IMDb user comments for
K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

243 comments in total

---

70 out of 83 people found the following comment useful :-
K-19: The Filmmaker, 28 May 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

Based on a true story, K-19: The Widowmaker tells of the Soviet Union's attempt in 1961 to not fall behind the United States in the Cold War. The United States had just launched the Polaris-class nuclear submarines. K-19 was a Russian sub retrofitted for nuclear capabilities. The Soviet crew's assignment was to take the sub into the Arctic and test fire an Intercontinental missile. The Americans would monitor the test as a part of routine surveillance--the test was done relatively close to a NATO outpost for one, and it would notify them that the Soviets had equal capabilities to the American Navy, helping to either stave off war, sustain the Cold War, or both, depending on your interpretation.

As the film begins, K-19 Captain Mikhail Polenin (Liam Neeson) is running his crew through a routine simulation. The nuclear reactor ends up having a problem, as it had on previous simulations. Polenin says they're not ready to run the mission yet. Instead of listening to him, the Soviet military powers that be install a new Captain--Alexei Vostrikov (Harrison Ford). Vostrikov is a hard-ass, which doesn't help him go over well with the K-19 crew, who were used to being chummy with Polenin. To make matters worse, Vostrikov has a questionable reputation--many believe that he's only in his position because of familial influence, and this despite the fact that his military father ended up in the gulag. After a number of bad portents, the sub is off on its mission and Vostrikov tries to get the crew into respectable and responsible shape so they can complete their task and get back home. As foreshadowed by the prologue, the K-19 eventually has a crisis with its nuclear reactor. The bulk of the film tells of this dilemma, attempted solutions, and various problems it causes.

K-19 is incredibly suspenseful and emotionally poignant. But it's perhaps amazing that it creates such nail-biting tension when we consider that on the surface level, it is simply a drama about a piece of machinery. Most of the plot is about trying to fix a broken gadget.

That might not sound very exciting, but there's much more to the film that a superficial glance at its plot would indicate. Director Kathryn Bigelow makes K-19 a combination of extended character portraits--primarily of Vostrikov, but also of a handful of other K-19 crewmembers, and a subtextual exploration of formal organizations and hierarchies in general.

Of course, the film is also a tribute to the real-life sacrifices and heroism of the K-19 submarine crew, who couldn't tell their stories for many years due to the Soviet government's official squelching of the incident. And on that end, the film is also a remarkable and perhaps somewhat controversial (politically and even artistically/philosophically) attempt to tell a serious, "balanced" historical story from a perspective "within" another culture.

Ford's performance is top-notch. He easily coaxes viewers to first hate him, even if they can understand his motivations, then he gradually layers complex nuances of character until we finally turn our opinions about Vostrikov around and empathize with him--but after not a little skepticism, which lingers for most of the central portion of the film--finally rooting for him against those government meanies who just can't understand his decisions because they weren't there. The whole arc easily takes film viewers on the same emotional journey the K-19 sub crew would have had.

Neeson has a similarly complex arc, but much more subtle--fitting for his supporting role. He goes from being your best buddy to someone to be suspicious of, then someone to be disliked for being a hard-ass of a different sort, then finally he surprises the audience with a saving grace action just about the same time that we realize that Ford as Vostrikov was right all along.

The film would be worth watching for just these two fine performances. But the crewmembers featured are just as sympathetic, especially when they make their mind-boggling sacrifices.

The progression of the matrix of dynamic personalities, their judgments, reservations, disputes, and suspicions, their pressing on despite less-than-perfect circumstances, and their relation to edicts from on high resemble what is probably more the norm for any complex, formal organization--not the least of which is the film-making enterprise, and more than likely, wherever you earn your daily keep.

Most of us have been involved with vocation-oriented projects or tasks that have had to progress despite the fact that a lot of people (involved or not) thought there were problems with the project or task at a fundamental level. This happens in films all the time. Studios and producers demand that a film begins production, maybe because it has to meet a particular release date, maybe because of marketing tie-ins and on and on, yet there still might not be a finished script, or we still don't know who is going to be cast as the villain, or any number of potentially disastrous situations. Vostrikov is like a film director being told to turn in a product on a tight deadline. He's doing the best he can to get the film rolling, and that means getting the crew to stop goofing off so they're ready to shoot, especially if the pressure becomes greater. It's probably a good thing that films don't run on nuclear reactors.

Of course the more literal political dilemmas that arise later on in the film are equally fascinating. But the humanizing elements of the characterizations and the universalizing elements on the story are what make K-19 hit home so hard. They add to the intriguing historical drama, the great direction and the good cinematography, score and other technical elements to easily push K-19 up to a 10.

---

83 out of 111 people found the following comment useful :-
It is funny to see how most, if not all comments, except the American ones regarding K-19 really praised it and really enjoyed it. It must be half a century of propaganda, not Harrison Ford's accent., 22 November 2002

Author: Freddy Levit from Melbourne, Australia

K-19 is a unique entry with a poignant portrayal of the other side of the Iron Curtain, showing the rest of the world the courage and the honour of the Russians to their mother land. Those who think of Russians, usually think of blood thirsty killing beasts who drink Vodka all day, but clearly this is just propaganda. I have Russian background and I have grown up around ethnics, and Russians are no different than the general public. It is American propaganda that has taken the rest of the world from understanding the Russian people. In K-19, the Russians are finally portrayed as human beings in the most harshest of all circumstances. This is not an action movie and it was not intended to be one. Most of the American comments shown here on Imdb are ridiculous. They clearly show the American expectations in a movie: It has to be a blow up, explosion filled, guns and bullets, kill your enemy blockbuster to make it into their best films ever list. K-19 however did not want to impress the Americans with special effects (it seems to the general American public that special effects are all that make quality movies these days) but instead wanted to show the world that Russian soldiers were not cold blooded murderers and were not war thirsty, but were soldiers under extreme circumstances - to show the struggle on the other side and to show the fear of death and the courage and heroics in preventing nuclear war, subsequently sparking World War III.

I was really impressed that at least some of the American comments were realistic, for anybody who understands cinema would classify this as a "masterpiece". I have come across many hilariously stupid and ridiculous American comments where they think they know what they are talking about and the thing is, they don't. Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson pulled off a brilliant realistic performance. In my opinion, their accents were very well done (I am Russian, so I would know) and the direction was splendid (a benchmark in sub film history with its claustrophobic sense and close direction). I felt really sorry for the characters, especially for the Nuclear Reactor Officer. The Kirov Orchestra pulled off one of the greatest soundtracks that I have ever heard (really powerful and striking pieces) and the general Russian feel throughout the film was "Authentic".

I was truly struck by this film. It sent shivers down my spine. The settings, the story telling, the performances, the direction, the music, the tension, the interaction and chemistry between the characters, the authenticity and best of all the cast truly made this film a "masterpiece". Thank you to one great "American" film director (Kathryn Bigelow) for waking up and seeing the Russians in a different light.

This movies is certainly a 10/10.

---

66 out of 103 people found the following comment useful :-
Just proves critics know nothing about good film making, 22 July 2002

Author: Agent10 from Tucson, AZ

Forget the critics, forget about the whiney Russian sailors: this film is worth watching. This just goes to show how idiotic the general viewing public has become. Critics have become nothing but a bunch of "good review" whores who work for commission and free gifts. It just goes to show idiotic they are, embracing schlock like Spider-man but putting down audacity like this film. For shame. With a good cast, excellent tension and Harrison Ford, they still want more action and silly exposition.

Maybe it is the subject matter, or maybe it's the fact Harrison Ford isn't killing anyone and trying to act sexy, but I cannot understand why anyone would put this film down. I don't think this film is detrimental to the reputations to the Russian sailors, who were portrayed with gusto and bravado not exhibited in most submarine films. Also, the claustrophobic nature of the film must have been difficult to film, considering the close quarters the characters had to work with. Overall, the film probably could have used some fine tuning, but the way it is, it is still quite a film to watch. 7.2/10

---

24 out of 29 people found the following comment useful :-
Much better than I expected, 12 October 2003
Author: RavenZ from Warrenton, VA

I rented this DVD for a little diversion, in spite of the bad buzz and the word "flop" attached. I thought it was a very good movie, very suspenseful and interesting. I don't nitpick about things like accents with films, just try to enjoy them. I agree with the majority of posters here, it is well worth your time.

---

17 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Memorable For The Radiation Scenes, 15 July 2006

Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States

This was a pretty solid supposed true story of a Russian submarine and its captains during the early 1960s. It's memorable, story-wise, for the radiation victims among the crew members. There are some really dramatic scenes involving that horrific event. Otherwise, it's a story of the sub's problems and the conflict between two captains.

The story starts slowly so you have to stick with it as it gets better and better as it goes on and rewarding enough to make you glad you hung in there for the whole 137 minutes.

Profanity is minor and the Russian accents are handled well by the lead actors, led by Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson and Peter Sarsgaard.

It's not a great film, but it's good and interesting enough to recommend a rental, but not something I'd watch numerous times. Those radiation scenes would be a little too grim to watch numerous times.

---

30 out of 45 people found the following comment useful :-
Widowmaker, 27 April 2004
Author: DarthBill from United States

In an attempt to break from his usual sympathetic every man bit, Ford plays a blunt, powerful, hard working Russian Naval officer who is given command of a nuclear powered sub from its well liked, almost fatherly captain played by Liam Neeson. Harrison and Liam clash as only two strong willed alpha males can when they take the sub out for a spin and fight to keep it from blowing up and causing a world wide tragedy.

Based on a true story.

Ford and Neeson give solid performances to this long, murky, cold, and ultimately detached action drama that proved to be one of 2002's lesser box office endeavors. As stated before, the film suffers from a feeling of disconnection, even as numbers of brave men are sent into the nuclear reactor with improper protection ("They might as well be wearing rain coats!")

Could have been better, and it could have been a lot worse. Rent and judge for yourself. Probably mostly for fans of Ford and Neeson.

---

18 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the best submarine films of all time, 23 February 2003

Author: edmundmuskie from America

All right this is not the most historically accurate film of all time. That is true. But there are a good number of historical accuracies not to mention tremendous suspense in this great film. Harrison Ford plays Alexi Vostokov a controversial Russian Submarine captain in the 1960's who is put in charge of Russia's first nuclear sub. There is a tremendous amount of controversy especially considering the fact that the previous captain played by Liam Neeson is now the second in charge.

The movie is extremely suspenseful. There are a lot of thrills a lot of tense moments with the sub and with the people on the sub. The special effects in the move were phenomenal but unlike many movies today the special effects do not attempt to make up for the lack of a bad script or acting job. Some of the movie was not so accurate but there is so much that is.

Harrison Ford was not a very good captain and in a ship they do not put the previous captain second in command at least in America because of the attachment you have to the leader. I know this because my father was in the navy and telling me all of this. The only thing that surprised me was that the movie did so bad at the box office. This had a great cast a lot of suspense. I can't figure out why people didn't watch it but I do have an idea.

This movie was released the same week that the Toby Keith song we'll put out boot up you're a%^ it's the American way came out. Since the Russians were once considered the sworn enemies of America not to mention most of the free world I don't think in this time of ultra-patriotism that people were too willing to watch it. I live in one of the most conservative areas in the country. A lot f what I heard as well was that this movie was too intense despite the PG-13 rating.

This was an all around great movie. This is one of Harrison Ford's best roles and him and Liam Neeson were stiffed at the Oscars in 2003. They both did that good. If anyone tells you this is a stupid movie don't listen to them. This is an entirely too underrated movie that will keep you on the edge of you seat for over two hours. This is a very well done movie Kathryn Bigelow the director did a great job.

---

15 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Intense, 5 August 2003

Author: mozu from Chicago, Illinois

This film reminded me more of "Glory" than of "Hunt for Red October" or "Das Boot." The men sacrificed themselves not for The State or some ideology, but for each other, their fellow men & their leader. You know, most of us can't change the world. In a million years, whatever we do won't make a bit of difference anyway. It's the small things--one person, one moment, one action--that really count. That's what this story said to me. Besides it's more exciting than all the shooting, car crashing, exploding movies out there.

---

13 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting angle in familiar theme, 28 July 2002

Author: rosscinema (rosscinema@juno.com) from Oceanside,Ca.

Forget about the accents that the actors use in this film. They don't convince anyone that they're Russian. But the story of a nuclear submarine that suffers a leak in the cooling system is fairly interesting. The sacrifices that these men had to do is pretty riveting and some of the decisions made here are ones that a normal person could not even consider! Harrison Ford seems to be having a good time playing a different type of character for a change. And Liam Neeson is actually not to bad as the captain that Ford replaces.Watching the men volunteer to try and fix the leak while exposing themselves to radiation is pretty horrific stuff and its these scenes that make the film worth while.

---

12 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant, 12 January 2004

Author: lje32677 from El Cajon, California

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I love Harrison Ford's movies, but I have never seen one that I would say is brilliant until now. "Air Force One" was serious, but it was fun too. K-19 is different. From the first scene, I knew this would be a serious movie. The movie is based on actual events with, of course, dramatizations, for entertainment purposes. Liam Neeson is Captain Polenin, the Captain of a submarine. He is loved by his men and in a moment of tenseness, he chooses the safety of his men over the State. He is demoted to executive officer and a new captain takes over. Harrison Ford is the new Captain; Vostov. The two men don't get on from the beginning. Their styles are completely opposite. After tense training drills, the crew begins to form around it's new Captain, except one. Because the ship was sent to sea without being ready, machinery all over the ship begin to break down, including the reactor. Eight men die bringing the reactor back on line. Of course, the movie ends with the ship being saved and returning to port. But it really isn't a happy ending. A total of 28 men die from radiation poisoning which could have been prevented if the commanding generals had taken the warnings by Vostov and Polenin seriously.

The most impressive part of this movie for me was the performances of Neeson and Ford. Neeson has a reputation for fine preformances, but often Ford plays the fun action hero. In this film, it is obvious that Mr. Ford can hold his own. This film was well put together. Directing and editing were on line with the movement of the story. The music was outstanding. But it was the performances of Ford and Neeson that made this movie.

This movie was like a 7 course meal that, when it's over, you have to sit back and say, "Now, that was satisfying." This was a very satisfying movie and I do recommend it.

---

---

Page 1 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history