Dear friends,
I've went to the theater on Friday 21 April 2000 to see "U-571" for the first time. My inital reactions are that it is an excellent film. I went expecting to be impressed, but was blown away by the amount of homework the film crew prepared for the project.
The real star of the movie was the submarine. The realism that was placed into building two full scale sea-going submarines was stupendous. One of the few gripes that I could make is that naval auxiliary that was cast to play the part of German destroyer did not have the right look for warship; but getting a friendly navy to "loan" a warship to make a period movie is a challenge to say the least. You make do with what you have.
The more obvious problem is with the single engine Luftwaffe fighter operating alone in the mid-Atlantic. A single engine fighter does not have the range to reach the mid-Atlantic from any airstrip that the Germans controlled. Also, a single Kriegsmarine destroyer would not last long with the might of the British Royal Navy hunting it. No German Aircraft Carrier was ever completed, much less sailed to battle. So unlike Roosevelt's reference to Hilton's "Shangri-la" the Germans had no floating airfields. But if they were in the Med....The naval combat is quite plausible, especially the close quarters naval gunnery used to disable the destroyer's communications shack. The underwater knife fight between enemy submarines is amazing, and the depth charge attack truly places the audience "in harms way." You may begin to understand the terror of depth charge attack, and the fate of thousands of German and Allied submariners who perished during WWII.
Only Wolfgang Petersen's masterpiece "Das Boot" is on par with "U-571."
"Crimson Tide" was entertaining, with excellent acting, but the sets are no where near as accurate as those of the two U-boat tales.
See you at the movies,
-Wright Sublette
(Gunner's Mate Guns USN 1987-91)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |