Powerful

Absolutely brilliant

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

When reporter Sidney Poitier is assigned to a submarine to conduct a routine inspection, he ends up staying aboard for much longer than he planned. He gets to know the amiable crew, including Martin Balsam, Wally Cox, James MacArthur, and Eric Portman, but it's Captain Richard Widmark who proves to be a problem. He's a ruthless captain who isn't at all friendly to their visitor, and he's obsessed with destroying a Russian submarine! If you don't like Cold War thrillers, you're going to want to rent a different film for this weekend. Yes, there are some arguments that are more ship-related than Russian-related, but they're not nearly as intense as The Caine Mutiny. And while the best scenes involve Martin Balsam, he's not the first or second lead, so he doesn't make up for a rather mediocre thriller. There are lots of other movies where you can see Richard Widmark playing an unstoppable bad guy, or Sidney Poitier playing a noble good guy. And if you grew up during the Cold War and love those movies—because I haven't met anyone who likes them for any other reason—you're better off watching The Fifth Missile. It has a better story and infinitely more tension.

Sidney Poitier's role here as the journalist doesn't have the usual racial component attached to it. Unfortunately, this is not a very good film, even with Richard Widmark and Martin Balsam headlining it.Widmark plays a tyrannical captain of an American vessel searching for Soviet submarines in a post-war submarine. Widmark, as always, gives it his all playing a Captain Bligh or Queeg like figure. The man acts as if we're at war and he will hold the crew, not only to the highest standards, he is ready to blame them for anything that may go amiss.The film begins where Balsam and Poitier come on board the ship as the doctor and journalist, respectively.The film falls into the problem of being scenery stagnant. All of the action is on deck and you never see anything else. There is an interesting interview between Poitier and Widmark, where the former reveals his real reason for wanting to interview the Captain.The film's tragic ending can easily be predicted as it essentially goes nowhere.

WARNING!!! SPOILERS!!! Well written, engrossing story which draws you in with excellent acting and realistic theme. Despite what some people may think about the bygone cold war no longer being an issue... an obsessed, aggressive single-minded commanding officer with control over WMD firepower from any major world power (whether ours or theirs)... will always be a potential danger to the peace if such a person crosses the line. Even during world peace... it only takes one.This is why it is so critical for all such weapons systems to require no less than 2 command level officers to concur with the order. This type of situation is well portrayed in the movie "Crimson Tide."Although I enjoy Sidney Portier's acting in most of his movies and usually have nothing but praise for his performances... this is one movie where I was not happy with his performance. From the onset, his character came across as cocky, smart-alecky and disrespectful. It was his acting and behavior on screen which permeated this attitude. Not the dialogue. It was totally unlike his normal portrayals for such a role and I don't think the role of this reporter was intended to be cocky and disrespectful like this. But Portier acted like a snide, smart-aleck from the start, before he was even introduced to the captain... doing things like rolling his eyes; looking away and making distracting noises while being spoken to; scoffing, sarcastic laughs and dismissive attitude; behaving like he was raised without any manners; showing all around disrespect for the crew and protocols; rudely snapping photos and getting in the way during critical operations while acting like an insensitive jerk...This was not the way to gain the audience's support or concern about the captain's behavior. The director should have caught this and corrected Portier. Portier's portrayal of this character actually created sympathy for the captain and made the reporter look like a jerk who didn't take his job seriously and had no business being on the ship in the first place. I was quite stunned to see Portier treating a serious role like this. If you listen closely, you'll see it wasn't the dialogue... but rather the body language and behavior of Portier which came across as a snide, backstreet smart-aleck who needed some lessons in manners. A more serious & compassionate approach to this reporter role would have done wonders to focus the concerns of the audience on the captain's growing obsession... instead of detracting from it.Another way to improve on impressing the audience with the deteriorating situation would have been to bring more attention to the fact that the crew had not slept and were dangerously exhausted. There should have been more examples of severe crew fatigue and discussion of the dangers of it before the sonar tech broke down. The sailors were not showing enough fatigue as depicted in their acting to emphasize how crucial this was to the deteriorating situation.One last item would have been to impress upon the audience that these were nuclear torpedoes headed for the ship. Even with the mushroom at the end, someone should have said something at the end that would let both the audience and the reporter know what was headed toward them and why there was nowhere to run. They needed that moment of realization just before the torpedoes hit to make the best impact on the audience. A view of the torpedoes approaching would have also added to the anticipation. As it was, you had to extrapolate from the mushroom... after the fact.I understand that the book had the reporter as a single survivor where the movie does not. It would seem that there needed to be some way at the end where someone knowing the events could survive to tell the story.However, it was still an excellent movie. It is worth watching.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***. More than a war film, this is a film about the psychology of people during a nuclear attack, based on the philosophy that the "defensive attack", speech that combines contradicting terms, to be effective, must be a preventive war, initiated under the belief that future conflict is inevitable, though not imminent. In this context, experts war, Russians and Americans, have calculated that full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result a winner but the destruction of both the attacker and the defender, called mutual assured destruction theory. In the earlier 1950s, this led to a period of enforced peace and the climate of witch-hunts of McCarthyism, led to an prejudicial anti-communism, leading to the Cold War. The American commander suffers from the so-called Red Scare, despite its good desire and patriotism.