Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Does this review contain spoilers? I don't believe so but I'll say yes, it does, just to be safe. As a former submariner, I like to watch movies about submarines. I'm professionally interested. They don't have to be technically correct; merely well-made and entertaining. Some of my favorite submarine movies are 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea; The Hunt for Red October; Grey Lady Down; and Crimson Tide. They all have their flaws. They all have their merits. After I read the book about K-219, I learned there was a movie about which I just had to see and did. I'll start off with the pros and cons of the film, as I saw them, beginning with the cons: 1. The American Naval officers. For the sake of exposition, the American sub captain was asking and receiving information from his engineer. On a real boat, the CO and Engineer would discuss engineering details as peers. The captain of a nuke sub is captain because he was once a division officer, then an engineer, and then an XO. 2. The reactions of the American skipper to the developing situation. If a submarine captain were to observe an enemy ship open its missile hatches (either visually or with sonar) suspecting a missile launch and firing a torpedo would not be his first inclination. The movie captain already knew the Russian sub was on fire. The Russian crew was busy fighting a fire, not preparing to launch missiles. Any reasonable observer would deduce that. 3. The technical inaccuracy of the weapons and reactors. The Russians foolishly used liquid fueled missiles in their subs. Very bad idea. While the missile fuel can and will burn, the high explosives of the warhead are unlikely to detonate. Burn, maybe, but detonation is highly unlikely unless triggered with a primary explosive. The submarine and other ships in the area nor any land masses were in danger of a nuclear detonation. Ever. 4. The general trigger happiness of the Americans. Provoking an international incident by firing on an enemy ship was the last thing either side wanted during the Cold War. Pros: 1. The acting was good, especially Rutger Hauer. I was well into the movie before I realized the Russian captain was he. He looked and acted unlike any other role I've seen him play. Well done. And well done, Max Von Sydow. The Martin Sheen character was too edgy for an Ameican submarine captain. 2. The interior views of the boats. While I never seen the interior of a Russian submarine nor the control center of a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine, I assume the control centers of fast attack submarines and boomers are similar. Other comments, neither good nor bad. Wouldn't the Russian submarine captain order speed changes with an annunciator which would pass along the order to a throttleman, just like every other ship ever made? And what brain donor designed a nuclear reactor system that wouldn't fail safe? And place the manual shutdown inside the reactor compartment? I realize that's the way it was in the book, but I found their design exceedingly flawed. In the end, I give this film a 7 of 10 and a recommendation. I found it enjoyable and interesting although I think submarine initiates may be jarred by its inaccuracies.

This is based on an interesting story that might even be true, and for that reason I'm glad I watched it. In fairness, it is quite good for a made-for-TV movie, but don't get your hopes up too high before you start watching. Unfortunately, I had high expectations, based on someone's comment that it's just as good as Hunt for Red October. It really isn't.I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on how faithful the movie is to that, but I can say that in terms of science, a lot of scenes just don't hold water. If you hear someone shout out a number that cannot possibly be right, best to just smile and ignore it.Others have commented that this is a gripping story, and while it had its moments, I was mostly disappointed. Despite a naturally suspenseful storyline, a combination of budget production and a mediocre script conspire to spoil too many scenes. It might have benefited from more of a subplot, and with the political tensions at the time, you would think something could've showed up in the script.Ultimately, if you are interested in submarine stories, this one will be worth watching, but don't expect much.

Not a bad film. The acting depicted the heroism and desperation that, as far as anyone (not in the submarine or military intelligence community) can know, really occurred. Based upon the truth (or at least what is generally known). After the 'Kursk' incident, this film seems a lot better and probably more realistic than other submarine movies... with the exception of 'Das Boot'. May not be 'edge of your seat' excitement, but certainly more real than "U-571".

The movie portrays a tightly scripted drama when a disaster occurs on a Soviet nuclear sub. It places the viewer in the narrow confines of the sub and reminds us of the dangers constantly faced by the crew. Potential weaknesses of nuclear fail-safe systems also become apparent.