English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

123movies search icon

muted

K-19: The Widowmaker

6.7

/10

71554 人评分

2002•2 h 18 m•United States

When Russia's first nuclear submarine malfunctions on its maiden voyage, the crew must race to save the ship and prevent a nuclear disaster.

Drama

History

Thriller

演员 (18)

Capt. Alexei Vostrikov

Peter Stebbings

Christian Camargo

Capt. Mikhail Polenin

Kris Holden-Ried

Dmitry Chepovetsky

Christopher Redman

Marshal Zelentsov

Admiral Bratyeev

推荐

评论

T_X_C_B_Y🐝⚠️

22/11/2024 16:00

The real story of what happened on a nuclear sub is as heartbreaking and glorious a tale that can be told. The tragedy of what happened is off set just a little by the ability of men to rise to save their friends and to honor those who led them. So it is sad that I have to report that the story of a Russian sub that has a nuclear reactor accident while at sea and has to deal with the danger inside the ship and th politics back home has been made into such a mess of a movie. Harrison Ford is seriously wrong in the role of the Captain of the ship. This is probably his worst screen performance. He is aided by a cast that allow their accents to drift like a rudderless ship on the ocean. The real problem is the film making which makes the events so confused that I had to watch a program from the History Channel to get it all right in my head again. Things are so badly portrayed that there is almost no tension. The high point of the film is near the end of the film where the crew comes together years after the fact to honor their fallen ship mates. Here is the kick in heart moment that you were waiting for for the previous two hours. Except for this moment and the promise of what might have been this movie really has no reason to exist.

Nafz Basa

22/11/2024 16:00

Spoilers ahead, mate! Turn your course ninety degrees north or you'll run aground on Spoiler Island! The opening says, `Inspired by actual events,' which basically means that there really was a Hotel-class sub called K-19 that had reactor trouble. That's about as close as the movie gets to the real events. Everything else, even the names of the participants, has been changed to serve the story. But it's a good story, with interesting people, conflict over important things, and jaw-hurting tension. Captain Vostrikov and XO Polenin are excellently portrayed by Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson (and their accents aren't as bad as all that; aside from varying in intensity they were decent enough). Vostrikov really is a bad and irresponsible commander; every criticism that Polenin levels at him is true. That makes Polenin's actions in supporting him all the more interesting. But Vostrikov does learn from Polenin's example. The heart of the movie is the reactor near-meltdown, and the terrible consequences it has. Military movies all too often portray courage as simply risking one's life to kill other people. But what you see in this movie is REAL courage: I'd rather go into battle ten times than do what the reactor techs have to do in this movie. Bigelow's portrayal of the chief reactor officer's breakdown is a touch of genius; it shows us what the people who did go into the reactor chamber felt, and overcame, and what the reactor officer himself overcomes later in the movie. This movie should never have been marketed as a blockbuster; it works best as a simple and touching tale of heroism. Regrettably, Bigelow felt she had to cheat to keep the audience's interest, specifically by selling us the preposterous story that the reactor meltdown could have caused a 1.4 megaton nuclear explosion. This changes the story from one that merely didn't happen, into one that could not possibly have ever happened. Nuclear reactors cannot cause nuclear explosions, because they don't use weapons-grade uranium. Even if they did, it would require explosives, not just heat, to crush the uranium to a sufficiently supercritical density to detonate it. Why did Bigelow resort to this? Did she believe that a Western-world audience wouldn't care about the fate of mere Russkies, so that she needed to pretend that the fate of the whole world depended on K-19 to keep her viewers watching? If so, she lacked confidence in the story she told. I was, and am, a partisan of the West in the Cold War, and am glad that the West emerged victorious, but neither am I inclined to blame these Soviet Navy sailors for the evils of the tyrannical system that they were born into. I would have enjoyed the movie every bit as much had Bigelow admitted that the sailors were fighting only for their own lives and the lives of their fellow crewmen. And for those chauvinists who would see these sailors as less than human for being Russian, pretending that they saved the world doesn't help. Rating: *** out of ****. Recommendation: See it in the theater, and bring your suspension of disbelief along; it needs a workout.

nebiyat

22/11/2024 16:00

I am one of those people who rolls their eyes at war and submarine films. For some reason, I find the claustrophobic atmosphere irritating and often bore of them in any case. But this was gripping. Most of the drama actually takes place on the submarine rather than annoyingly cutting between onboard the submarine and the outside world the whole way through the film. The acting was surprisingly good. In fact, exceptional, even though anyone could point flaws in the Russian accents. The drama was intense and overall, the film was gripping and easy to follow. The story unfolded, avoiding the temptation to overplay irrelevant aspects of the story. It's unfortunate that it was a box office bomb, but I think a great deal of that had to do with some unnecessary "show off" special effects, when the film ultimately hit its heights and greatness in the last 45 minutes, where a basic set and some good lighting is all that was needed. If I had one complaint, it would be that the early stages could have been shortened because the film makers seemed hell-bent on trying to build a sense of intense camaraderie within the ship's crew, but somehow the dialogue and early events didn't quite do it correctly. Or perhaps it wasn't so necessary to harp on about so much. Nonetheless, it was a great watch and I was pleasantly surprised, even if you don't like movies of this genre.

AsHish PuNjabi

22/11/2024 16:00

The movie concerns a Russian atomic sub and the complications caused for a nuclear scape, as many sailors will have to sacrifice themselves to save life of crew members. Film runtime is overlong , the flick is slow-moving and a little bit boring . Some minutes are superfluous , it has half hour of excess, however the movie is enough decent and agreeable. The yarn is interesting and allegedly based on real deeds. There is suspense , thriller and action, though the scenario is completely set into the claustrophobic submarine. Harrison Ford performance as a sub commander is excellent, he hands perfectly the role , Ford has gotten the best character as film producer . Liam Neeson acting as the contender official is first-rate. Facing off between two commanders is likeness to Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin in the film ¨The hunt for Red October¨. Kathryn Bigelow direction is good and cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth is atmospheric . Klaus Badelt music is spectacular and adjusted to a thrilling film. The movie will appeal to emotions enthusiastic and action lovers. Rating 6,5/10, above average

Vegas

22/11/2024 16:00

K-19 is perfect truly movie about Russian submarines. I can't find any mistakes in plot - all things is correct! May be it's funny, but K-19 is best patriotic movie for Russians which was made by Americans! Thank you, Harrison Ford and all, who made this movie! 9/10 (sorry for my English...)

Julia Barretto

22/11/2024 16:00

Forget about the accents that the actors use in this film. They don't convince anyone that they're Russian. But the story of a nuclear submarine that suffers a leak in the cooling system is fairly interesting. The sacrifices that these men had to do is pretty riveting and some of the decisions made here are ones that a normal person could not even consider! Harrison Ford seems to be having a good time playing a different type of character for a change. And Liam Neeson is actually not to bad as the captain that Ford replaces.Watching the men volunteer to try and fix the leak while exposing themselves to radiation is pretty horrific stuff and its these scenes that make the film worth while.

zee_shan

22/11/2024 16:00

It's long, it's boring, it's full of bad Russian accents and possibly the worst, most mundane, trivial, pedestrian performances I've ever seen from two of Hollywood's finest: Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. I didn't expect much from this bland anti-red piece of cinema, but I at least expected it to be moderately entertaining. And it was about as visually stunning as a pancake. A burnt pancake. There didn't really seem to be any attempt to create any characters that went any further than the surly, authoritarian Captain played by Harrison Ford and the charismatic other Captain (so-called) played by Liam Neeson. Naturally, the two occasionally clashed unspectacularly and this generally led to nothing in particular. Every single other 'character' in the film was merely a footnote. They seemed to be in the film merely because the film's leads needed other people to tell to do other things, like load torpedoes needlessly, over and over. In essence, the film seemed to be just another way for an American filmmaker to put one more nail in the Cold War coffin. The message was simply this: the Russians are cold, incompetent and arrogant. We've been told this before, so did we really need to hear it one more time in such an inartistic hash of a way? So, go and watch Blade Runner or Schindler's List instead.

Maphefaw.ls

22/11/2024 16:00

I served in the US Navy as a submariner. No one can convince me that the Soviet navy is as inept as they're portrayed here. Ex-captain has an almost fatherly regard for his men (implying that they've served together for a long time)yet in every drill and real disaster, men collide head-on, cut their hands on a chain-fall, spill fuel on the deck (conveniently forget to dispose of it which sparks a conflagration later, and largely act like oversized teenagers at sea for their first trip. The cook is always caught juggling plates of spilling food. The doctor repeatedly, comically, drops the same medicine again and again.I could go on. The captain never would have left the control room to hide in his cabin to have a hissy-fit. Their individual bravery was probably the most accurate part. Unrealistic, appalling, unbelievable, insulting to all submariners.

Lintle Senekane

22/11/2024 16:00

I love Harrison Ford's movies, but I have never seen one that I would say is brilliant until now. "Air Force One" was serious, but it was fun too. K-19 is different. From the first scene, I knew this would be a serious movie. The movie is based on actual events with, of course, dramatizations, for entertainment purposes. Liam Neeson is Captain Polenin, the Captain of a submarine. He is loved by his men and in a moment of tenseness, he chooses the safety of his men over the State. He is demoted to executive officer and a new captain takes over. Harrison Ford is the new Captain; Vostov. The two men don't get on from the beginning. Their styles are completely opposite. After tense training drills, the crew begins to form around it's new Captain, except one. Because the ship was sent to sea without being ready, machinery all over the ship begin to break down, including the reactor. Eight men die bringing the reactor back on line. Of course, the movie ends with the ship being saved and returning to port. But it really isn't a happy ending. A total of 28 men die from radiation poisoning which could have been prevented if the commanding generals had taken the warnings by Vostov and Polenin seriously. The most impressive part of this movie for me was the performances of Neeson and Ford. Neeson has a reputation for fine preformances, but often Ford plays the fun action hero. In this film, it is obvious that Mr. Ford can hold his own. This film was well put together. Directing and editing were on line with the movement of the story. The music was outstanding. But it was the performances of Ford and Neeson that made this movie. This movie was like a 7 course meal that, when it's over, you have to sit back and say, "Now, that was satisfying." This was a very satisfying movie and I do recommend it.

Althea Ablan

22/11/2024 16:00

Okay, everyone, let's say it together and hopefully a cliché cold war plot line can be finally put to rest: Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally! Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally! Nuclear weapons do not go off accidentally! During the cold war the Soviets lost 8 nuclear submarines, all armed with nuclear weapons. They had fires, explosions, collisions and all sorts of accidents. How many accidental nuclear explosions were there? NONE! The US lost submarines and crashed several bombers loaded with nuclear weapons. Once, an American nuclear missile exploded in its silo, blasting the hardened lid off the silo and sending the charred warhead crashing to the ground several hundred yards away. There wasn't even a radiation leak. The US actually put nuclear weapon prototypes on rocket sleds and in fires to ensure their safety. I'm sure the Russians did the same. Movies like K19 continue to rely on the myth that a fire or other accident might set off the nuclear weapons, thus triggering World War III. In reality, K19 might have caused an environmental disaster, but it would not have destroyed a NATO ship and base due to the fire or the radiation. Nuclear weapons are complex devices that require a specific set of actions to detonate them. Were it possible to set one off by accident, it would have happened by now. Before you see this movie, be sure to check out the comments of the actual crew of K19, who all condemn the movie as stupid, inaccurate, and insulting. As an example, they never called the K19 "The Widowmaker". After all, the average crew member was 20 years old and for all who died only one widow was left behind. Why make a "historical" film if it's all fiction?