Since it is based on the true story of the K-141 Kursk submarine disaster, we already know the end of the story. So it was a true challenge for director Thomas Vinterberg (known for Jagten, Festen,...) to take a special approach for his movie.
He made the clear choice to focus on the emotion and the human side of this tragedy, rather than on the political side.
The result is a strong movie which succeeds in dragging you into the submarine itself and it's victims (and wifes). It's no coincidence that the aspect ratio shifts to wide during the whole submarine sequence and back to narrow (16:9) at the beginning and conclusion of the story.
Or like the director himself said at the moviepremière in Ghent, Belgium: "Well ... you should see it"
109 Reviews
Almost 20 years ago now
sandland8 April 2019
Keys On Preventable Human Tragedy...Straightforward & Simply Told
AudioFileZ3 March 2019
Most know about the Kursk incident yet know little otherwise. A terrible Cold War accident in which one of Russia's cutting edge subs sank due to an internal explosion - with survivors. The surviving crew was detected by the Russians who wouldn't ask for crucial help in the short window of saving those still alive. Expected? Well it's not a project such as The International Space Station - vastly different long-standing veils of secrecy dictate the Russian's inept posturing and faulty decisions. This is the story we haven't, mostly, been aware of. It's chilling as it depicts the human cost. This movie seems to pull few punches and doesn't bow to Hollywood-like bombast. It isn't meant to entertain so much as to enlighten with respectful homage given the crew. It succeeds and is a film that is easy to highly recommend.
Reflections of Past Behavior
pietclausen8 March 2019
The Kursk tragedy occurred in 2000 and the Russians refused help from the West to save their face and pride. But as this film depicts, the greatest tragedy was that 117 lives were lost through stubbornness and holding on to old behavior a la the Cold War.
The film is based on this event in 2000 and how the families were affected and their reaction to the lies forthcoming from the Navy Brass. This part is true, although no one really knows the actual suffering of the men on board the Kursk. The drama seen on board is fictional, but a lot of it was derived from 2 letters written and subsequently recovered.
A well made film and worth a watch. (Pun intended!)
The film is based on this event in 2000 and how the families were affected and their reaction to the lies forthcoming from the Navy Brass. This part is true, although no one really knows the actual suffering of the men on board the Kursk. The drama seen on board is fictional, but a lot of it was derived from 2 letters written and subsequently recovered.
A well made film and worth a watch. (Pun intended!)
Claustrophobic true story
maccas-5636718 December 2019
Well you know this ain't going to be sunshine and rainbows going in. It's basically 'Chernobyl' but with a submarine. It's also not nearly as well-written or executed as the likes of 'Chernobyl'.
I hated the director's choice of film ratios. Both the opening scenes and final scenes are presented in what resembles a tiny box. At first I got the vibe of an old home video. I even began adjusting the settings of my TV thinking something had gone wrong. It hadn't.
Matthias Schoenaerts is the standout performance here. There's not much else memorable about anything else. Colin Firth's presence is somewhat puzzling. In fact the whole film suffers at times from the weird mix of accents on display. I would've much preferred the whole thing in Russian.
I remembered reading about the Kursk in the newspaper as a kid. The true story of this is equal parts terrifying and heartbreaking. While 'Kursk' did its best humanizing the victims, it still somehow didn't feel urgent or intense enough as it perhaps should.
This film would have more impact if you didn't already know much about the true story. It succeeds in making me want to read some of the books about it and find out more - but beyond that, I can't help feeling the brave men of the Kursk deserved a better film about them.
I hated the director's choice of film ratios. Both the opening scenes and final scenes are presented in what resembles a tiny box. At first I got the vibe of an old home video. I even began adjusting the settings of my TV thinking something had gone wrong. It hadn't.
Matthias Schoenaerts is the standout performance here. There's not much else memorable about anything else. Colin Firth's presence is somewhat puzzling. In fact the whole film suffers at times from the weird mix of accents on display. I would've much preferred the whole thing in Russian.
I remembered reading about the Kursk in the newspaper as a kid. The true story of this is equal parts terrifying and heartbreaking. While 'Kursk' did its best humanizing the victims, it still somehow didn't feel urgent or intense enough as it perhaps should.
This film would have more impact if you didn't already know much about the true story. It succeeds in making me want to read some of the books about it and find out more - but beyond that, I can't help feeling the brave men of the Kursk deserved a better film about them.
Less melodrama and irrelevancies in plot please. Amazing amount of incorrect assertions in comment section
random-707782 March 2019
Firstly some facts:
1) despite half dozen or so peacetime submarine accidents with casualties of about 100, in comparison to peacetime army, surface navy, air force, both the US and USSR/Russian submarine services have been relatively low causality. Peacetime submarine service is less fatalities per man year than occur in land vehicle accidents, air crashes etc.
2) In the US and USSR and Russian Navy's NO ONE is forced into submariner service. During conscription and volunteer (US) and conscription (USSR/Russia), assignment to submarine is elite and sought after assignment for both officers and enlisted personnel.
3) No one, not the US, not the Chinese, not the USSR/Russians is going to ask or allow help from an adversary in raising or rescuing personnel on a nuclear submarine, especially a advanced one. Both ballistic missile and attack submarines are closely guarded secrets. The US spent present value four BILLION dollars to pull up a few pieces of a sunken Russian submarine, whose wreckage was at 16,000 feet (5 kilometers deep) in the pacific. It was a massive secret operation because learning anything of a soviet submarine was of huge value (google: Project Azorian). These are high order state military secrets. Yes most anyone who goes to sea, even adversaries, are inclined to help. But refusal to take assistance is also the rule with nuclear armed submarines on all sides. Ballistic and nuclear submarine service is in essence war footing all the time including during peacetime. Any and all information about a submarine is useful to the adversary and even seemingly trivial data puts all other submarines on your side at risk -- and therefore reduced the deterrent effect of your submarine force.
4) it is a virtual certainty that US, UK or other NATO assistance could not have saved a single life on the Kursk. Kursk's bow was 75' into the mud and the boat was at a list of 60 degrees; meaning given all the rescue methods that at the time relied on vacuum seal would not work.
5) Some commentators here are repeating long debunked myths that the Kurks was sunk in a collision with a US boat or some other external cause. While that was always an unlikely scenario, it could not be ruled out at the time -- BUT for a decade they Russian Navy and sober Russians have known,with 100% certainty, this was a torpedo malfunction inside the Kursk.
Ok, I am not fan at all of Soviet communism, of Russian nationalism under Putin, but this film is not bashing those evils -- it is bashing the Russian navy and doing so with falsehoods. it is political elements in Russia that underfunded and rushed the Kursk dangerous and haphazard refitting, that pushed early deployment, not their navy.
Now on the film itself I just can''t recommend it. It comes off like a "Lifetime Network" cheesy melodrama. The bleeding edge technical aspects, the high stakes already make the Kursk's sinking and the rescue attempts under extremely difficult storm conditions compelling drama and action. Why it was turned into a soap opera is beyond me.
2) In the US and USSR and Russian Navy's NO ONE is forced into submariner service. During conscription and volunteer (US) and conscription (USSR/Russia), assignment to submarine is elite and sought after assignment for both officers and enlisted personnel.
3) No one, not the US, not the Chinese, not the USSR/Russians is going to ask or allow help from an adversary in raising or rescuing personnel on a nuclear submarine, especially a advanced one. Both ballistic missile and attack submarines are closely guarded secrets. The US spent present value four BILLION dollars to pull up a few pieces of a sunken Russian submarine, whose wreckage was at 16,000 feet (5 kilometers deep) in the pacific. It was a massive secret operation because learning anything of a soviet submarine was of huge value (google: Project Azorian). These are high order state military secrets. Yes most anyone who goes to sea, even adversaries, are inclined to help. But refusal to take assistance is also the rule with nuclear armed submarines on all sides. Ballistic and nuclear submarine service is in essence war footing all the time including during peacetime. Any and all information about a submarine is useful to the adversary and even seemingly trivial data puts all other submarines on your side at risk -- and therefore reduced the deterrent effect of your submarine force.
4) it is a virtual certainty that US, UK or other NATO assistance could not have saved a single life on the Kursk. Kursk's bow was 75' into the mud and the boat was at a list of 60 degrees; meaning given all the rescue methods that at the time relied on vacuum seal would not work.
5) Some commentators here are repeating long debunked myths that the Kurks was sunk in a collision with a US boat or some other external cause. While that was always an unlikely scenario, it could not be ruled out at the time -- BUT for a decade they Russian Navy and sober Russians have known,with 100% certainty, this was a torpedo malfunction inside the Kursk.
Ok, I am not fan at all of Soviet communism, of Russian nationalism under Putin, but this film is not bashing those evils -- it is bashing the Russian navy and doing so with falsehoods. it is political elements in Russia that underfunded and rushed the Kursk dangerous and haphazard refitting, that pushed early deployment, not their navy.
Now on the film itself I just can''t recommend it. It comes off like a "Lifetime Network" cheesy melodrama. The bleeding edge technical aspects, the high stakes already make the Kursk's sinking and the rescue attempts under extremely difficult storm conditions compelling drama and action. Why it was turned into a soap opera is beyond me.
Another great submarine Movie
juzer0316 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
First hunter killer and now this. Well this one was mostly based on rescuing a crew stuck in a submarine. Two different story line but it has submarines and we don't see a lot of submarine movies.
I like the story. The cast did a good job.
Honestly i thought the survivors would make it. This just shows how much drama takes place behind the scene when carrying an operation like this. Sad it lead this ending.
If you are wondering if this is worth your time. I would say yes. It is a great movie and it won't disappoint.
I like the story. The cast did a good job.
Honestly i thought the survivors would make it. This just shows how much drama takes place behind the scene when carrying an operation like this. Sad it lead this ending.
If you are wondering if this is worth your time. I would say yes. It is a great movie and it won't disappoint.
A true attempt at humanity
gelf-462588 March 2019
Above all this film is very human. It appears both a criticism on humanity (society - at one point or another) and human frailty, and an uplifting story at the same time to show the best of humanity and humans as a whole. Their fears, courage, anger, hope, et cetera. On the whole it seems to follow the best of classic Russian literature in its themes.
Factual this film is not. Up to a point. The happenings aboard ship are mostly speculative. In this sense it follows other sea-disaster films such as Titanic. Politically sensitive perhaps, given the current Russian political climate, in relation to the west. But this film does not deserve to become a political tool for any side in the new cold war (more tepid, if you ask me, anyway). At worst, or best, this film is a single insight into how the Russia of today became the Russia it is today.
What will stay with me is the 90 year old Max von Sydow in his semi- villain role. He truly embodies his part. With only two Academy Award nominations to his name, I do hope he receives a lifetime achievement award before he leaves us (hopefully many years from now). Regretfully one of the last greats. Best wishes and high regards.
As a film, this seems to be a mostly Wallonian production (?), this film rises above its station. It makes me wonder what influence Luc Besson had?
Factual this film is not. Up to a point. The happenings aboard ship are mostly speculative. In this sense it follows other sea-disaster films such as Titanic. Politically sensitive perhaps, given the current Russian political climate, in relation to the west. But this film does not deserve to become a political tool for any side in the new cold war (more tepid, if you ask me, anyway). At worst, or best, this film is a single insight into how the Russia of today became the Russia it is today.
What will stay with me is the 90 year old Max von Sydow in his semi- villain role. He truly embodies his part. With only two Academy Award nominations to his name, I do hope he receives a lifetime achievement award before he leaves us (hopefully many years from now). Regretfully one of the last greats. Best wishes and high regards.
As a film, this seems to be a mostly Wallonian production (?), this film rises above its station. It makes me wonder what influence Luc Besson had?
The movie is really good, but it does not tell the whole story.
sergey-vasilyev20077 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The movie is really good, but it does not tell the whole story.
The director explains it by telling that he wanted to show the humanity of the Kursk's crew members from one side, and the bureaucracy of the upper military officials on the other side. And that he wanted to leave the politics out of the movie.
In my opinion, the director missed one important fact from the Kursk's story. As you know, the sailors in Russia are drafted to serve in NAVY. And many of them are not willing to sacrifice their lives for sake of competition between superpowers. This movie misses the fact that sailors in one sinking compartment heavily beaten their officer who closed the door between the compartments, thus preventing them to escape from the doomed compartment. This fact was discovered by investigators after reading the note found on the drown officer. I think, this fact should have been reflected in the movie, too.
The second important fact is that all families of dead sailors received, first time in the history, serious monetary compensation (ten-year salary) and apartment for living in major Russian cities. And almost all of them accepted this compensation, and we cannot blame them for that!
The director explains it by telling that he wanted to show the humanity of the Kursk's crew members from one side, and the bureaucracy of the upper military officials on the other side. And that he wanted to leave the politics out of the movie.
In my opinion, the director missed one important fact from the Kursk's story. As you know, the sailors in Russia are drafted to serve in NAVY. And many of them are not willing to sacrifice their lives for sake of competition between superpowers. This movie misses the fact that sailors in one sinking compartment heavily beaten their officer who closed the door between the compartments, thus preventing them to escape from the doomed compartment. This fact was discovered by investigators after reading the note found on the drown officer. I think, this fact should have been reflected in the movie, too.
The second important fact is that all families of dead sailors received, first time in the history, serious monetary compensation (ten-year salary) and apartment for living in major Russian cities. And almost all of them accepted this compensation, and we cannot blame them for that!
Too much melodrama, not enough suspense
ginocox-206-3369688 March 2019
Kursk offers excellent production values, cinematography and performances, but falls victim to its own conceit in attempting to interweave muddled, inconsistent political statements, resulting in a film that alternates between tense action and maudlin sentimentality.
The plot description on IMDb states, "As the sailors fight for survival, their families desperately battle political obstacles and impossible odds to save them." The futile and ineffective efforts of the families have little to do with the through line, but considerable attention is devoted to opening and closing scenes presented in a distractingly claustrophobic cropped frame, as well as raucous town hall meetings evocative of contemporary meetings disrupted by virulent activists promoting radical political ideologies. The Russian bureaucracy is presented again, again and again as obstinate and deceitful, leaving one to wonder if the filmmakers are attempting to make a statement about contemporary claims of Russian interference and hegemony. Although framed as a tragedy, the film isn't in the classical sense of a noble hero brought to ruin by a personal flaw. However, there is a tragic element in a recurring plot device concerning timepieces which in a minor way impedes the protagonist's ability to perform his duties. In the denouement, this device is woven into an apparent call out to the Resist! Movement. A scene evocative of the Sermon on the Mount seems to advocate income redistribution.
Yet, these apparent efforts to espouse liberal political ideologies are confused by other elements. The disaster is exacerbated by the Russian Navy's failure to properly maintain its fleet, suggesting more money should have been spent on the military. The socialist/communist bureaucracy is depicted as corrupt, ineffective and incompetent, possibly as a cautionary note to accepting the political policies of Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, and possibly even leftists like Warren and Pelosi. The Russian military is depicted as ineffective and a theme is that all sailors are brothers, regardless of nationality, possibly suggesting that we should consider Russia a potential ally, rather than our natural enemy.
The movie joins a large group of recent films that seem compelled to make political statements at the expense of plot and character development. It could have been a much more effective thriller by focusing on the disaster and the efforts by the crew to overcome impossible odds. Alternatively, it could have been a melodrama, focusing on the efforts of the wives to persuade intransigent bureaucrats, particularly Max von Sydow's Petrenko, to admit failure and take the moral high ground instead of blind obsequiousness to party dogma.
The plot description on IMDb states, "As the sailors fight for survival, their families desperately battle political obstacles and impossible odds to save them." The futile and ineffective efforts of the families have little to do with the through line, but considerable attention is devoted to opening and closing scenes presented in a distractingly claustrophobic cropped frame, as well as raucous town hall meetings evocative of contemporary meetings disrupted by virulent activists promoting radical political ideologies. The Russian bureaucracy is presented again, again and again as obstinate and deceitful, leaving one to wonder if the filmmakers are attempting to make a statement about contemporary claims of Russian interference and hegemony. Although framed as a tragedy, the film isn't in the classical sense of a noble hero brought to ruin by a personal flaw. However, there is a tragic element in a recurring plot device concerning timepieces which in a minor way impedes the protagonist's ability to perform his duties. In the denouement, this device is woven into an apparent call out to the Resist! Movement. A scene evocative of the Sermon on the Mount seems to advocate income redistribution.
Yet, these apparent efforts to espouse liberal political ideologies are confused by other elements. The disaster is exacerbated by the Russian Navy's failure to properly maintain its fleet, suggesting more money should have been spent on the military. The socialist/communist bureaucracy is depicted as corrupt, ineffective and incompetent, possibly as a cautionary note to accepting the political policies of Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, and possibly even leftists like Warren and Pelosi. The Russian military is depicted as ineffective and a theme is that all sailors are brothers, regardless of nationality, possibly suggesting that we should consider Russia a potential ally, rather than our natural enemy.
The movie joins a large group of recent films that seem compelled to make political statements at the expense of plot and character development. It could have been a much more effective thriller by focusing on the disaster and the efforts by the crew to overcome impossible odds. Alternatively, it could have been a melodrama, focusing on the efforts of the wives to persuade intransigent bureaucrats, particularly Max von Sydow's Petrenko, to admit failure and take the moral high ground instead of blind obsequiousness to party dogma.
If you announce "Based on True Story", respect the truth!
asoifer22 April 2021
I watch all films by Thomas Vinterberg. "Festen" was great; "The Hunt" was excellent. "Kursk" ("The Command") successfully recreates the tight life on a submarine. But it does not live up to its self-billing of a "true story." The film blames Navy admirals (sweet to see the old Max von Sydow one last time) for refusing foreign help. In fact, the new Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who refused help for days. Moreover, Putin did not interrupt his Black Sea vacation to engage in the rescue of the sailors. It was not "Admiral Petrenko" but Putin himself who met with the families in a closed doors multi-hour meeting. A new widow of the submarine sailor emotionally criticized Putin, and was forcibly tranquilized and removed from the room.
Dear Vinterberg: were you scared to portray Putin in the film? If so, don't undertake such a film, or at least don't call it a "true story." Even later, when Larry King, asked Putin in an interview "What happened to the submarine?" - Putin replied with a callous smirk "She drowned." The heart-breaking letter was written by Dmitri Kolesnikov, the commander of the torpedo section - why not honor him by using the real name? You ascribed the letter to the submarinen commander-in-chief, which is false. Listen to a song "Captain Kolesnokov" By Yuri Shevchuk - it is true to real feelings from this tragedy.
Who about death will tell us two truthful words, It is a pity the fallen sailors have no black boxes.
Pencil breaks, it's cold, it's dark -- Captain Kolesnikov is writing a letter to us.
Dear Vinterberg: were you scared to portray Putin in the film? If so, don't undertake such a film, or at least don't call it a "true story." Even later, when Larry King, asked Putin in an interview "What happened to the submarine?" - Putin replied with a callous smirk "She drowned." The heart-breaking letter was written by Dmitri Kolesnikov, the commander of the torpedo section - why not honor him by using the real name? You ascribed the letter to the submarinen commander-in-chief, which is false. Listen to a song "Captain Kolesnokov" By Yuri Shevchuk - it is true to real feelings from this tragedy.
Who about death will tell us two truthful words, It is a pity the fallen sailors have no black boxes.
Pencil breaks, it's cold, it's dark -- Captain Kolesnikov is writing a letter to us.
An excellent made French-Belgian dramatic production.
Top_Dawg_Critic21 February 2019
This film was excellent in every aspect. Directing by Thomas Vinterberg was amazing (except for the annoying black edges at the start and end of the film - why?). Writing/screenplay by Robert Rodat was great. Cinematography near perfect. Casting was outstanding - as were the performances by all. The score/music was bang on. S/VFX were perfect. My only critique is that the almost 2 hour length felt longer due to some slow pacing issues. Otherwise, an excellent film that leaves an uneasy feeling in your stomach, knowing that this film is based on actual events. A well deserved 9/10 from me.
The Darkness Below
richardchatten12 February 2023
The Russians have a long-deserved reputation for a cavalier attitude to safety and films have been made about submarines in distress since silent days; the confined settings guaranteeing a truly claustrophobic experience.
Like 'The Deer Hunter' 'Kursk: the Final Mission' begins with a wedding celebration in stark contrast to the disaster that unfolds and ends with (SLIGHT SPOILER COMING:) a Russian orthodox funeral attended by Max Von Sydow.
Colin Firth brings his usual reassuring presence to the British officer who looks on helplessly; but Vladimir Putin is nowhere to be seen, his glacial lack of concern for the lives of his own forces already evident as early as 2000.
Like 'The Deer Hunter' 'Kursk: the Final Mission' begins with a wedding celebration in stark contrast to the disaster that unfolds and ends with (SLIGHT SPOILER COMING:) a Russian orthodox funeral attended by Max Von Sydow.
Colin Firth brings his usual reassuring presence to the British officer who looks on helplessly; but Vladimir Putin is nowhere to be seen, his glacial lack of concern for the lives of his own forces already evident as early as 2000.
Not A True Story
kjhayward-5153621 March 2020
As a drama about a submarine and the attempts to rescue its crew, it is a so-so movie. However, by saying that it is based on true events, it is an insult to the memory of those the movie claims to be depicting because a significant part of the movie is fiction. If you are really interested in learning about the Kursk and the events of August 2000, read the book that the movie says it is based on ("A Time to Die") and/or watch a documentary. The truth is far more interesting than this fiction.
An engaging tale of hope and desperation
Gordon-1110 March 2019
It tells the story of 23 survivors on a Russian submarine, and how the rescue mission is handled by the government. It is a sad story, which makes it even more engaging. It is an emotional rollercoaster that takes you to a hopeful up, then a desperate down. The process is then repeated, and tears are likely to fall from viewers' eyes.
It's actually a good movie
pasanjayasinghe4 September 2020
If you exclude the controversy that surrounds the actual Kursk incident which people often compare this movie to, it can actually be called a decent movie worth watching. Seriously just try watching it as a pure fiction and you will be rewarded with a great naval thriller which includes a very potent cast of actors, decent cinematography and a very good story which all of us can learn a lesson from. I loved it! Just don't be prepared to learn facts about the real life incident watching this. Do your own research for that.
Europe makes a movie of Russia
europeanest201921 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
There were many details that were against real russians. Firstly, Russians drink a lot of tea and no coffe. In the movie they only did drink coffe. Also there were no native Russian actors, only from Europe countries.
Very well made and realistic, but not a film I'll watch again.
paulclaassen30 December 2020
Based on a true story, the event can be regarded as fact, but everything that happened after the explosion is fictional, since no-one can confirm these accounts.
The character introductions were so effectively done, I rooted for them before I even had do! The score was also absolutely beautiful, and the visuals are also good. The action arrives unexpectedly. What follows, is so intense, it was nail-biting suspense on a completely different level. The performances from the entire cast is very realistic and believable.
'Kursk' is a tragic story of a failed rescue mission, due to bad decisions from those in power. Military secrets were regarded more important than the lives of the men who served their country. This film should be an eye opener to the world to avoid similar disasters.
Although this is a well made film, it is not a film I'll watch again due to the nature of the story.
Would I watch it again? No.
The character introductions were so effectively done, I rooted for them before I even had do! The score was also absolutely beautiful, and the visuals are also good. The action arrives unexpectedly. What follows, is so intense, it was nail-biting suspense on a completely different level. The performances from the entire cast is very realistic and believable.
'Kursk' is a tragic story of a failed rescue mission, due to bad decisions from those in power. Military secrets were regarded more important than the lives of the men who served their country. This film should be an eye opener to the world to avoid similar disasters.
Although this is a well made film, it is not a film I'll watch again due to the nature of the story.
Would I watch it again? No.
Good movie. If they were to redo the beginning and end, i would be an excellent movie.
alan-fulham12 March 2019
I don't know who was responsible for deciding to film the opening 15 minutes and the remaining 7 minutes in matchbox sized 2:1 ratio film stock but he should be kept away from movie making in the future as I was sorely tempted to switch off after the first 10 minutes and that would have been a real shame !
What was his premise ? To show that Soviet Russian sailors whilst on shore leave lived in poverty ? Surely this was made clear by the crew having to pawn their watches to pay for a colleagues wedding party after not receiving their salaries, or was it something slightly subtler that I missed ? Whatever it was it was misguided and failed miserably.
Having said that, I thought the remainder of the film was both suspenseful and strangely melancholic, also having read about the incident when it actually occurred, historically factual.
The abject failure of the Soviet Government, Vladimir Putin and the Navy during this crisis is still as shocking today as it was then and serves as a reminder of how little value, even for their own sons, life means to the Kremlin Hierarchy.
As for the cast; a mention to Matthias Schoenaerts the Russian submariner Mikhail, a powerful and heart rendering performance. Also to Colin Firth, the British commodore David Russell, both played truly believable roles.
On a side note, I appreciate Max von Sydow is 90 and was equally believable as Admiral Petrenko, but he really does look like a fossil these days and should consider putting away the grease paint.
All in all well worth a watch.
Trying to save the Kursk crew
chong_an7 September 2018
This is a fictionalization of the Russian submarine disaster that made world-wide news. Adapted from a book, the story runs in multiple alternating stories. Matthias Schoenaerts stars as the submarine officer who has to keep the survivors alive. Léa Seydoux co-stars as his wife, battling for information from the naval authorities who are stonewalling. Colin Firth has a bit part as a British officer, representing the international offers for help. Meanwhile, the severely underfunded Russian navy has only one ill-maintained rescue vessel, and, for political or other reasons, is resisting offers to help from various NATO countries.
The underwater scenes were suitably claustrophobic. While different (sometimes under-trained) crew members exhibited different reactions, there was general camaraderie, as also shown in an early sequence where various underpaid crew members sell their watches to help finance a colleague's wedding.
A significant bit part is the young son of Matthias Schoenaerts' character, who opens the movie practicing holding his breath underwater - a skill needed for future naval / submarine work. The kid represents the children of the whole crew.
I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival, and was surprised to see that Kursk was in English. The director reasoned that he didn't speak Russian, and the film was about various communities coming together, something that was more universal than it being just a Russian story.
Note that I am reviewing this as a movie, not as to whether this is a complete historical document.
The underwater scenes were suitably claustrophobic. While different (sometimes under-trained) crew members exhibited different reactions, there was general camaraderie, as also shown in an early sequence where various underpaid crew members sell their watches to help finance a colleague's wedding.
A significant bit part is the young son of Matthias Schoenaerts' character, who opens the movie practicing holding his breath underwater - a skill needed for future naval / submarine work. The kid represents the children of the whole crew.
I saw this at the Toronto International Film Festival, and was surprised to see that Kursk was in English. The director reasoned that he didn't speak Russian, and the film was about various communities coming together, something that was more universal than it being just a Russian story.
Note that I am reviewing this as a movie, not as to whether this is a complete historical document.
the movie is really good
mohit_sinsniwal24 May 2019
The movie is really good, but it does not tell the whole story.
The director explains it by telling that he wanted to show the humanity of the Kursk's crew members from one side, and the bureaucracy of the upper military officials on the other side. And that he wanted to leave the politics out of the movie.
In my opinion, the director missed one important fact from the Kursk's story. As you know, the sailors in Russia are drafted to serve in NAVY. And many of them are not willing to sacrifice their lives for sake of competition between superpowers. This movie misses the fact that sailors in one sinking compartment heavily beaten their officer who closed the door between the compartments, thus preventing them to escape from the doomed compartment. This fact was discovered by investigators after reading the note found on the drown officer. I think, this fact should have been reflected in the movie, too.
The second important fact is that all families of dead sailors received, first time in the history, serious monetary compensation (ten-year salary) and apartment for living in major Russian cities. And almost all of them accepted this compensation, and we cannot blame them for that!
The director explains it by telling that he wanted to show the humanity of the Kursk's crew members from one side, and the bureaucracy of the upper military officials on the other side. And that he wanted to leave the politics out of the movie.
In my opinion, the director missed one important fact from the Kursk's story. As you know, the sailors in Russia are drafted to serve in NAVY. And many of them are not willing to sacrifice their lives for sake of competition between superpowers. This movie misses the fact that sailors in one sinking compartment heavily beaten their officer who closed the door between the compartments, thus preventing them to escape from the doomed compartment. This fact was discovered by investigators after reading the note found on the drown officer. I think, this fact should have been reflected in the movie, too.
The second important fact is that all families of dead sailors received, first time in the history, serious monetary compensation (ten-year salary) and apartment for living in major Russian cities. And almost all of them accepted this compensation, and we cannot blame them for that!
Taking liberties with the source material.
joemalone200026 October 2020
I'm all for a bit of artistic license, if it benefits the movie, but was this a joke? A movie that bears only the slightest resemblance to Robert Moore's book and fabricates a whole chain of events that run throughout the movie. What on earth for? The story doesn't get any better than the source material, and if they stuck to that, they's have a hit movie on their hands, instead of this second rate fairy tale. If you don't mind a movie 'loosely based on true events' then maybe this is watchable, I turned it off in disgust after an hour due to BS overload.
Dying for nothing.
deloudelouvain3 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I have no clue if the story is accurate or not (not when I read some other reviews) but to me it just didn't really matter as I watched this movie to be entertained and entertaining it was. I vaguely remember the details when the drama happened for real but the details that I remembered were all present in this movie. Personally I would have used the real languages of the characters instead of making a full English spoken movie. I'm sorry but when you have an entire Russian crew you expect them to speak Russian and not English. I'm a Belgian and used to read subtitles so that was what I was expecting. Matthias Schoenaerts, definitely one of my favorite Belgian actors did another good job playing his character. There are no weak moments in Kursk what makes this story a captivating movie. And whatever the accuracy of details are the fact that so many people lost their lives because of the stubborness of their superiors is just a big shame. Like in any other war the high ranked never risk anything, they get the praising in case of victories, and are never to blame if something goes wrong, so for that it's all well accurate to me.
@aliensresevoir Review
dlbott18 February 2019
As a veteran and one who went through cold war and also worked dod contracts after and worked and dealt with Russian's and Ukrainian's and other in exchange program and other situations even during service I can tell you that "his" truth is not true at all. The fact is, especially during this time period and even before Russia was in trouble. Financially, and corruption running rampant through their whole system, still is for that matter. Not the oil and gas tycoon's they are now. Their people suffered hardships, starvation even at times depending on your class and ethnicity. Communism really isn't communism, lol, there is always the elite, the ones who have more, and those that suffer. During these many years, Russia, as is today has a draft system. Poor boys who don't have the means to get out of service or to enter into nice safe officer positions are the fodder for the machine. And many died, not just on Kursk. You see their entire military was running on fumes and old equipment, especially the navy. They went to great links to hide their bone yards of subs and other vessels that they could no longer keep afloat or maintain. You can even find old video and documentaries on some of these old bone yards, even on the subs. But, most of the accidents and losses like the Kursk were never reported, not even at home. Many many died. And no they would never ask for help, especially not from us. Aliensresevoir is obviously Russian, at least that is how it seems. But, he knows nothing of the actual events, or the many others exactly like the Kursk... or even the cosmonauts they lost etc etc etc and no one ever will. Unlike us, their failures and defeats will never see light of day to show weakness in any area. Only the success's. Like the hyper sonic missile which breaks treaties and put's us all at risk again even though it too is easily defeated. Just because something goes fast does not mean anything lol. You don't hunt birds with a rifle but a shotgun, hint hint lol. What we need is to understand once and for all, that war and military might and destruction is not the answer and never will be. We need to release free energy technology and bring peace to the world, nothing left to fight over accept Religion and even that can be overcome if we want to. But, you see, they don't want to..... There in lies the real truth...... As for the movie, it tries to bring the sad drama of what they think might have happened and what the poor sailors went through. Almost all of whom did not want to be there in the first place and that is sad. Because of the publicity it was the first time Russia had to acknowledge their defeats and caused them to stand up and take responsibility for the sailors and their families to save face, good on them at any rate for doing what they should do. On all sides all over world, we military are the forgotten hero's of every country and are never taken care of or rewarded correctly for their selfless service, even when forced to do so.
HooRah!!!!
HooRah!!!!
Propaganda?
twittkamp19 February 2019
I can't help the feeling this is an attempt to apply a narrative onto a tragedy. Do we even know what really happened there? Would the US or any EU state allow Russia to save a submarine that has experimental weapons, state secrets, on board? As a movie, it isn't half bad and if this were about a generic, fictional accident, I would give it a 6 or 7, but as an obvious attempt to present a narrative as objective history, villifying a nation that acted no different than any other would in the same situation, this gets a 2 from me.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
