Saw this movie in the theatres over the summer. Enjoyed it, but pretty much promptly forgot about it. I saw it again recently on video and, already knowing the story and the outcome, I was free to pay more attention to the technique. And my verdict is this: U-571 is one of the most finely crafted popcorn movies of the past several years. One of the things which has become most regrettable about the Big Hollywood Summer Movies is their relentless pace: everything is in your face, it's all whiz-banging by you a million miles a second, with the (increasingly hokey looking) CGI special effects hogging just about every frame of the screen. Hollywood action directors have lost touch with how to pace a film for maximum impact: that there must be peaks and valleys, moments of calm and white-knuckle tension in order for the explosions to pack the wallop they should. U-571 gets it just about all right. It is a very satisfying viewing experience; nothing to rewrite the book on film, certainly, and nothing you will carry with you for the rest of your days - but a solid, intelligent entertainment that won't leave you feeling like you've just been raped by Industrial Light and Magic.
The setup is solid and well thought out; it gets the film rolling at a good clip (I won't bore you with details of the plot here - you can read the IMDb summary for that). There's a no-nonsense quality to it all, right from the get-go: the filmmakers are not interested in any romantic subplots (there are no women in the movie), inter-crew rivalries or joshing, puffed- up backstories (no "proving something to his father" or "avenging the death of his best friend" type character profiles) and least of all no gratuitously overlong "money shots" showing off the hardware and special effects. To some tastes, this might make the movie a bit too dry and faceless, and I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't want every movie to be done in this way. But it's appropriate to the subject at hand: in such a scenario, the task - the mission - is what is most important (not whether or not Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler - or Mark Wahlberg and Diane Lane - are together at the end of the movie) and it's refreshing to see a big Hollywood actioner get that right. It reminded me of the classic war movies of the past, like Guns of Navarone, or Where Eagles Dare: Ok, we've got a job to do and we're going to do it - that's what we're here for (*all* we're here for) and that's what the audience really wants to see. So let's get to it!
Furthermore, making all (rather than just some) of the story take place on the submarine was very brave. It's the tightest, most claustrophobic place imaginable, and it does not allow for the type of cathartic, big action payoffs that other films can provide (aerial dogfights, car chases, kung-fu blowouts, etc.). There's a muted, constricted feeling to even the good guys' victories here that does not allow for a satisfying "Hooray!" from the audience - just a pattern of high tension, slight release, then back again, all leading to a surprisingly muted finale which, in its own way, is as clear-eyed about battle and as respectful of the men who fought it as was Saving Private Ryan (though, of course, much less pointed about it).
Some might question how I can actually use a word like "respectful" in relation to this movie, since - as has been widely noted - the exploits of the American crew here are wildly fictionalised, and that the true heroes in acquiring the Enigma machines from German subs were the British. Well, I'll agree: this is Hollywood revisionism at its worst. But you know what? It's a cracking good tale, done with care and respect (it even lists, at the end, all the different missions - British and American both - that were responsible for successfully confiscating Enigmas). The film's concern is not with presenting historical "truth" but with using the backdrop of history as an entryway onto a tautly constructed cinematic thrill ride. If such an endeavor strikes you as offensive and opportunistic - well, I can't really argue with you. But if you can get past it, and are only interested in a solid, well crafted, well thought out movie. . . gentlemen, I give you U-571.
The setup is solid and well thought out; it gets the film rolling at a good clip (I won't bore you with details of the plot here - you can read the IMDb summary for that). There's a no-nonsense quality to it all, right from the get-go: the filmmakers are not interested in any romantic subplots (there are no women in the movie), inter-crew rivalries or joshing, puffed- up backstories (no "proving something to his father" or "avenging the death of his best friend" type character profiles) and least of all no gratuitously overlong "money shots" showing off the hardware and special effects. To some tastes, this might make the movie a bit too dry and faceless, and I'll be the first to admit that I wouldn't want every movie to be done in this way. But it's appropriate to the subject at hand: in such a scenario, the task - the mission - is what is most important (not whether or not Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler - or Mark Wahlberg and Diane Lane - are together at the end of the movie) and it's refreshing to see a big Hollywood actioner get that right. It reminded me of the classic war movies of the past, like Guns of Navarone, or Where Eagles Dare: Ok, we've got a job to do and we're going to do it - that's what we're here for (*all* we're here for) and that's what the audience really wants to see. So let's get to it!
Furthermore, making all (rather than just some) of the story take place on the submarine was very brave. It's the tightest, most claustrophobic place imaginable, and it does not allow for the type of cathartic, big action payoffs that other films can provide (aerial dogfights, car chases, kung-fu blowouts, etc.). There's a muted, constricted feeling to even the good guys' victories here that does not allow for a satisfying "Hooray!" from the audience - just a pattern of high tension, slight release, then back again, all leading to a surprisingly muted finale which, in its own way, is as clear-eyed about battle and as respectful of the men who fought it as was Saving Private Ryan (though, of course, much less pointed about it).
Some might question how I can actually use a word like "respectful" in relation to this movie, since - as has been widely noted - the exploits of the American crew here are wildly fictionalised, and that the true heroes in acquiring the Enigma machines from German subs were the British. Well, I'll agree: this is Hollywood revisionism at its worst. But you know what? It's a cracking good tale, done with care and respect (it even lists, at the end, all the different missions - British and American both - that were responsible for successfully confiscating Enigmas). The film's concern is not with presenting historical "truth" but with using the backdrop of history as an entryway onto a tautly constructed cinematic thrill ride. If such an endeavor strikes you as offensive and opportunistic - well, I can't really argue with you. But if you can get past it, and are only interested in a solid, well crafted, well thought out movie. . . gentlemen, I give you U-571.