Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Elena If there would be 100 stars I would rate 100 out of 100. It is one remarkable piece of art, it has story behind action, it has emotions behind everything else. The acting couldn't be any better. I have signed up to IMDb only to post a review for this movie because it does deserve the bother. Don't walk around before watching it, you will lose more than you can imagine. When you think you have an idea of what would happen next, you realise you couldn't be more wrong...I'm a fan of war movies, but not the old with plenty of action ones, but I am a fan of those movies where you doubt you can roll a tear watching such kind of films. But you never know...and the justice! Oh you will realize how much justice is in it, a beautiful end, you will not be disappointed!

jdonalds-5 I love war movies. I watch just about every one I can. I'm willing to watch some pretty bad movies as long as they have heavy equipment of some kind. I'm afraid this movie fell somewhere near the middle - I rated it 6 of 10 stars.There was no shortage of stars and recognizable faces. It makes me wonder how the producers were able to pull such a high powered cast to a so-so movie. I would have to say my overall rating was higher just because of the cast. The acting was fine, but the movie was just short of boring.I noticed Rocky Carroll of NCIS fame, Matt Craven who played SecNav on NCIS, Jason Alexander of Seinfeld, and several others who must have been starting out in 1995.The story consisted almost entirely of a ton of dialog within the sub. The basic story, of the XO taking over the sub and the captain taking it back, was sound, but there really wasn't much else to the story. It was direction that screwed it up. Basically that was the entire story. It could have made a decent short of 20 minutes or so.I couldn't tell if this was intended to be a heavy drama, or something else.In the end it was watchable. But I won't every go out of my way to watch it again. Put this movie up against some of the great WWII movies, such as In Harms Way, and there is no comparison.If you like sub movies and a ton of good actors give it a watch, but don't expect too much. There is always somebody who labels most movies "The best movie ever made." I just didn't see it here.

Leofwine_draca I'm a great fan of films that take place in submarines, as the claustrophobic backdrop can usually be relied upon to bring out the best and worst of the characters trapped within the confines of these metal beasts. There were two big Hollywood submarine flicks in the 1990s: THE HUNT FOR RED October, which I found ponderous and more than a little dull, and this one. The good news is that CRIMSON TIDE is superior in every respect.In fact, this might well be one of Tony Scott's best movies: it's a cracking thriller, laden with suspense, that doesn't have to rely on action to be exciting. Instead this is a virtual two-hander featuring two actors at the top of their game: Denzel Washington as the young, moralistic lieutenant commander, and Gene Hackman as the curmudgeonly elder, a captain who's about to lead his crew to the brink of nuclear annihilation.Obviously the scenes between the two stars are electrifying, and kudos to the scriptwriters for making both characters anything but black and white. This is unpredictable, intelligent film-making that frequently had me biting my nails; the tension and pacing are pretty much perfect, and in many places this is edge-of-the-seat stuff, a taut thriller that grabs you and refuses to let go until the last few minutes. Great stuff indeed.

wes-connors When rebellious Russians seize control of their country's nuclear missiles, the fate of the entire free world hangs in the balance. To take care of the matter, the United States depends on a submarine in the Mediterranean Sea. The sub's captain is, according to the film's opening, one of the three most powerful men in the world (listed after the leaders of Russia and the USA). The "Alabama" is led my gun-ho veteran Gene Hackman (as Frank Ramsey). He has just hired cautious newcomer Denzel Washington (as Ron Hunter) as commander. They share an affection for horses, but do not agree on war action...The big problem occurs when Mr. Hackman and Mr. Washington interpret an "Emergency Action Message" differently. Due to a power failure, the message arrives incomplete. Hackman takes it as an order to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Russia. Washington believes they should wait for clarity. Battle lines are drawn as the captain and commander are unable to agree..."Crimson Tide" is well-acted and nicely directed (by Tony Scott), but there is little logic or suspense. From the introduction of the co-stars, we know who is correct. Also, it's a silly movie. Washington uses pop culture to win friends and influence the crew. He lets Danny Nucci (as Rivetti) know who drew the best "Silver Surfer" and plays "Star Trek" with Lillo Brancato (as Vossler).***** Crimson Tide (5/12/95) Tony Scott ~ Denzel Washington, Gene Hackman, George Dzundza, Viggo Mortensen