Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

canthovet When watching this movie people MUST keep in mind the times it is set in. We have to remember the attacks on all of the the U. S. Territories, drawing us into WW II. That statement would not be necessary if the younger generations had not been fed the revisionist history of the last 40 years. As far as goofs, they start almost from the beginning. 1. The escorts for the Commander taking the message to the "Coding Room", the guard on the Commander's left is out of step. Big no-no. 2. At the entrance to the "Code Room" there is a .45 pistol in holster on a Web belt hanging on the coat tree. There is an armed guard in the room, but would a military person leave a weapon there? I don't think so. 3. When the sub's C.O. is writing his letter to his wife, he tells her they are leaving, on an important mission. I'm not sure this would pass the censors. 4. All through the formation Tin Can is chewing gum. Not in formation he isn't. 5. One of the crew members is wearing a leather jacket with the collar up during the formation. 6. When the executive officer enters the Captain's quarters, he has both hands in his pockets. Not happening. 7. When the kid asks Mike why the Captain doesn't wear his decorations, Mike responds that he doesn't have to. Any awards or medals are part of his uniform, once they are issued and placed in his records. 8. It looks sort of stupid having the side of the kid's locker left off, the camera would have framed his face much better without the distraction caused by leaving the side off. 9. Whenever the sub dives, it only takes 2 full rotations of the latch to properly close the hatch. After the shore personnel are gone and the sub begins it's dive, the latch is turned 4 full rotations. I don't know the proper number of rotations it truly takes, but they should have kept it consistent. 10. When they are attacked by the 2 Japanese aircraft, the boat's Captain tells the men to pick up the surviving pilot. Why? What are they going to do with him after they question him? They can't interrupt their mission to drop him off, and they wouldn't take him along on the mission. Any number of thing could happen with him on board up to and including sinking the sub. I don't think there would have been any qualms about shooting him, or leaving him floating, especially since the Japanese pilots during their attack on Pearl Harbor were strafing the sailors that were in the water or in lifeboats. There were more goofs, but this is enough. Still a good movie.

grantss Decent WW2 submarine drama. Decent plot, not based on a true story itself but based around an actual historic event, the Doolittle Raid. The structure, commands and regimens of a submarine crew seem quite authentic and sometimes give it a documentary feel.Can be a bit far-fetched at times though. Some episodes seem included just for glamour purposes, and, considering the movie was released in 1943, propaganda purposes.Decent action sequences.In keeping with the above point regarding propaganda, dialogue can also be overly bellicose and speech-like at times. Anything for a few war bonds...Solid performance by Cary Grant in the lead role. Good support all round.

secondtake Destination Tokyo (1943)While not officially a propaganda film (it's not endorsed or paid for by the government), this is one of many films the studios put out to basically join the effort, putting their shoulder to the wheel. It's not a great film for our times mostly because it's overflowing with lessons, with the propagandistic style of persuading us the Japanese were bad and the U.S. soldiers, with all their wonderful flaws, were out to save us.I say this first because it's a lot of baggage to wade through. The other side to this coin is an adventure war movie where Cary Grant is in charge of a submarine out for a special mission. It's well paced, generally well acted (the cast is filled with lesser actors along with the main three). John Garfield is an average sailor with a big role, and big ego that grates on some of the other sailors. But he tells ribald stories that they can't help listening to. The one older actor is the cook played by character actor Alan Hale, who is appropriately comic.So, what you get is some very talented people explaining the current events, including lots of anti-Japanese chat. The interior shots in the sub are fairly realistic (though from what I read, an actual sub is far more cramped). The outside stuff varies a lot in quality. The shots of the sub underwater are painfully crude models in water tanks. Some of the landscapes are also invented in the studio and you can tell.What carries it at all is a sense of danger and necessity. These men have to succeed to defeat evil. Remember (of course) the audience at the time had a very black and white view of the war, and of the enemies. They were anxious for confirmation that we were capable of such things, and that the enemy (Japan, but also Germany is discussed) is fundamentally wrong—they lack freedoms, the woman are simply alive to bear children, no free press, etc.Why did I watch it? Cary Grant. I'm curious about his range, and his being corralled into this kind of vehicle. I'm guessing he was partly interested in helping the war effort, and partly under contract. And you know what? He's great. He plays it straight, and he's smart, confident, warm, complex. If you like Grant, you might like this movie just for that reason.Another thing to say overall: it gets better as it goes. The set up in the first half is a bit obvious and sometimes stiff or slow. But there is a medical emergency which is pretty great, and then there is the general operation in Tokyo Harbor. It's all dramatic and well done by first-time director Delmar Daves. Yeah, it's got a lot of dated script to wade through, but the best of it is great war stuff best remembered for its context.

shay6 Good entertainment. Loved it when I was a kid. Historically inaccurate but a good story line. If anyone is historically inclined see if you can figure out what I mean. Alan Hale has always been a favorite actor of mine as is Cary Grant. Grant's role reminds me of an officer I served with. It is obviously made to support the war effort of the time and has no negative tones towards US servicemen. It must have been good because John Wayne used a clip from it in one of his movies later on. Some of the props used were not standard US issue but the way they filmed kept them from being obviously out of place. Just a good all round fun flick to watch and share time with family over.