Greyhound reviewed by Mark Kermode

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
  • Quick review of Greyhound by Mark Kermode. Starring Tom Hanks.

ความคิดเห็น • 15

  • @thekjd2988
    @thekjd2988 16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Good film. Great action. Tense throughout. The love story bit could have been ditched. I want to see more with Tom Hanks’ character in.

  • @TheWaynos73
    @TheWaynos73 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    i enjoyed this movie WAY more than Dunkirk.

  • @MarlboroughBlenheim1
    @MarlboroughBlenheim1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It’s plot driven and about visuals. Virtually no character development. But gripping.

  • @dogbadger
    @dogbadger ปีที่แล้ว +1

    This film was one of the biggest disappointments of recent years - I was completely unprepared for the over-the-top action scenes with surface deck gun battles, 70knot torpedoes whizzing around and all the other distracting bullshit, not to mention the ludicrous U Boat captain taunting over the radio- wtf?
    For the life of me I couldn't understand why anyone felt that the tension a vulnerable convoy faced with a deadly unseen enemy needed sexing up in anyway.
    Utterly dumb nonsense effort that makes Michael Bay look subtle and reserved.

  • @navylaks2
    @navylaks2 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I enjoyed it, was it a standard ww2 flick? yes!, but it wasn't boring.

  • @rowanc88
    @rowanc88 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    'Jaws' IS about a shark!!!!!

    • @rorykeanu2740
      @rorykeanu2740 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Dont know if you guys gives a shit but if you guys are bored like me atm you can stream pretty much all the new series on instaflixxer. Have been binge watching with my gf these days =)

    • @finneganalexzander1317
      @finneganalexzander1317 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Rory Keanu yea, I have been using instaflixxer for since december myself =)

  • @Sonofdonald2024
    @Sonofdonald2024 4 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Awful film. No character development and all of the accuracy of Pearl Harbour and Fury. Watch Das Boot scene of the burning tanker compared to the scene with the CGI tanker in this and compare

    • @apollomars1678
      @apollomars1678 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      You dont know the book.
      so you dont like the film.
      I know the book, before i watched the film. i read the book 3 times. the actual story of this book => film is not the "CGI or action or character development, BUT the actual insides about the troubles and BURDENS of this convoy warfare for a human beings. Same in Hornblower.
      Das Boot showed the athmospherical problems for the unknown soldier, these enemies in the u-boat for the publicum. it is made for people without direct XP of the WW2 actions, about the development of the crew on a personal level, because they had to live in this manner and it makes the german enemies on purpose to humans.
      this film dont want to show the commander as a human. he wants to show the horror of war in the dark pit between america and UK for the responsible personals to handle a war alone as the commander. this view is extremly interesting in these corona-times with health personals and unrealistic high responsibilites against the harsh reality of being humans for these health service workers and their "commanders". this commander stood on this post for over 48 hours and had to make zero mistakes or had to carry deaths by his sole responsibility.
      the burning tanker was not made a terrible site of hell, like in the scene of Das Boot, because in that film this scene had to excuse the lack of empathy of unrestricted u-boat-warfare at that time with the humanity of the crew members allready observed in the film. it described the moralic need for the crew to "not help the civilan tanker crew, because they were enemies/prisoners, who were unable to live on the boat". in this movie it is a horrible decision for the commander to make a moralic choice without correct answer in front of young soldiers/kids.
      before restricted warfare the u-boat was simply able to go over water, put these civilians on his deck and bring it to the nearest non-war-important civilian boat and than resume the hunting. THIS would cost time. the convoy mechanism and the need to sink more ships and the claim, that u-boats were attacked, while saving the crew, made the german Command to declear unresticted warfare with u-boats, thereby even aiming for entirly civilian ships without any militarian purpose by the need to sink more ships and ignoring civilians in the water as war causalities. it was an actual war-crime. Dönitz got later sentenced in court for this order. these boat personals were CIVILIANS.
      the brutality of this order for the allied convoy escort was seen in this movie, helping the crew of the tanker costed the live of a different ship with 100-200 crew members on bord. Forester put this XP in his book, because he heared countless cases of grive of these actual real commanders to leave screaming crew members in the night in the ocean in their rescue-boats, knowing that these people will die in 1-2 hours by the temperature of the water, if they dont get eaten alive or drone to death, because the U-boat-commanders used these freasing to death civilian crew members to cover their next attacks on other convoy ships on purpose. they shot countless of times on warships, while they tried to rescued crew members (while this was disliked, because torpedos were less effective against warboats and expensive, so they were aimed on important tanks) and they aimed sometimes specific at the start of the raid at the rescue-ship of the convoy (a randomly choosen civilian ship with more oil reserves in his tanks, so that it can gather lost crew members and use these reserves to get back into the convoy). they attacked these ships to increase the death counts of the trained seapersonal of the enemy and to destroy the organisation of rescue in the convoy => creating panic and disorder in the convoy=> easier targets, because defending such a convoy is nearly impossible.
      this movie dosnt excused non-moralic actions of the u-boat-commander OR the escord-commander. it highlighted these moralic problems as a burden.
      the actual problems of the film is the lack of actual though explainations for some actions of the commander, because it would take to much time in the film (and in the real combat situation) to explain everything in his decisions.

    • @Sonofdonald2024
      @Sonofdonald2024 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@apollomars1678 having not read the book had nothing to do with it. I have read many books on the battle of the Atlantic fact and fiction. My grandfather was a merchant seaman during ww2. I didn't like the film as it gave an unrealistic depiction of the battle and chose spectacle over substance. I accept that artistic licence sometimes has to replace historical accuracy but not for the entire film. Just my opinion. I wasn't a fan of it. I accept that other people are and people without as much interest in the history of the battle will not be as nit picky as I was. The Cruel Sea was a book of fiction and even though the film based on that is a bit dated in places it still captured the reality of the Battle much better in my opinion

    • @DrMikkel_yz54
      @DrMikkel_yz54 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      You obviously didnt understand the point of the movie. It was much more enterntaining and exciting than das boot

    • @apollomars1678
      @apollomars1678 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@DrMikkel_yz54 i wouldnt call it more "exciting" than das boot, but thats subjectiv....

    • @royfr8136
      @royfr8136 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@apollomars1678 Das Boot is like Citizen Kane - a film you think you have to say you like because you think it makes you seem clever - but really its just boring.