, the scenes of the actions of the submarine crews are interesting (yes, October is not the only submarine in the film), the work of acousticians, moments of diving, maneuvering. In general, the shooting looks very impressive. Beautiful installation creates a sense of power and emphasizes the scope of events. Particularly tense seem moments hunting slow movement of “Red October” against the background of sound pulses of sonar.
Special thanks to Sean Connery. How many times have the Americans shown us Russian Ivan in a hat, a bottle of vodka and a moronic expression. Connery played the Soviet commander with all respect for the profession of a military sailor, showed an example of a cold and calculating mind, intelligence and straightening gave some special charm to his character Ramirus.
The young handsome Alec Baldwin was perfect for the role of Jack Ryan. This is how I imagined it when I read the book. Ryan has good analytical abilities, judgment and his figure contrasts sharply against the background of the generals. It is not his rule to underestimate the enemy. He studies the technical capabilities of the submarine, the psychology of the behavior of the crew.
Of course, some moments in the film in the eyes of modern people look either ironic or illogical. Why would Ramirus turn over a top-secret first-class submarine to the Americans? What kind of thirst for revenge against the Soviet government drove it? I asked these questions when I read the book. Therefore, they should be addressed not to the authors of the film, but primarily to Tom Clancy. But given the fact that the book was written during the Cold War, it becomes clear what propaganda purpose the author pursued. And those who have read his other books on the resistance of the United States and the Soviet Union remember that the Russians are certainly a force, but the Americans are a little cooler. How else was the American writer supposed to portray the enemy?
Of course, the film did not do without “standards” and stamps. Here you and often used in broken Russian word "comrade", and the hymn: "Soyuz unruly raspublyk free", the performance of which even heard the acoustics of an enemy submarine.
So,
The truth of the matter is the truth of the matter.
The traitor-Baltic (played by the charismatic Sean Connery) gives the Americans a new submarine, in exchange for the opportunity to live “where you want”. Only the ship’s cook, and the American sailors themselves, who did not immediately understand what a gift was coming into their hands (but Alec Baldwin explained everything).
The plot, of course, is wild. (Although some find parallels with Captain Sablin’s attempt to steer his guard westward.) The film itself dates back to the end of the Cold War and the era of video salons. From the anti-Soviet, along with “October” there were also popular “White Nights”, which, in addition to the dances of Baryshnikov Misha under Vysotsky, are completely absurd.
You can laugh as much as you want. (Especially relaxing is the imitation of heroic Soviet songs, sounding at the beginning of the film.) Can not but irritate and cheap “ponts” technothriller T. Clancy. But...
But in the main film is deeply true. The virus of betrayal prevailed in the blood of Soviet leaders. What a hell of a submarine! The country was looted completely and "turnkey" to settle in "hostile countries." And in the West, this is well understood - hence the outcome of the cold war.
6 out of 10
A Naive American Fantasy That Has Nothing to Do with Reality
Acquaintance with the picture “The Hunt for Red October” left an unpleasant residue in my soul, and in my mind – a feeling of absurdity and uselessness of this film product.
Criticism of this film can be conducted in three main areas:
1) from the artistic and technical side (quality of the operator’s work, graphics, visual cinema, special effects, the scale of the shooting, the actors’ games and the strength of the plot);
2 on the part of authenticity, attention to detail (how reliably the filmmakers own data about the material culture and historical realities of the image they depict on the screen). Especially when it comes to their image of another country, with a different value system and a different socio-political system;
3) from an ideological point of view (the moral effect of this film was expected by its customers).
The question of commercial expediency of the film in this case does not interest us, since its success at the box office speaks for itself.
Considering “Red October” from the first position, we must state a very high-quality, well-coordinated and even talented work of its creators. The viewer is bribed by the seemingly strong plot of the film, and a decent level of production, and a diverse, well-built video sequence, and appropriate special effects, and a good level of play by charismatic actors. In this regard, the film is quite successful.
Criticism of his second side has already sounded in previous reviews, so I will not repeat it. But its presence already indicates a certain lack of Hollywood professionalism.
The main complaint of my review concerns the third, moral, ideological side of the film. And here, I must admit that American filmmakers, along with the author of the book that formed the basis of “The Hunt for Red October”, simply tried to pass off wishful thinking. This refers to the motive of the action of the main character - the commander of the nuclear submarine Mark Ramius. If we call things by their proper names, Sean Connerney’s hero is a traitor to the Motherland, not deserving of leniency. Moreover, from a logical point of view, his action does not fit into the rational scheme of behavior, and he even has nothing to say in his defense.
Judging by the plot of the film, Captain Ramius had no good reason, not even a single reason to go on this act of treason. Indeed, none of his relatives and friends was repressed (or else he would not have made such a brilliant military career in the Soviet Navy as an unreliable person), he never complained about the “occupation” of his native Lithuania by “Russians”, he was never persecuted for anything. What did he have? What did the Soviet government give him? A brilliant career in the Soviet Navy, universal love and reputation of one of the best and most authoritative naval officers, which allowed him to lead the most powerful and secret nuclear missile submarine. And all this testifies to the great respect and trust that he enjoyed both among his fellow servicemen and among the leadership of the Soviet Union. How does Mark Ramius explain his actions? He decided to hand over to the Americans, the enemies of his Soviet homeland, the most advanced submarine warship only so that the Soviets would not have the opportunity to launch a nuclear strike on the United States first. In other words, he deliberately wished that only the Americans would have such an opportunity, and the Russians would be essentially defenseless against America and NATO. He simply wanted the Soviet Union to die. I hated him for no reason.
This raises the question: could there be such high-ranking officers in the Soviet and Russian fleets? Could such a man have enjoyed for so many years the universal love, respect, and unbounded trust of his comrades in arms, of his superiors, and of the country’s highest leaders? Even if he had never spoken negatively about the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, the Russians, but had kept his aversion to all this within him, it could not have gone unnoticed all the time. At least on a spiritual, emotional level. And this would certainly influence his appointment as commander of the Red October, because the commander of the world’s most formidable submarine missile cruiser had to be flawless on all sides, without a gram of falsehood. Then what's left? Did the death of his wife really affect him? In the Soviet armed forces there were many people whose relatives and friends suffered from repression, and they themselves, but, nevertheless, continue not for fear, but for conscience to serve, to defend their homeland. Because despite their personal losses, they still believed in her.
So what was his problem, Mark Ramius? That he thought the US was better than the USSR? But how could such a highly educated and erudite officer, who is also part of the family of a member of the Soviet government, which implies considerable knowledge, seriously believe that the United States, not long ago, when the Soviet Union sent the first man into space, was still an apartheid state, and then dropped hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs on Vietnam, better than Soviet Russia? Or was Ramius’ problem that he was an ethnic Lithuanian? In the Soviet state there were many adequate Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Moldavians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Azerbaijanis, Georgians and Armenians who sincerely and consciously loved their Soviet homeland, wanted to live in it and did not feel oppressed or constrained. And it was from such people that cadres were selected for the command staff of our armed forces. It was these people who guarded our country along with soldiers and officers from the Russian people, making it a stronghold and pride. And such “interesting personalities” as Mark Ramius, among the top command staff of the Navy definitely had no place.
Hence, I conclude that the hero of S. Connery, the commander of the Soviet submarine Mark Ramius, with his officer gang is exclusively a product of FANTASY and low opinion of American authors about the Soviet people (such as they want us to see), and with real Soviet submariners have nothing in common, which in real life never was and could not be.
The American viewer, because of his intellectual limitations, can take this story on faith. But this is impossible with the Russian audience. And in this regard, the film “The Hunt for Red October” has not reached its goal and is simply useless craftsmanship.
If the technical side of cinema deserves high praise, then from the moral and ideological side it is absolutely empty. Without denying the visual and technical merits of the picture, I give it a
4 out of 10
P.S. My negative review of the film did not affect my attitude towards the actors of S. Connery, S. Neill and others.
This is the first adaptation of the novels of the American writer Tom Clancy, who in the pages of his books created the image of political and military analyst Jack Ryan, who at different times played as many as four different famous Hollywood actors. In this film, he was performed by Alec Baldwin, in the parallel main role was occupied by Sean Connery, who initially refused to star in this picture. It was shot by the famous master of action movies John McTiernan. The operator was, in my opinion, one of the best masters in his field Jan de Bont. The book was adapted by Larry Ferguson and Donald Stewart, with the latter working in this field throughout all three films, which will be shot from 1990 to 1994.
When I read the preview to the picture, then in memory immediately there was a sensational story with a mutiny on a Soviet Navy ship, raised by Valery Sablin. That story sprawled with many legends, conjectures, distortions of facts. Fortunately, I was able to learn the whole history of this ship firsthand - my grandfather served as an officer in the Baltic Fleet. And knowing how modern pseudo-historians like to twist the events that took place in the USSR, in order to smear this once superpower as deeply as possible, but I developed a stable taste of dislike for what the Yankees could write there, not knowing the exact data, living stereotypes about the main enemy of the United States, and the very essence of the plot about the submarine captain who decided to surrender to the Americans was not happy. But I tried to move away from the bias towards the tape and treat it as an artistic fiction. That's when the tape looks much more bravo.
So, the CIA analyst Jack Ryan, who connected his logic and realized that the Soviet submarine captain Marco Ramius (he was supposedly born in Lithuania, apparently, it was lazy to dig into the sources and come up with a more suitable Lithuanian name and surname, or it turned out to be hell) wants to surrender to the Americans. At the same time, Ramius wants to destroy both his colleagues and the American fleet, which does not know the true intentions of the captain. Tension is hanging in the air, and the two superpowers can face in an underwater battle.
Jack Ryan, as I said, was performed by Alec Baldwin. At that time, he was considered a sex symbol of Hollywood cinema. The role of a successful, intelligent, charming agent seemed to be written for him. Baldwin successfully copes with it, his appearance when he appears in an elegant suit with a needle, a hairstyle that was probably laid for hours before being released on set, these sparks of slyness in the eyes, emphasizing the mind of his hero - all this is flawless.
Sean Connery, which in two years will again star in John McTiernan in the film "Healthy" (as in the same year will be the next film adaptation of the book Clancy), and before that he will shoot the legendary film "Highlander", the script for which will write Larry Ferguson, so the actor refused even this role, but he was able to be persuaded by a game of words. And here he is on the commander's bridge of a Soviet submarine. There are no claims to him - he played what was written, showed himself a confident figure who made a decision and was used to getting his way. Plus, there is a touch of drama in his character, so that the viewer understands why his Ramius becomes a defector. Connery is good, but here’s how to tell Americans not to make movies anymore when foreign actors are trying to speak Russian. Guest workers are sometimes easier to understand than those who try to utter Russian words. Fortunately, after a few initial phrases, the actors began to speak their native language.
I didn’t like the stereotype that came up at the beginning of the movie. What makes everyone think that if a deputy is a must-have bastard? Of course, amused by the name of the deputy politician on the film, but his behavior, where it is so clearly shown that he really asks to die by someone else’s hand, because he is a scoundrel. It's boring, honestly. I can hardly believe that the ship's doctor ("Tim Carrie") would talk to his commander like that. No subordination, so he almost takes command of the boat. It is strange, if not to say that this is complete stupidity.
Yes, there are moments in the film that directly raise legitimate questions, anger stereotypes, but I am grateful to the actors who were able to bring this film to mind that it looks! I will not say that Baldwin’s hero flaunts himself and shows his uniqueness, looking at the enemies of his country as a brainless herd of communist killers. Thanks for that. Connery, as I said, played the role that he got, managed to demonstrate why his hero did this (he says he died when he lost his wife). Very elegant and at the same time beautifully made costumes, makeup and hairstyles. The style of the film is a good political thriller.
You can watch only if you do not approach strongly with claims to the Americans, because they have enough stereotypes about us and can not unlearn. The main thing is not related to the film as a documentary, but as a fiction.
The film adaptation of the first novel by American writer (former military) Tom Clancy, who is known for his bestsellers dedicated to the Cold War, had an impressive rolling success in the United States and in the world, which was clearly facilitated by the name of director John McTiernan, who had previously managed to shoot two movie hits Predator (1987) and Die Hard (1988). Of course, given the theme of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, given also the peculiarities of the US view on this topic, it is not surprising that the Russian audience took this tape coolly, and rather in a negative way. The image of Russians by Americans, which our compatriots complain about in the first place, can not be called completely ridiculous and caricatured, but some of the “cranberry” creators could not avoid. For example, on board a submarine with a clumsy name "Red OKTIABR", the whole action instantly turns into a comedy when the entire crew stands in line and begins to sing the anthem of the Soviet Union in wildly broken Russian, and when they just throw a couple of sentences in Russian for a better atmosphere. But, on the other hand, we must give credit for the fact that here the Russians were not shown to be fools, and, most importantly, non-drinkers – drank only tea from traditional glasses in metal cup holders.
In general, if we abstract from looking for inaccuracies in the portrait of Russians through the eyes of Americans, “The Hunt for Red October” turned out to be a rather fascinating, atmospheric, and technically flawlessly executed film (Oscar Award for Best Sound Editing and a couple of other nominations for the technical part). Although some of the actions of the characters, mainly Russian, and look ridiculous, the pace in places sags, and there is a touch of pathos, I would definitely not accuse the film of pronounced anti-Soviet propaganda. The propaganda is more pro-American. Cranberries, in fact, there is not so much as originally expected. In addition, from the positive aspects, it is impossible not to mention the bright acting ensemble, mainly Sir Shawn Connery in the title role of Marco Remius (the character has Lithuanian roots), captain of the EPL Red October.
In a nutshell: A good adaptation of a military novel with a characteristic pro-American pathos.
While the USSR existed, there was an iron curtain, thanks to which our countrymen could not get abroad. No, of course, they could get there, but this was due to both serious risks and the inability to return to their historical homeland, and their families were forced to endure all kinds of abuse and insults because their father / brother / son is an enemy of the Soviet people. However, many people were not afraid of this scenario of events, and they tried in every possible way to cross the cordon and just such people today will be discussed. So this is "The Hunt for Red October."
Cold War. A Russian captain of American origin decides to move to his historical homeland and for this purpose, under the guise of exercises, kidnaps the super-secret Russian submarine Red October. I will tell you this risky venture, because the success rate is directly proportional to the people who want to see Captain Ramius dead and the submarine submerged. Well? Wishing the captain luck or not?
The script of this film is written by a terrible paranoid and retired lieutenant of American intelligence Tom Clancy. A man who is well acquainted with how everything works in Soviet Russia and America, but at the same time in his books he is used to portraying Russians as either evil and incompetent, or kind and plush, and Americans as brave heroes, kind and omniscient, who, without it, will save everyone. In other words, before us is a cranberry, which in every possible way tries to mow under a serious work. Well, if he tries, then I will try to treat it as a serious work, but I do not know how long I will be enough. Here we go.
First, let’s start with Captain Ramius. This man has a curious enough plan to escape the Soviets, but he has no clear reason why he is doing it. His son died in a gulag? Parents were shot by “evil Russian Ivans?” He stole Russia's gold treasury? No, no and no again. He just wants to fish and get some rest. Uh, I understand, of course, but what's stopping you from going south and warming up old bones and fishing anywhere? Why don't you go behind the cordon and push the senior crew? They're good, though. Decided to fall for the mad adventure of their captain, and I am more than sure that all these people have families, loved ones and friends that they leave here and will never see them again. Yes, I have often said, and I will say, that it is necessary to follow the dream, but excuse me, such an act is more a manifestation of stupidity and irresponsibility than a sound decision made on a cold head. And the situation with GBshnik Putin, whose brave captain broke his neck? It's a shock and awe. Ramius made it sound like GBschnik was choking on tea, but you have to be a blind and stupid doctor to take that version at face value. I do not even want to talk about brave Americans, since there pathos on pathos and pathos chases. I don’t want to talk about how an American became the captain of a super-secret submarine, because it really smells like nonsense, but Clancy didn’t write that. About the same thing that the Russian captain addresses the Russian sailors with a fiery speech in English, after which the sailors begin to sing the anthem in broken Russian I also do not want to say, because you understand how stupid and improbable it looks.
Now for the actors. But with him, the creators did not fail, inviting the charismatic and beloved Sean Connery to the role of captain of the ship. He is really trying to play a harsh Russian captain who wants to feel the smell of “freedom”, but the personality of his hero is too contradictory and does not cause special sympathy. Alec Baldwin was upset, as his role in this picture seems to be key, but the only point thanks to which he was able to remember this conversation with his daughter at the very beginning and the promise to bring her a plush toy. And then he only occasionally opens his mouth, but his phrases do not carry much meaning, and one can only wonder how people from the government and burned sea wolves listen to him. The other actors did not stand out at all. So, charismatic, but still extra.
As for the musical accompaniment, it is quite good in the film, but I absolutely do not understand why here to give the Oscar? Most likely, from the calculation - "Here's a statuette, just let go of God!"
Summing up, I want to say that despite my love for films with underwater themes, this picture turned out to be quite bland and stupid. There is nothing for which the eye could catch, and too long timekeeping can drive into a state of dormancy despite the abundance of fighting scenes, and possibly despite this. So my advice to you, save your time and do not waste it on it with the permission to say the movie, thank you.
4 out of 10