Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Greyhound

  • 14-03-2020 5:15pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 16,684 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp


    stupid name for a war movie but very nice trailer, I might break my Wuhan flu hiatus with this, its out in June

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,688 ✭✭✭ Slydice


    My first reaction was..
    • Tom Hanks so must be good.
    • CG doesn't look great so wanna see another trailer when they've had time to improve


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,750 ✭✭✭✭ bnt


    If anyone's more interested in the history of the Wolf Pack, here's a podcast interview with Tom Hanks by historian Dan Carlin, the guy behind Hardcore History.

    Parvi enim sunt foris arma, nisi est consilium domi.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭ Mrcaramelchoc


    It looks cgi d to hell and back.the trailer didn't do much for me either.id say tom has a box office flop on his hands.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Kingp35


    Looks pretty poor, far too much CGI.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,741 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Reviews seem mixed, suggesting it's more spectacle than character; old-fashioned potentially in a negative way, being a movie of Competent Men remaining calm and carrying on.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 19,562 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Mr.S


    It was very so/so.

    I didn't think Hanks particularly carried the film either, nothing really stood out.

    It's basically all CGI.

    As it was on Apple+, not much effort required - probably would have thought worse if I paid to see it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,447 ✭✭✭✭ expectationlost


    America saves the day yet again, British shown as useless. Spectacular out of context re-use of that "bring down hell from on high" quote.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭ Heckler


    I like Hanks and his obvious interest in WW2. Band of Brothers in particular was outstanding. Saving Private Ryan despite its overly jingoistic theme was saved by the opening half hour.

    I was hopeful for Greyhound. I don't mind obvious CGI once its backed up. This failed to deliver. Bunch of lads repeating another bunch of lads. Hard starboard. Aye Captain. Aye other lad. Lesser other lad AYE.

    Just hopeful that Stephen Graham got a fat paycheck outta it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,344 ✭✭✭ California Dreamer


    I had been looking forward to this for a while, seeing as how there was not much in the name of new releases recently.

    Overall, about a 7/10 and that is being really generous. Hanks does a great job like only he can but as others have said far too much CGI.

    Elizabeth Shue is billed higher than Stephen Graham but she only had 1 scene at the start of the movie and I didn't even know it was her.

    As for Graham, what a waste! He could have done so much more.

    Did dad get Chet his role in the movie?

    Final thing I noticed and I wondered was it a PC thing but the 'British commander' at the end of the movie referred to 'Londonderry' and 'Derry'. Lets not offend both sides of the religious divide.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,684 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp


    It wasnt bad, it lost something not being on the big screen, they were obviously going for the 1917 / Dunkirk vibe of it almost being an immersive movie. Give me The Enemy Below any day though especially in terms of re-watchability. Stephen Graham was good as the dependable XO

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭ McGrath5


    Watched this over the weekend, it's grand.

    It definitely suffered from not viewing on the big screen.

    Some good action sequences in it and in fairness the run time flew by.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,447 ✭✭✭✭ expectationlost


    how did so many torpedos miss em, why did it seem like they the convoy was so under protected to a ridiculous degree, and the british fighting boats were useless


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Skylinehead


    how did so many torpedos miss em, why did it seem like they the convoy was so under protected to a ridiculous degree, and the british fighting boats were useless
    Torpedos are not easy to aim. Probably fairly accurate. What isn't accurate is them targeting the destroyer at all, a submarine would stay away if possible and target only the valuable cargo ships. They certainly wouldn't get into a surface fight with a destroyer, they'd be minced.

    As for the British, I recall them saying that the escort group sunk 3 subs (aside from Greyhound) so I guess they did some work offscreen maybe.

    Thought it was a decent film, some obvious inaccuracies but I'm a naval buff and I can see through them in the name of fun.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,979 ✭✭✭ Sudden Valley


    I watched this last night and found it very disappointing. It shares lot of some of the worst aspects of Saving Private Ryan, the yanks are very effective while the Brits and Germans not so much. Also has the dehumanisation of the enemy with the German captain mocking his enemy throughout the mvoie even though the German Uboats are doing very badly in the fight!
    At one point the director becoems so self-indulgent that they zoom out from the fight above the clouds, I think at this point we are meant to be amazed but i just found it comical. A 5/10 for me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,502 ✭✭✭ Outkast_IRE


    I think its a 7/10 for me.

    It is obviously trying to follow one mans story in the grand scheme of the war/battle but there was a few too many flaws in the execution for me.

    1. Main character was bland, tacked on some attempt at a love story a bit too obviously.

    2. It does not get across the scale of the battle very well , again it concentrates a little too much on the one man story aspect.

    3. It could do with a scene for a few minutes to talk through tactically what they are trying to do when chasing down subs and how they protect the convey with their positions.

    4. For someone unfamiliar with uboats it may not be obvious why they need to surface so often etc. I think again it assumes you have a good level of knowledge on how they perform and manouvre.

    I thought it was enjoyable and its runtime was about right. But its fairly forgettable fare in the scheme of things.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 386 ✭✭ Biafranlivemat


    Watched it last night, giving it 4/10
    It bugged me with the scenes of the U-Boats.
    It showed them surfacing in Daylight right beside warships.
    And fighting two warships while on the surface.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭ Homelander


    I wanted to like this but as a keen historian I just couldn't, it was absurdly unrealistic.

    A single convey escort taking on and destroying an entire wolfpack in early 1942....the U-Boats surfacing/making suicide attack runs in broad daylight...the German captain being an evil, two dimensional villian like something from a Commando comic.

    In real life, the German's had barely lost 20 U-Boats in the entire campaign by the time this movie takes place - and sank probably over 1,000 ships.

    It looks reasonably good, and the actors are fine (if not absurdly under-used) but it's just not remotely credible at all. I know these facts won't bother most people, but historically it's completely wrong - more or less a "Rambo" of the high seas.

    As a movie I'd say it's probably a 6/10, but as someone who's incredibly interested in the historical period, probably a 4 at best as there are way too many blatant, inaccuracies which amount to fantasy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭ mikhail


    Homelander wrote: »
    I wanted to like this but as a keen historian I just couldn't, it was absurdly unrealistic.
    I quite enjoyed The Enemy Below on TV recently. Have you seen it? Seeing as it's a 1v1 destroyer vs uboat story, I wonder if it's a bit more credible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,649 ✭✭✭✭ whisky_galore


    Thought it was shyte. Maybe if I was 10 years old I might have liked it better.

    Cgi-ed within an inch of its life, suicidal U boats leaping out of the sea, weird Jaws type music, put-on German accents on propaganda radio broadcasts (which never happened in this instance)
    Got fed up with it about half way through, couldn't care less what happened to any of the bland crew including Hanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 407 ✭✭ tipp_tipp_tipp


    Didn't have high hopes for this, but I actually really enjoyed it. It has flaws, the u-boat tactics and the howling on the radio standing out, but I thought at it's heart it did a really good job portraying the role of an escort captain. I was fascinated at how he dealt with the constant barrage of information being thrown at him. The stress and tension of being in that position was really well depicted imo.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement