THE OFFICIAL CRIMSON TIDE - UNRATED EXTENDED EDITION REVIEW THREAD (Buena Vista)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Oh boy....you are KIDDING right, that you never heard of it?

Nope. Never heard of it. Should I have?

 

[DTS Fanatic]

Wow!!?? I guy writes a book on the new edition of Crimson Tide and not one person thanks him for his time and effort. Pretty rude if you ask me! That is something I just don't get.. Someone works hard to provide a free service and there is always someone there that has to knock it in some way. I don't see any of you writing reviews.

Thanks DTS Fanatic.

Hey Man,

Thanks a lot for the kind words! THIS is why I write these in depth reviews for people like YOU who appreciate them and would like to know about these new editions that come out. I took ALL DAY to write this review, and your comments are much appreciated!

Thanks again; is there some other title you would like a review on so you know whether to buy it or not?

 

[DTS Fanatic]

Nope. Never heard of it. Should I have?

Never heard of Gene Hackman....or Denzel Washington....or this film Crimson Tide? Based on the replies here, you probably should have....are you in Region 1/USA?

 

[majorloser]

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, this one above is simply ridiculous; this film is absolutely far from a "pile of crap;" in fact, I would go as far to say it's one of the best in the Bruckheimer/Simpson stable of unrealistic scenario summer blockbusters. When you say it's not an accurate portrayal of the "Silent Service," what exactly do you mean?

If you don't even know what the Silent Service is.................never mind.

Only thing I need to say is the captain is "God" on an SSBN (and for any naval ship for that matter). The sailors will follow his orders without hesitation. Mutiny is not an option.

 

[Pyrrho]

I never heard of "Crimson Tide." Then malvado called it an "old movie" so I'm thinking maybe 30s or 40s.

1995? That's considered old today?

To a young child, yes, that is old. It is all a matter of perspective.

Terms like "old" are vague, and therefore vary according to context and perspective. I tend to think of "old" movies as being from before about 1960 or so, but it depends on the context of the conversation.

In this case, it appears that malvado78 simply meant that it is not a film that was released very recently (even if a new DVD version has just been released).

 

[malvado78]

In this case, it appears that malvado78 simply meant that it is not a film that was released very recently (even if a new DVD version has just been released).

This is exactly what I meant. Although I guess I do need to somewhat apologize for my comment since I did not know this movie was being re-released. But I stand by my original comment that a movie that is 11 years old (What I meant by old) does not need an indepth review.

I agree with jgarcia and co. just the difference between the two releases need reviewed the rest is a waste of post.

 

[hopjohn]

This is exactly what I meant. Although I guess I do need to somewhat apologize for my comment since I did not know this movie was being re-released. But I stand by my original comment that a movie that is 11 years old (What I meant by old) does not need an indepth review.

I agree with jgarcia and co. just the difference between the two releases need reviewed the rest is a waste of post.

Just exactly where is the apology?

I'm pretty sure no one here has forced anyone to read anything.
The title of the thread was a spot on indication of what the post was about, so I'm left wondering why you are posting threads in it if you weren't interested.

Thanks for the review DTS Fanatic, I enjoyed it.

 

[DTS Fanatic]

"If you don't even know what the Silent Service is.................never mind."

Why....because I never served in the armed forces? That doesnt mean I dont have an insight for DVD reviewing, does it? Thats a head scratcher to me....

"Only thing I need to say is the captain is "God" on an SSBN (and for any naval ship for that matter). The sailors will follow his orders without hesitation. Mutiny is not an option."

Well, thats what I heard about the film from someone who served in the US Navy after I sold the old DVD to him, and he explained the inconsistencies to me...although I personally feel mutiny is always an outside possibility, this does not mean the film was a worthless "pile of crap."

 

[DTS Fanatic]

To a young child, yes, that is old. It is all a matter of perspective.

Terms like "old" are vague, and therefore vary according to context and perspective. I tend to think of "old" movies as being from before about 1960 or so, but it depends on the context of the conversation.

In this case, it appears that malvado78 simply meant that it is not a film that was released very recently (even if a new DVD version has just been released).

This film is not old, by any perspective. And the new cut of this film deserves a DVD review.

 

[DTS Fanatic]

This is exactly what I meant. Although I guess I do need to somewhat apologize for my comment since I did not know this movie was being re-released. But I stand by my original comment that a movie that is 11 years old (What I meant by old) does not need an indepth review.

I agree with jgarcia and co. just the difference between the two releases need reviewed the rest is a waste of post.

A waste of a post for something that took someone hours to write -- for no fee of any kind just for your information -- and no thanks attached to that whatsoever? Hmmmm....OK. I'll keep that in mind. At any rate, the plot deserves to be revisted for titles this old -- yes, according to standards laid down by home theater magazines I freelance for -- just as a recap, even though the film itself is not new, because "official reviews" are written this way -- do a search on Google for, say, Crimson Tide and this new Extended Cut....you will be lead to dozens upon dozens of sites that reviewed the disc AND went into the plot all over again.

 

[DTS Fanatic]

Just exactly where is the apology?

I'm pretty sure no one here has forced anyone to read anything.
The title of the thread was a spot on indication of what the post was about, so I'm left wondering why you are posting threads in it if you weren't interested.

Thanks for the review DTS Fanatic, I enjoyed it.

Thank you VERY much John for your kind words and for reading the review! I couldnt have said it better than how you say it above!

Thanks again!

 

[racquetman]

. . . do a search on Google for, say, Crimson Tide and this new Extended Cut....you will be lead to dozens upon dozens of sites that reviewed the disc AND went into the plot all over again.

Perhaps this is why people are questioning why you wrote this review - just a thought.

This film is not old, by any perspective.

This movie came out in 1995. That's 11 years ago. That is more than 1/3 of my lifetime. I'm afraid, from my perspective, that makes this film quite old .

 

[Miamienesex]

Excellent write up, and since you asked to review another DVD, How does "The Hunt for Red October" rate?


TIA
Armando

 

[DTS Fanatic]

"Perhaps this is why people are questioning why you wrote this review - just a thought."

Then why isnt anyone questioning why anyone wrote THOSE reviews on other sites? Again, I will state, that I took the better part of a day to write this and received little recognition for it, instead, rather, skepticism and destain, and beyond that, the point is that the plot of this film was discussed multiple, multiple times on many, many sites and suddenly it is questioned why I wrote the review here in particular....this makes little sense to me. Again, the intention and point here is this: it doesnt matter the year of a film's release....if it is re-released on DVD medium, it should be reviewed wholeheartedly from beginning to end, including a re evaluation of the plot.

"This movie came out in 1995. That's 11 years ago. That is more than 1/3 of my lifetime. I'm afraid, from my perspective, that makes this film quite old "

Still not an old film, by any standards, chap.

 

[DTS Fanatic]

Excellent write up, and since you asked to review another DVD, How does "The Hunt for Red October" rate?


TIA
Armando

That did not come out in another special edition of any kind, save for the cut which included the rare DTS track from Paramount, which was an average effort at best; still one of the best Clancy-to-screen adaptations and a great, great piece of cinema.

Thank you for your kind words about the "write up".

 

[racquetman]

Then why isnt anyone questioning why anyone wrote THOSE reviews on other sites? Again, I will state, that I took the better part of a day to write this and received little recognition for it, instead, rather, skepticism and destain, and beyond that, the point is that the plot of this film was discussed multiple, multiple times on many, many sites and suddenly it is questioned why I wrote the review here in particular....this makes little sense to me. Again, the intention and point here is this: it doesnt matter the year of a film's release....if it is re-released on DVD medium, it should be reviewed wholeheartedly from beginning to end, including a re evaluation of the plot.

You seem pretty defensive about your review. You made your points about why you think your review is valid and pertinent (many times now). I'm certainly not arguing (except about the old part, but I'll get to that later). I think the only reason your review has been met with skepticism by some is because of the DJ Scotty incident still fresh in many peoples minds. Anyway, more power to you - keep the reviews coming as far as I'm concerned. I would just suggest growing a little thicker skin. Not everyone is going to see the need for such an in depth summary of a movie, and guess what - they're gonna tell you about it!! Welcome to an open forum. Are these posts attacking your review unwarranted?? That's for a moderator to decide I guess.

Still not an old film, by any standards, chap.

No, when you use a word like "any", as in "any perspective" or "any stardards" that means it includes me - that's because "any" includes everyone . . . . . and I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but by my standards and my perspective this is a very, very, very, very old movie. So if you want to continue this silly semantic argument, you'll have to modify your statement by saying "any standards except alandamp's".

 

[DTS Fanatic]

"You seem pretty defensive about your review."

You made me be defensive.

"You made your points about why you think your review is valid and pertinent (many times now)."

And those other members have not made their voices heard as to why they think its NOT valid or pertinent?

"I'm certainly not arguing (except about the old part, but I'll get to that later)."

This is a contradiction of meaning.

"I think the only reason your review has been met with skepticism by some is because of the DJ Scotty incident still fresh in many peoples minds."

I dont even know what this is referring to.

"Anyway, more power to you - keep the reviews coming as far as I'm concerned."

Thank you -- they are lavished upon with a lot of time and intricate care.

"I would just suggest growing a little thicker skin. Not everyone is going to see the need for such an in depth summary of a movie, and guess what - they're gonna tell you about it!!"

Yes -- you are absolutely right. How silly of me to assume grown, adult, educated human beings would benefit from such information and find the absolute need to come on a public forum and complain about what is wrong with these writeups when theyre meant for their use....right. It wouldnt be the more adult thing to do to simply skip the thread rather than begin flaming on the merits, pros and cons of why DVD reviews of older titles are unnecessary (when this title is floating around the internet already without any backlash from anyone else when its posted). I see.

"Welcome to an open forum."

Sigh....see comments above.

"Are these posts attacking your review unwarranted?? That's for a moderator to decide I guess."

Indeed.

"No, when you use a word like "any", as in "any perspective" or "any stardards" that means it includes me - that's because "any" includes everyone . . . . . and I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but by my standards and my perspective this is a very, very, very, very old movie. So if you want to continue this silly semantic argument, you'll have to modify your statement by saying "any standards except alandamp's"."

LMFAO....it's still not an old film, by any standards.

 

[racquetman]

You made me be defensive.

I didn't make you defensive. I'm not criticizing your work.

And those other members have not made their voices heard as to why they think its NOT valid or pertinent?

I'm just saying that I don't think you need to defend your work anymore than you already have - not that you should have had to defend it in the first place.

This is a contradiction of meaning.

It is? Are you under the impression that I'm arguing against you?

I dont even know what this is referring to.

That's alright, it's really not important at this point.

Yes -- you are absolutely right. How silly of me to assume grown, adult, educated human beings would benefit from such information and find the absolute need to come on a public forum and complain about what is wrong with these writeups when theyre meant for their use....right. It wouldnt be the more adult thing to do to simply skip the thread rather than begin flaming on the merits, pros and cons of why DVD reviews of older titles are unnecessary (when this title is floating around the internet already without any backlash from anyone else when its posted). I see.

You wouldn't think grown, adult, educated people would argue about whether a movie from 1995 is old or not, but that hasn't seemed to stop us yet .
Anyway, people care about themselves first and foremost. If human beings are anything, they are self-centered and egotistical (especially us males of the species). Are you really surprised that someone came along and thought that your extremely lengthy review of an older movie was a bit of overkill? They saw it and they thought it was a waste of time - for them - and they let everyone know it by posting their opinion. It didn't surprise me!! Maybe I just understand human nature better than most .

LMFAO....it's still not an old film, by any standards.

Since you seem to think I've been fighting you this whole time (when in fact I was defending you in my own way), I'll let you win this argument as a peace offering. Just let me know what the cutoff point is - at what point can I start calling a movie an old movie?

 

[majorloser]

"If you don't even know what the Silent Service is.................never mind."

Why....because I never served in the armed forces? That doesnt mean I dont have an insight for DVD reviewing, does it? Thats a head scratcher to me....

"Only thing I need to say is the captain is "God" on an SSBN (and for any naval ship for that matter). The sailors will follow his orders without hesitation. Mutiny is not an option."

Well, thats what I heard about the film from someone who served in the US Navy after I sold the old DVD to him, and he explained the inconsistencies to me...although I personally feel mutiny is always an outside possibility, this does not mean the film was a worthless "pile of crap."

As you stated earlier, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". Though I did not call your review "ridiculous" as you called mine. I was just able to sum my review up in three words. Not three hundred.

If you want to sum up the true quality of the film, it was nominated for 3 Oscars (Best Sound Effects Editing; Best Film Editing; Best Sound) and won none. You will notice there is no nominations for Best Actor, Best Picture or Original Screenplay. The hallmarks of an excellent film.

At no time did I say the new DVD was not worth reviewing but I still do not feel it warrants any elaboration of the story except maybe to summarize the plot. The quality of the re-issued DVD and the added extras, YES.

As for the story, it still gets my three word review. Though I may add the additional word that you credited to me, "worthless", making it four words.

 

[DTS Fanatic]

As you stated earlier, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". Though I did not call your review "ridiculous" as you called mine. I was just able to sum my review up in three words. Not three hundred.

If you want to sum up the true quality of the film, it was nominated for 3 Oscars (Best Sound Effects Editing; Best Film Editing; Best Sound) and won none. You will notice there is no nominations for Best Actor, Best Picture or Original Screenplay. The hallmarks of an excellent film.

At no time did I say the new DVD was not worth reviewing but I still do not feel it warrants any elaboration of the story except maybe to summarize the plot. The quality of the re-issued DVD and the added extras, YES.

As for the story, it still gets my three word review. Though I may add the additional word that you credited to me, "worthless", making it four words.

Ignoring the lying, idiotic harassing statements from the moron below you (in the framework of this thread), where did I call your review ridiculous? And what review are we talking about here?

Im not even going to bother with "Adanlamp" or whatever his name is....instead, I'll post another in-depth plot-intensive review for him to chew on.

You sir, I do not understand what you are talking about here in which I called a review of yours ridiculous. Sorry.