Add a Review

  • The movie just doesn't do service to the real events. If you're really interested in the story just read the Wikipedia page. You'll learn more about the events and it'll save you from wasting 2 hours and ten minutes of your life to this awful movie.

    I always expect that Hollywood will bungle the details in military movies and usually give them a pass for those. There are SOOO many anachronisms and inaccuracies in this movie though. EVERY scene has something wrong with it. The ship itself, the uniforms, the orders given, the weapons, the lingo, even the sharks. It's beyond distracting. The most glaring example is that they the used a battleship to represent a cruiser. You can have a movie like U-571, which is fictional, and they have more accurate depictions of the submarines and even a German destroyer. Mario Van Peebles is like "hey, the USS Alabama is located in Mobile, let's go film on that." "It's the wrong type of ship though." "It's only a film based on true events, accuracy doesn't matter."

    On top of that the writers couldn't have stuffed more cliché, trite military lingo into this movie if they tried. The focus they have on the sharks is weird, and inaccurate. The captains speech made me groan out load. Nicholas cage don't ever do another war movie again! If you've seen Windtalkers you know what I'm talking about. Again, if you really want to know what happened to the USS Indianapolis, take 10 mins and read the Wikipedia or better yet go to the library and find a book about it.
  • Years ago I read "Abandon Ship" the story of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis by Richard F. Newcomb. It 's not the book the film is based on.

    In some ways that's a pity. Although Newcomb's book was first published in 1960, it is a masterly account of the disaster and recounted events that are not in the film. I always remembered his description of the strong swimmers who rode herd on their weaker comrades pulling them back when they drifted away until they themselves used up their reserves of energy and drowned - many of the bravest acts of WW2 were not necessarily in the heat of battle.

    Somewhere along the way, much of the drama leaked from this film.

    It's unusual these days to see a movie where the special effects are not absolutely dazzling. They might be a cut above the old Hollywood bathtub effects, but the limitations of the effects in this film draw attention away from the story.

    But that isn't the key weakness in "USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage".

    Although Nicholas Cage gives a fine performance as Captain McVay, and the ending does have some punch, the filmmakers weren't content with what really happened, and added some very predicable fictional elements. Was it really necessary for Craig Tate and Johnny Wactor's characters to duplicate the scene from "Titanic" where Kate Winslet saves Leonardo DiCaprio from imprisonment in the nick of time? It's the forced backstories that rob the film of stature.

    There was no need to expend so much energy on the fake elements. Here is a passage from Newcomb's book describing what happened when Lieutenant Gwinn, the pilot of the PV-1 Ventura who first spotted the men in the water was taken aboard the hospital ship "Tranquility" and introduced to the survivors as the guy who found them.

    "Men in all stages of recovery, some weak and hollow-eyed on their beds shouted cheered and whispered. Those who could, crowded around and thumped him on the back, laughing and jumping. Some merely turned their heads on their pillows and cried softly, and the quiet, reticent Gwinn himself broke down under the flood of emotion".

    I think I would have had that scene in my movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Fast forward past the shark attacks to the rescues & watch from there to the end. This is the only good part of the movie. Prior to that it is inaccurate & unwatchable shock value with 90's attitudes on 40's sailors. The screenwriter & director were clueless.

    I saw a much better WWII version in the 70's & was horrified to learn about hundreds of sailors eaten by sharks for days until spotted by accident. Then using the Capt as a scapegoat so the gov't would be held blameless. Where was Truman's sense of propriety & honesty while this farce occurred? Not to mention the misguided families who believed the propaganda & cruelly made this innocent Captains life a living hell. He was also a victim in shark infested water as well as a scapegoat for merely surviving. Shame on the gov't & those ignorant families who stalked & tormented him to death.

    This screenwriter had no business writing 40's dialogue & WWII behaviors. He was clearly writing with 1990's attitudes which didn't fit & ruined the movie with inaccurate BS. The blacks of the 40's did not behave like punks or taunt whites. Challenging would have been a death sentence. There was a separation between races in the military until Truman corrected it.

    This movie has terrible dialogue, terrible characters & worse acting with bad story lines from the wrong decade. Stupid stunts like blacks spitting in food & harassing the whites, knife fights, fist fights, gang attitudes. Totally doesn't fit the 40's. Same with hispanics in the 40's. This scriptwriter & director couldn't even create believable behavior of stranded sailors in the ocean without food & water. All of these characters were right out of the 90's & unrecognizable for the 40's as were their side stories as portrayed.

    The writer & director clearly had no Navy or background research either. The bell bottoms which were heavily starched were designed to create water wings when knotted in the ocean to keep the sailor afloat. This is true. Whether it worked in practical application is unknown. Even the life vests in the film were modern design as were the styrofoam floaters. This occurred in 1945. Not 1995. Clearly, no one did any research. They also forgot the ships were diesel not gasoline. But the director had the crew running around with multiple sailors on fire and explosions as if it were gasoline.

    This movie tried to cash in on the horror & gore of a horrific historical event. They turned this travesty into a horror movie. Not even close to historical reality. Creative license on a true historical event is unacceptable.

    Instead of focusing on gory scenes of fires, shark attacks & fictional 90's, the travesty of this horrific incident was the failure to escort the ship after it delivered its nuclear cargo; the failure of the Navy to report the missing ship & intercepted message; the loss of hundreds to sharks and the inexcusable persecution of the captain who later killed himself. Only after his death & the death of the Japanese sub commander who sought to clear the Captains name did they finally pardon the Captain & clean his record. After everyone involved was dead, it no longer mattered.

    Now I learn the main scriptwriter was a foreigner & a neophyte who has no clue about US 40's attitudes since English is not his native tongue. The director was so spazzed at having Nick as his star that he couldn't function. While Nicholas was clearly not comfortable doing his speech to the ship crew, he obviously had no help from the director or the writers.

    When one of the crew on the extras exclaimed how well they researched, I nearly fell over. Maybe the shark. The animatronics shark was so real I feared it might attract real sharks or they could mistake a real shark as fake. They should have filmed in a pool. As suspected, the crews main interest was in shark attacks not the story. They also could have saved the real seaplane by using CGI than losing a real one in the ocean. Especially an antique. They clearly chose an incompetent cheap CGI company to pocket more money. What loser idiots they were.

    Cage was so uncomfortable as captain, he made all of us uncomfortable to watch him. I found myself waiting for Andy Griffith to start saying "Helloooo" over the speakers in a southern drawl.

    Who would hand over $40 million for a limited theater release? That's why it flopped so grossly. It wasn't shown in most theaters except Philippines, Japan & a limited few US theaters.

    They took one look at the extreme negative feedback & decided to eat the money loss than risk extreme damage to their reputations by distributing this mess. Honestly, would you want to go to the theater to watch a true story of a crew eaten by sharks. Fiction is one thing but the graphic deaths of hundreds of real sailors by sharks in a feeding frenzy is too much to stomach. It probably would have crashed & burned at the box office. The film & script were too terrible to fix.

    This historical travesty should be known & seen but more as a TV movie or documentary about real life stories than the blood & gore aspect. The true travesty was the failure of our gov't to protect the ship & leave the crew to the mercy of enemy subs & sharks; then savagely convict the captain as a scapegoat to hide our gov'ts own accountability for this atrocious farce. No president corrected this outrage until over 55 years later after they were all dead.

    Even on a well made movie this tragedy is difficult to watch. Between the sharks & gov't persecution of the scapegoat captain, those responsible should all burn in hell.
  • zalessky24 September 2016
    Men of Courage is not meant to be anything more than a generic mid- budget war movie with sharks, but it underdelivers even if you keep your expectations low. The script follows historical events pretty closely, but writing has lots of flaws, and romantic storyline is disappointing. Nicolas Cage gives a sensible performance, but his character doesn't move anywhere from "good captain" cliché. The writers add lots of voice-over narration to add depth to characters, which makes things worse. The Japanese captain is reduced to ridicule near the ending, where the two captains burst into tears while saluting each other.

    If you only look for special effects, war scenes and sharks wreaking havoc, this movie won't be any less disappointing. Warship effects are of acceptable quality (for television at least), but man-eating sharks are either roughly made CGI, or replaced with smaller sharks which are obviously harmless. Not a single scene shows sharks biting humans; edits carefully avoid that part. No attention is given to the actual details of shark species present on the site of USS Indianapolis demise. For a movie that closely follows actual events (and even includes documentary footage), Men of Courage has an unacceptable number of inaccuracies. It's also badly edited, with scenes interrupted and tied together in strange places. Two hours last like four.

    The story of USS Indianapolis appears more fascinating when you read the sources and memoirs, and it certainly deserves a better adaptation than one made by this movie's screenwriters.
  • The single scene in the movie Jaws where Robert Shaw scares the crap out of Richard Dreyfus as he describes the sinking of the USS Indianapolis and the terrifying shark aftermath, has more truth, terror, realism and great acting than the entire movie USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage. This film's amazing true story was hijacked along the way to make room for fictional back lines of power, love and racial tensions that all fall flat. Anachronisms abound--FNG is from the Vietnam war, the neon sign is not of the period, and Wayne Gretzky wouldn't make his "miss 100 shots you don't take" quote for another 50 years. It's like the scriptwriter used Google to write the script but forgot to use Google to fact check it. I wanted to like this movie, to pass along a great history lesson to my son watching with me, but from the first wobbly special effect to when we gave up and went to bed as the wrong shark species showed up, USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage never failed to disappoint. At least we know how it ends and at least there's Google to get it right and Jaws to tell it better.
  • I was really interested in this movie but oh boy, what have these people done? This is one of the worst CGI works I have seen in years, they simply destroyed the movie as a whole. The ship appears washed out, never matches the surroundings. Every action scene is CGI'd, in a cheap way. Scenes on the deck, when explosions happen are clearly fireworks!!! I could not believe my eyes. And some scenes are repeated! I never reviewed on IMDb but created an account just to tell others what a bad work this was. I was really interested in the movie but the lousy work that has been done simply could not pass without being noticed. Watch it and see for yourself. What a disappointment!
  • charlesmonagan31 October 2016
    The true story of the Indianapolis is a compelling one of bravery, intrigue, unimaginable suffering and governmental cowardice. This movie never comes close to conveying any of that. It rushes through the set-up, never pausing for us to get to know any of the principals in any depth. The movie can't wait to get to the sharks, but when it does, it almost turns into a comedy of unconvincing action, gaps in logic, ridiculous dialogue and clumsy CGI. Poor Nic Cage is reduced to a near catatonic state, forced into unnatural situations and dubious decisions. In Jaws, Spielberg did a better job in five minutes with Quint's recounting of his Indianapolis experience than this movie does in two hours. A fiasco. McHale's Navy was more realistic.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The screenwriters, the producers, the entire cast of this schlock piece should be rounded up and escorted to the brig and interrogated one by one as to who ate the strawberries from the ships' ice cream stores. Oooooops. That is another movie entirely, The Caine Mutiny, a truly classic movie on every level. This movie. Oh God help us. This movie. This is quite possibly the stupidest movie ever made. I can see it now. Hollywood aging rat pack producers bang on Cage's mansion door and beg him to salvage this "treatment" of a script. "Please Nick. Please rescue us from this shipwreck. We'll pay you anything. We know your careers is in tatters. We know your desperate. We know you need the cash. Please. Please. Pleeeeeeeze! Nick stares at the ceiling from his lazy boy. "Sure, I'll do it, boys. But, you'll need to supply me with the proper amount of blow before I commit to such a venture" From inexplicable beginning to absurd end, the movie meanders like a deaf, dumb, blind man trying desperately to make sense of the senseless. They didn't even bother to get the CGI even close to real. Who cares? They didn't even bother to get the dialogue into semi coherent shape. Who cares? Gee whiz. They didn't even bother to press the uniforms. Anybody who spent two seconds in the military knows for darn sure that the anal retentive navy always has to have those damned uniforms pressed to a crisp at all times, even before they are right about to be blown to hell from a Japanese torpedo strike. Seriously, this movie is a direct insult to the hundreds of brave men who actually did die a slow, vicious bloody death in the waters of the Pacific after delivering the bomb. Their suffering and bravery gave meaning to the word, hero. And Captain Charles Butler McVay III, the actual captain of the Indianapolis who was made a scapegoat by the Pentagon and politicians saw his life destroyed after this tragedy at sea. He took those bogus court martial trials like a man, with quiet nobility. The families of the dead sailors mailed him death threats for decades after that. They repeatedly called him to threaten his life many times. He suffered quietly through all of that hell. Then one day in November, 1968, he walked out into his front yard, holding the doll of a toy sailor in the left hand, given to him as a child and a pistol in the other hand and shot himself. These real stories of heroism, nobility, and true courage are paid a deep disservice by this horrible movie. The real story of the U.S.S. Indianapolis is heroism at its finest and most legendary. You men will always be remembered by those who are committed to knowing their history and the truth.
  • Just a few days ago the actual wreckage of the USS Indianapolis was discovered on the bottom of the Pacific, 18000 feet below the surface. When I heard that, I decided that I wanted to see this movie that was made as a tribute to the crew and events. I was completely prepared not to like it and to be regretting my decision to watch it within a few minutes. But having watched it I found myself scratching my head over the number of really bad reviews and wondering where they came from. I thought this was a pretty decent movie. Some people are getting picky about the special effects, etc. - but I found myself wondering if the bad reviews aren't somewhat similar to a shark feeding frenzy. So many people are saying bad things about it, so more and more people just pile on for the sake of piling on. But as the movie progressed I was asking myself the question: "what's (really) not to like about this?" Historically, it's a pretty accurate telling of the story. The USS Indianapolis set sail for Tinian without an escort to deliver components for the atomic bomb that would be dropped on Hiroshima within a few days of the events depicted here. Having completed that mission, it was left unescorted and was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. The ship sank, and the crew found itself in shark infested waters battling for survival for days because the Navy didn't really bother to look for them. (It was a classified mission, after all, and the Navy didn't want to really admit that the Indianapolis had even been out there and didn't report the Indianapolis overdue.) The bulk of the movie deals with the attempts of the crew to survive (about 75% of them were either killed instantly in the attack, drowned, died from various kinds of exposure or were taken by the sharks.) I found the story compelling and - in the end - even emotional.

    Once the rescue is completed, the story turns in its last half hour or so to the search for a scapegoat. The Navy couldn't admit that it was responsible for leaving the Indianapolis unescorted and for its refusal to launch a search, so someone had to shoulder the blame. The choice was Capt. Charles McVay, portrayed by Nicolas Cage. I find myself wondering if Cage's presence isn't the real reason for many of the bad reviews. For whatever reason my sense is that Cage is looked upon with more than a bit of disrespect, and even contempt as an actor. There's no doubt that he's made more than a few stinkers, but then again he's made a huge number of movies so there are going to be some bad ones. This, in my opinion, was one of his better ones. I found him believable as McVay. McVay ends up being court martialled for failure to give the order to abandon ship quickly enough (he was acquitted on that) and for not taking sufficient evasive measures to avoid the torpedo-ing (on that he was found guilty.) As a character, perhaps McVay could have been fleshed out a bit more. The writers chose instead to give us too much backstory on too many of the crew members, apparently to provide some romantic and racial melodrama that could play out unnecessarily all through the movie. That was a weakness. I would have liked to have learned more about McVay's background. What we do eventually learn about the Captain of the Indianapolis is that he was scapegoated - the only captain of a vessel sunk by the Japanese who was court martialled for it. In the end, McVay was stricken with guilt over a number of things - mostly, it was survivor's guilt because he made it but so many of his crew didn't. He was haunted by that, hounded by the press and blamed by many of the families of those who died. It was also suggested (and - whether there's evidence to back this up or not - I find it believable) that he was tormented by his relatively small role in the development of the atomic bomb. In the end, guilt overcame him and he committed suicide in 1968, only to be finally exonerated by a resolution of the US Congress signed by President Clinton in 2000.

    I thought all that was pretty well portrayed. Cage was good in the role, and although the role was much more limited, I also thought that Japanese actor Yutaka Takeuchi was solid as Hashimoto - the commander of the sub that sank Indianapolis. Controversially called as a prosecution witness at McVay's court martial (the only time an enemy officer has ever been called to testify at the court martial of an American officer) Hashimoto's testimony was actually sympathetic to McVay's position, and Hashimoto later became involved in efforts to have McVay exonerated. Although fictional, I thought the portrayal of Hashimoto and McVay meeting and speaking after the court martial and confessing their regrets to each other was quite powerful.

    My advice would be to ignore the bad reviews and give this movie a chance. It's not a blockbuster by any means, but it's a pretty solid piece of history and it presents a good story. (8/10)
  • An actual true story I was expecting an amazing film but wow was this hard to watch! The start is like something from a cartoon not a big budget film from 2016! some of the scenes looked like props from a school play. terrible acting from all. Look at the scenes from top-gun on the ship real very tense this was more like a local theater show. Completely ruined this story just awful. Id racked my brain to find some part of it that was at least watchable but its really bad the start is just unbearable. Cage is not 1 of my favs but this was a terrible part as its meant to be a tense film but doesn't come close it was actually embarrassing to watch the acting honest I've seen better effects and acting from Sinbad the sailor. I pray that its just me and every one else enjoyed it but not me I'm afraid
  • Straight to video. Straight to streaming online. This "movie" is CHEAPLY produced and one can tell: the photography looks cheap, the ship sets look cheap AND fake, the supporting actors are way below average.

    Nicholas Cage does his best to look like a tough navy officer, but it doesnt come across, because the rest of this movie is such an amateurihly made product.

    Not any good? I honestly cant think of any.
  • Michael_Arm23 September 2021
    The story of the USS INDIANAPOLIS is absolutely incredible! Nearly all of the crew died, 150 eaten by sharks, and the Captain was the only Naval Cpt to face court marshal for losing a ship by act of war. The story is epic and could be Saving Private Ryan or Letters From Iwo Jima quality picture BUT Mario Van Peebles and Nicholas Cage got their hands on it.

    I'm not sure how the rights to this movie escaped the Ron Howard's and Clint Eastwoods of the Hollywood Universe.

    Between the lame dialogue, terrible and lackluster character development, and kindergarten CGI, your left with a regrettable viewing experience that leaves you feeling that the lives of those that were lost and those saved were done a terrible injustice by this straight to VHS (not even worth DVD) video.

    Can't wait for this movie to be redone! If you're interested in watching the movie and don't believe the reviews go at it.....but don't say you weren't warned!
  • This horrific true story about the sinking of a WW2 ship on a secret mission delivering atomic bomb parts has been done before in a miniseries but I enjoyed this one more.

    There are some faults with the story clichéd characters like the unlikeable captain and choppy editing and slightly cartoon like visuals but the story is so good that it is worth watching. There is a rather clichéd love triangle but I think Michael Bay's Pearl Habour was more annoying. The racial element to the story seems a bit forced.

    Where it needs to succeed, the movie succeeds. The plot is clearly told - sometimes obviously so. The characters are quite defined so you don't feel confused among the different characters - that helps a lot. The cast is likable enough and there is a connection to the characters. The sinking doesn't look too big budget but it's quite scary. The horrific shark experience in the water is handled well so that thing are tense and not repetitive. The deaths and rescue are surprisingly emotional. The infamous subsequent trial and court martial are shown but would have liked a bit more detail about the scapegoating. Some of the Japanes point of view is shown. Liked the postmortem at the end.

    The acting is fine and doesn't depend too much on Nicholas Cage. The supporting cast are okay with appearances from Matt Lanter of 90210 and Paul Walker's brother Cody.

    I would ignore the bad reviews and small opening and lack of marketing - this is a surprisingly good movie. Not a downward trajectory for Nic Cage's career as some may feel.
  • romedini17 March 2019
    Some of the worst acting, directing, and special effects I have ever seen.
  • Set in mid-1945 during World War II, the USS Indianapolis, led by Captain Charles McVay (Nicolas Cage), was secretly tasked to deliver parts of an atomic bomb (which would later be dropped on Hiroshima) unescorted to a naval base in the Pacific. Back in open sea after successfully delivering their cargo, the ship was torpedoed and sunk by a Japanese submarine in the Philippine Sea. The sailors spent five gruelling days with minimal supplies floating on life rafts in shark-infested waters. Only 317 of the original 1,196 crew members survive the ordeal.

    The first hour of the film was quite brisk and eventful. The main storyline was laid out within the first scene. The backstory about some of the young sailors were introduced, oddly not too much on McVay himself. The USS Indianapolis embarked on its mission, torpedoed and sunk all within that first hour. However, this meant that the entire second hour would only be dealing about the survival ordeal of the sailors among the sharks awaiting rescue. It got maudlin and repetitive after the first few shark attacks. This was definitely not the war action film people were expecting to see.

    The actors all seem to have come from the Nicolas Cage school of hammy acting. The major side story was about two friends who were in love with the same girl back home. Another side story was about a couple of sailors, one white, one black, constantly at odds with each other. There was also another side story about an arrogant young officer and his despicable attitude. All these rehashed side stories just served to fill out the rest of the running time before and after the sinking. The best actor for me would have to be Yutaka Takeuchi, the Japanese actor playing court-martial witness Commander Hashimoto, who displayed dignified subtly in his brief role.

    For its Philippine release, this film's subtitle "Men of Courage" was replaced with "Disaster at (sic) Philippine Sea." However, for Filipino moviegoers expecting to actually see some part of the Philippines or see Filipinos in action in this film, they will be disappointed. The Philippines was mentioned but was never actually shown except for scene labels to establish the location. There was an extra card interrupting the closing credits stating how the search for the wreck of the Indianapolis was undertaken in 2001 in cooperation with the Philippine government and National Geographic. That was all about the Philippines here, nothing more. 5/10.
  • Well, I don't think this movie was quite as bad as some reviewers are making it. I do agree that the direction left something to be desired. Some of the early part of the film was a little sloppy. There were short scenes that seemed to come out of nowhere, and didn't seem to have anything to do with the flow of what we were seeing. As a former military man, I was astonished to see a scene where Nicolas Cage wore a mis-matched khaki naval uniform. Never happen, folks. However, I thought the movie got a little better as it went along. I was very disappointed that race had to be inserted into this. There didn't seem to be any reason why race had to play ANY part in this story. I don't know why so many directors (& producers and writers) seem to feel the need to do this (well, I have my suspicions, but that's a story for another day). The scene of the cook spitting on an officers piece of pie was despicable, and I wondered why that was even included in this. It served absolutely no real purpose. This was, supposedly, a crack naval ship and crew, entrusted with a top secret mission, and a sailor is spitting on an officer's food? But the survival scenes were done fairly well, and it was clear the incredible suffering & tragedy these men were exposed to. I thought the movie started rather poorly, but improved as it went along. I think, perhaps, Van Peebles is lacking in experience, and bit off a bit more than he could chew, but, all in all, I thought it was a decent enough movie. Cage played a fairly stoic, controlled character, but I think that was a good choice on his part. The story was what needed attention, not some overblown character. He seemed to hit the right note as a Naval Ship Captain. The actors all did adequate jobs, and it wasn't exactly a terrible movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Need I say more?

    Ok, I'll try...Nicholas Cage should have stayed in bed, because his performance looked like he was sleeping. I've enjoyed his portrayals before, but he has gone down hill...

    Rather than flesh out some characters, Mario decided to slice and dice some and what you end up with is a ghoulash of a story, rather than an engrossing film...in other words, Mario left the 'en' off and left the gross in there...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The film is meant to be a tribute to the USS Indianapolis, the ship which delivered atomic weapons to the Philippines to be subsequently used on Japan. As fate would have it the ship was torpedoed at 38 minutes into the film. The rest of the film tells their survivor story.

    The end shows the actual people and the people who portrayed them. My guess is that the enlisted men stories were dramatizations. Nicolas Cage was perhaps not the best to play Captian McVay, however when your opening scene looks like model planes on a string with very bad CG fire, you take what you can get. Tom Sizemore did play a good CPO with sea stories and newbie pranks. In spite of it being a tribute film, there is an anti-war message that goes along with the idea dropping the bomb was a bad thing. The men in the film separate themselves from the dutiful military man, just falling just short of the Nuremberg defense "I was just following orders." The plot was good, the execution wasn't there. Mario Van Peebles has done better.

    Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity. Stripper with tassels.
  • Bad across the board. One of the few movies I would really want my money back from.

    Bad acting, bad plot, horrible cgi, bad script. I really can not find anything positive to say about this film. Even at 128 minutes its was way too long for the lack of substance. There is a scene where McVay speaks to the Japanese Sub Commander. It was pretty schmaltzy, but it had a moment of decent drama when they just looked at each other.

    I am embarrassed and ashamed that this pile of crud is supposed to reflect on what happened to those men.

    You are better off reading the book "In Harms Way" to get some sort of feel for what they went through. Heck for that matter you are better off watching Jaws and having Quint (Robert Shaw) tell the story about his tattoo, and the story of why he will not wear a life jacket.
  • Once again we are subjected to a performance of the grand mumberler Nicholas Cage.

    If any producer is is looking a company to for the CGI on a movie, they should look at the one who did the effects for this movie and then not use them.
  • Seriously, some of the worst CGI I've seen in years, especially for a movie from 2016. It ruins what otherwise could be a decent movie.
  • To my surprise I was actually enjoying the movie. I did not put up too high expectation as I was not sure what the movie was all about and as I said, there were not a lot of star power (except Nicolas Cage who sometimes can play in good movies, but sometimes not too good). This movie was not a war movie where you would be bombarded with the scenes of war through out the whole film. Instead it was more like a survival drama movie, with the war as background. The focus of the movie were on the crew of USS Indianapolis as well as the captain.

    Watching this movie made me read more about the history of Captain McWay (yes you can read in wikipedia about him as this film was based on true events and quite honoring the actual events). It was sad seeing his life story but also glad at the end. The movie had a lot of touching moments especially when they relate to those crew and the captain. The relationship between the crews, the sacrifice and even the love triangle between Bama, Mike and Clara were also nice to see.

    This movie was not having a large budget like other blockbuster movies and therefore please do not expect very high tech special effects. But that was not the main attraction anyway. So if you are looking for the kind of war movie with war scenes and cool special effects, perhaps the 2001 movie Pearl Harbor may suit you better. But if you are looking for a survival drama, then this one would totally be satisfying. In addition to the touching moments, there were of course some fun moments and suspenseful moments at the sea involving sharks. Those definitely made the audience (including my wife) screamed at times.

    Overall, I think this movie is worth to watch. This prove that it does not have to have a high budget to produce a good movie. But then again, this is my personal view. As usual, people may not be able to appreciate certain movies which other found entertaining and vice versa.

    For my complete review, pls read in michaelnontonmulu.blogspot.co.id
  • bhstokes6 October 2019
    I am a 78 year old retired Navy Chief, with 20 years duty. This movie is so bad, that after less than fifteen minutes of watching it, I turned it off. It does not depict the lives of sailors of that era. The racism shown did not happen; we were respectful of each other. One of the worst historical Navy movies I've ever tried to watch..... do not waste your time.
  • This movie should have been made with a purpose of absolutely paying respect to the men of the Indianapolis by being great! Some of the worst special effects and acting I've seen in the 2000's.
  • This territory has been covered already with the lower budget film "Mission of the Shark: The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis" in 1991, which handled things far better on a far smaller budget. The cast here ought to have been a warning, flooded with a litany of Hollywood has-beens, Cage unfortunately included. While I think a few of them put in surprisingly good performances here and there (especially Sizemore, who had already reduced himself to exclusively starring in bargain-bin Z-movies by this point), the acting here really can't do much to salvage a terrible script filled with inaccuracies and anachronisms. The real kicker here has to be the solidly amateurish CGI and compositing, coupled with the total lack of realism and originality.

    The narrative follows a lazy love triangle, orbited by a few subplots that come to absolutely nothing. There's an unambitious cretin who steals a ring and a do-gooder who is obsessed with becoming a writer. Is there anything else in these characters worth learning about? How about that sinking? Is that handled well? Well it's worth a laugh at least how they decided to pattern it exactly after the climax of TITANIC.

    When I saw Mario Van Peebles listed as the film's director, things (kind of) made more sense, though even he's directed countless better films than this, especially NEW JACK CITY. It's baffling to me how a film this bad could still get made for a reported $40m budget. Looking at it, I'd have guessed $39.5m must have gone to the actors' paychecks as it otherwise looks as cheap as an Asylum Mock-Buster type film. They didn't even get the species of shark right. The only possible theory I can summon for this film's existence is that it was set up as some kind of cynical quickie foreign tax shelter merely masquerading as a patriotic celebration of wartime heroism.

    It's pathetic and cringe-inducing, but I can say to Van Peebles' infinite credit that at least he manages to keep it from getting dull.
An error has occured. Please try again.