"Greyhound" . Sorry, no. Just, no. Hope Tom Hanks does better with his 8th A.F. series.

[Irishratticus72]

*Cries in Wolfgang. 

[Feathered_IV]

I just finished watching it last night, and just finished the book it very closely reproduces on screen a short couple of weeks ago.

 

Apart from the idiot addition from some coke-addled executive, of the U-boats making killer whale noises and their captains calling up the destroyer on the TBS like a creepy stalker (editing this out would improve things immensely), the rest of it is pretty much a word-for-word depiction of the short novel The Good Shepherd by CS Forester.

 

I would not say it was the best war movie I have seen, but it was a welcome change not to have a love-triangle or loads of awkward exposition designed to bring even the most disinterested viewer up to speed.  Just like the book, it drops you straight into the middle of the convoy as things are about to kick off, and finishes with reinforcements meeting you on the other side.  There is no extended plot as such.  No suggestion that this one convoy and its cargo will "win teh war".  And I think that was to its credit.

 

The character played by Hanks is a Captain who had plenty of experience between the wars, but was placed in reserve due to his age, and had only just come out of retirement for active duty.  All the religious stuff is there in the book too, and if anything the movie tones it down a bit.  C.S.Forester spent a lifetime writing naval fiction and I've read nearly all of it.  This book was the first however in which I've seen him depict a character that way, and I must assume it was by design.  Perhaps to make him seem older and more of a relic from the past?

 

The majority of the film and dialogue is technical procedure, inasmuch as it focuses almost entirely on a sim-like reproduction of the radar, helm and gunnery orders to and from the Captain.  The book and film both assume you have a working knowledge such things, and nobody is going to turn to the camera and tell you what a depth charge is.  Reviewers who have been on active service mentioned they appreciated this. 

 

I don't enjoy Tom Hanks as an actor and would have preferred somebody else in the role.  A bit less green screen and a bit more real water would have been good too.  One significant aspect of the book was the numbing cold and wet, and the ice that covered everything.  Everybody was rugged up and wearing gauntlets to avoid losing skin on metal surfaces.  There isn't much sense of discomfort or fatigue depicted.  In the book the captain is on duty for fifty-plus hours straight while the rest of the bridge crew changes over every four.

 

So yeah.  Not a brilliant film, but an honest try to bring a respected novel to the screen with no outside embellishments...  Apart from the stupid War Thunder decals and WTF dirty phone calls from the U-boats.

 

 

[unreasonable]

Thanks for the review. I remember the novel, but have been a little shy of watching war movies after the last few years of Hollywood abortions.  Looks like this one should be just about bearable. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

hmm, that kinda sucks to hear that review.  I will watch it in due time.

 

I liked the movie, and the book "The Cruel Sea" about a Flower Class corvette, so I was hoping it would be like that.  There was always "Enemy Below" for Hollywood fare and stuff like that, which were good.  I guess movies aren't what they used to be

[Irishratticus72]

9 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I just finished watching it last night, and just finished the book it very closely reproduces on screen a short couple of weeks ago.

 

Apart from the idiot addition from some coke-addled executive, of the U-boats making killer whale noises and their captains calling up the destroyer on the TBS like a creepy stalker (editing this out would improve things immensely), the rest of it is pretty much a word-for-word depiction of the short novel The Good Shepherd by CS Forester.

 

I would not say it was the best war movie I have seen, but it was a welcome change not to have a love-triangle or loads of awkward exposition designed to bring even the most disinterested viewer up to speed.  Just like the book, it drops you straight into the middle of the convoy as things are about to kick off, and finishes with reinforcements meeting you on the other side.  There is no extended plot as such.  No suggestion that this one convoy and its cargo will "win teh war".  And I think that was to its credit.

 

The character played by Hanks is a Captain who had plenty of experience between the wars, but was placed in reserve due to his age, and had only just come out of retirement for active duty.  All the religious stuff is there in the book too, and if anything the movie tones it down a bit.  C.S.Forester spent a lifetime writing naval fiction and I've read nearly all of it.  This book was the first however in which I've seen him depict a character that way, and I must assume it was by design.  Perhaps to make him seem older and more of a relic from the past?

 

The majority of the film and dialogue is technical procedure, inasmuch as it focuses almost entirely on a sim-like reproduction of the radar, helm and gunnery orders to and from the Captain.  The book and film both assume you have a working knowledge such things, and nobody is going to turn to the camera and tell you what a depth charge is.  Reviewers who have been on active service mentioned they appreciated this. 

 

I don't enjoy Tom Hanks as an actor and would have preferred somebody else in the role.  A bit less green screen and a bit more real water would have been good too.  One significant aspect of the book was the numbing cold and wet, and the ice that covered everything.  Everybody was rugged up and wearing gauntlets to avoid losing skin on metal surfaces.  There isn't much sense of discomfort or fatigue depicted.  In the book the captain is on duty for fifty-plus hours straight while the rest of the bridge crew changes over every four.

 

So yeah.  Not a brilliant film, but an honest try to bring a respected novel to the screen with no outside embellishments...  Apart from the stupid War Thunder decals and WTF dirty phone calls from the U-boats.

 

 

The "Killer Whale" effects were just absurd, and the decals on the conning towers looked like something from "Fortnite". The TBS from the sub was just complete bollocks, and to be honest, no self respecting German sub skipper would have let himself get into that situation during daylight hours at that period of the war, they were just too skilled. In mid '43, when a lot of the old hands had gone, you started seeing inexperienced skippers make mistakes alright, and it does make the Canadians, who were punching way above their weight for the early part, look less than they were. Hanks wrote the screenplay, and it shows. It's just not that accurate a depiction for the time frame it's covering. 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Irishratticus72

[Ace_Pilto]

Credit to the film for being a good action film and to the actors for doing their jobs quite well.

 

No credit to the writers, producers and director for misrepresenting the actual history and making such a mess of a story that doesn't need hollywood tropes to be dramatic and suspenseful. What a pile of shit. Seriously, how badly do you have to disrespect your defeated enemies before you become the very depiction of them that you are attempting to create?

 

This film didn't lack good acting but it lacked honour and honesty.

 

"This is Greywolf calling, your writers stink and are deluded, over politicalised and talentless hacks AWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Edited July 12, 2020 by Ace_Pilto

[Cybermat47]

1 hour ago, Ace_Pilto said:

Seriously, how badly do you have to disrespect your defeated enemies before you become the very depiction of them that you are attempting to create?

 

Well, Tom Hanks hasn't invaded Poland and started committing atrocities against minorities, so I'd say he's a long way of from becoming a Nazi.

[Irishratticus72]

6 minutes ago, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

Well, Tom Hanks hasn't invaded Poland and started committing atrocities against minorities, so I'd say he's a long way of from becoming a Nazi.

He did lose Wilson though. 

[[KG]Destaex]

On 7/12/2020 at 12:20 PM, Feathered_IV said:

I just finished watching it last night, and just finished the book it very closely reproduces on screen a short couple of weeks ago.

 

Apart from the idiot addition from some coke-addled executive, of the U-boats making killer whale noises and their captains calling up the destroyer on the TBS like a creepy stalker (editing this out would improve things immensely), the rest of it is pretty much a word-for-word depiction of the short novel The Good Shepherd by CS Forester.

 

I would not say it was the best war movie I have seen, but it was a welcome change not to have a love-triangle or loads of awkward exposition designed to bring even the most disinterested viewer up to speed.  Just like the book, it drops you straight into the middle of the convoy as things are about to kick off, and finishes with reinforcements meeting you on the other side.  There is no extended plot as such.  No suggestion that this one convoy and its cargo will "win teh war".  And I think that was to its credit.

 

The character played by Hanks is a Captain who had plenty of experience between the wars, but was placed in reserve due to his age, and had only just come out of retirement for active duty.  All the religious stuff is there in the book too, and if anything the movie tones it down a bit.  C.S.Forester spent a lifetime writing naval fiction and I've read nearly all of it.  This book was the first however in which I've seen him depict a character that way, and I must assume it was by design.  Perhaps to make him seem older and more of a relic from the past?

 

The majority of the film and dialogue is technical procedure, inasmuch as it focuses almost entirely on a sim-like reproduction of the radar, helm and gunnery orders to and from the Captain.  The book and film both assume you have a working knowledge such things, and nobody is going to turn to the camera and tell you what a depth charge is.  Reviewers who have been on active service mentioned they appreciated this. 

 

I don't enjoy Tom Hanks as an actor and would have preferred somebody else in the role.  A bit less green screen and a bit more real water would have been good too.  One significant aspect of the book was the numbing cold and wet, and the ice that covered everything.  Everybody was rugged up and wearing gauntlets to avoid losing skin on metal surfaces.  There isn't much sense of discomfort or fatigue depicted.  In the book the captain is on duty for fifty-plus hours straight while the rest of the bridge crew changes over every four.

 

So yeah.  Not a brilliant film, but an honest try to bring a respected novel to the screen with no outside embellishments...  Apart from the stupid War Thunder decals and WTF dirty phone calls from the U-boats.

 

 

Great review. Were the wolf whistle radio calls in the book. I take it they were not and nor were the overgrown conning tower decals.

I loved the movie and really appreciated the detail right from the beginning.

I love Tom Hanks movies, private ryan, band of brothers, pacific etc. I don’t know why anybody would hate him. So it did not affect me at all and imho was for the bettement of the movie.

 

I did have to pause and rewind and explain some things to the family so they enjoyed ot as well. However my wife said she woild have enjoyed the movie even without knowing the technical explanations. Some critics are panning it because they are ignorant and cannot be bothered learning such things.

Your review was spot on except for the hanks thing imho.

 

I read all of the hornblower novels when younger and was surprised that forrester was never in the military. He certainly has a wealth of knowledge.

 

This is one for my 4k collection. A short seeet action packed war movie that shows the sacrifices fighting men make.

 

p.s. I own the german 5hr or so mon series of the original dad boot. But could not watch more than a few episodes of the new one. Should I give the new das boot another go? 

Edited July 13, 2020 by [KG]Destaex

[Irishratticus72]

1 hour ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Great review. Were the wolf whistle radio calls in the book. I take it they were not and nor were the overgrown conning tower decals.

I loved the movie and really appreciated the detail right from the beginning.

I love Tom Hanks movies, private ryan, band of brothers, pacific etc. I don’t know why anybody would hate him. So it did not affect me at all and imho was for the bettement of the movie.

 

I did have to pause and rewind and explain some things to the family so they enjoyed ot as well. However my wife said she woild have enjoyed the movie even without knowing the technical explanations. Some critics are panning it because they are ignorant and cannot be bothered learning such things.

Your review was spot on except for the hanks thing imho.

 

I read all of the hornblower novels when younger and was surprised that forrester was never in the military. He certainly has a wealth of knowledge.

 

This is one for my 4k collection. A short seeet action packed war movie that shows the sacrifices fighting men make.

 

p.s. I own the german 5hr or so mon series of the original dad boot. But could not watch more than a few episodes of the new one. Should I give the new das boot another go? 

It's a trawl, really didn't need the Resistance angle, in my opinion, but yeah, it's decent enough. 

[DD_Arthur]

 

[Feathered_IV]

6 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Were the wolf whistle radio calls in the book?

Nothing like that was in the book at all.  I’d be very interested to find out who decided to put it there.  The rest of the film however is almost a word for word replica of the the book.  I wouldn’t mind seeing a fan-edit of the film one day, with the Wolfman Jack and Warthunder decals edited out. It would be much, much better without it. 

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Excellent film. Richard Widmark was an excellent actor in many genre of film, radio and TV.

 

I'm a big fan of Tom Hanks. Again, an excellent actor in many genre. I'll have to look at this new film. Whether its 100% accurate or not, I'll leave that to experts here. I'm more interested in a well acted, well told story. I'll get my history lessons from books or documentaries.

[Feathered_IV]

Some of the shots of the destroyers heeling over in a turn was interesting.  I was reading just the other day about HMS Kelly, which on two occasions made such tight turns at speed that she ripped away every piece of equipment including lifeboats, handrails and stanchions, right down one side of the hull. 

[[KG]Destaex]

1 hour ago, Rjel said:

Excellent film. Richard Widmark was an excellent actor in many genre of film, radio and TV.

 

I'm a big fan of Tom Hanks. Again, an excellent actor in many genre. I'll have to look at this new film. Whether its 100% accurate or not, I'll leave that to experts here. I'm more interested in a well acted, well told story. I'll get my history lessons from books or documentaries.

I think it's necessary and beneficial to make movies as accurate as possible in terms of historical events at the same time as being enjoyable and entertaining. Surely that is the holy grail?

That way you don't get the great unwashed masses getting the only history they are exposed to wrong! That was kind why even though U571 is entertaining, the need to hijack the story from the Brits with a little historical note at the end correcting it, was both bad and good.

[Ace_Pilto]

6 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

I think it's necessary and beneficial to make movies as accurate as possible in terms of historical events at the same time as being enjoyable and entertaining.

 

I totally agree, case in point:

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you're making a parody, make a parody. Don't dress it up as something it's not.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Ace_Pilto

[[KG]Destaex]

Haha, I love that film. Yes, that was hippy cowboys and gold heists with some of the best quotes from a film. Obviously comedy and obviously whacky. I don't think Tom Hank's Greyhound film was meant to be a parody at all by the way. He just dressed it up a little with wolf calls and conning tower art for those who are ignorant of such things and want a bit of drama. Everything else was fine, if not fast forwarded to fit in a 1.5hr film. 

[Ace_Pilto]

That's just it, to anyone familiar with actual history the behaviour of the uboots is incredibly "whacky".

 

Why portay one side of the events realistically and make the other side a bad parody? Only a fanatic dehumanises his enemies.

 

 

 

 

 

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Bit like "Fury" then with the banzai charges by the Germans? Ugh...

[Gambit21]

German tanks never charged Shermans?

 

[DetCord12B]

On 7/20/2020 at 4:52 PM, [CPT]HarryM said:

Bit like "Fury" then with the banzai charges by the Germans? Ugh...

 

Kurtzwald, PP4, Aachen 406, Weitnau. Read a [edited] book for Christ sake.

 

On 7/20/2020 at 9:05 PM, Gambit21 said:

German tanks never charged Shermans?

 

 

On numerous occasions, yes. As well as Cromwell's, especially in the BEP force in the NE Reich proper. It might have been oft, and it was as they tended to fight rear-guard actions but the instances of these events is rare. In the East however, it's fairly common.

 

On 7/12/2020 at 12:15 PM, [Pb]Cybermat47 said:

 

Well, Tom Hanks hasn't invaded Poland and started committing atrocities against minorities, so I'd say he's a long way of from becoming a Nazi.

 

I rented this at full price. And by full price I mean it retailed as a Blu-Ray/DVD purchase. $19.99 rental? Yeah, no. It was just bad and certainly not worth it. And FLAMO at the UBOAT radio troll...WTF?

 

EDIT - Save your money.

Edited July 24, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin
Language

[Cybermat47]

5 hours ago, DetCord12B said:

I rented this at full price. And by full price I mean it retailed as a Blu-Ray/DVD purchase. $19.99 rental?

That much for a rental?! That’s insane!

[Irishratticus72]

Watched it again, still have the same opinion. Some good references to the technology aspects and the issues that the convoys experienced, but overshadowed by the parodying of the Kreigsmarine, and the sidelining of the British and Canadian ships to a great degree, almost as if it was the U. S. who pioneered convoy tactics...... And not got the shite knocked out of them for the first few months by their unwillingness to adopt British tactics. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Irishratticus72

[Feathered_IV]

Here's the open source copy of the original book, The Good Shepherd by C. S. Forester.  An English author.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2tuc69fb2b93jxp/Good_Shepherd_-_cs_Forester.epub/file

 

[Irishratticus72]

43 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Here's the open source copy of the original book, The Good Shepherd by C. S. Forester.  An English author.

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2tuc69fb2b93jxp/Good_Shepherd_-_cs_Forester.epub/file

 

Cheers, but I`ve already got it on paper. Just waiting to finish "Iron coffins" first.

[RhumbaAzul]

On 7/12/2020 at 8:01 AM, SeaSerpent said:

hmm, that kinda sucks to hear that review.  I will watch it in due time.

 

I liked the movie, and the book "The Cruel Sea" about a Flower Class corvette, so I was hoping it would be like that.  There was always "Enemy Below" for Hollywood fare and stuff like that, which were good.  I guess movies aren't what they used to be

My father served under Monsarrat and also sailed with Alistair MacClean during WW2

Edited July 31, 2020 by RhumbaAzul
My father aged 16.

[kestrel79]

After watching Masters of the Air this popped up on my Apple TV. So I watched it. Besides Tom Hanks it felt pretty low budget to me. But it was suspenseful. Now I'm curious what a bigger budget battle of Atlantic movie could look like...

 

I liked it, quick and to the point like others said. The two things I found funny were the whale noises and decals on the subs, just like you guys mentioned. I was also wondering could the German captains radio them? And if they could why? Owwwwwwww haha pretty stupid.

 

But overall not bad.

[Lusekofte]

I think it was better second time I watched it. The stalking evil German Uboat captain remain pretty dumb and beneath Tom Hanks judgement. 
I do however appreciate most of the movie and would like to see a modern English version of a convoy escort. They tend to not over dramatise everything like Hollywood does.