“Up
Periscope” came at the end of the boom in sub films in the 1950s. It was directed by the prolific Gordon
Douglas (“Bombers B-52”). It was based
on the novel by Robb White. The
technical adviser was Adm. Charles Lockwood who commanded our sub force in the
Pacific in WWII. All of the underwater
scenes were from “Destination Tokyo”.
The movie was James Garner’s second big dip into movies after “Darby’s
Rangers”. He was still appearing in the
TV series “Maverick”.
The
movie is set in the South Pacific in 1942.
Lt. Braden (Garner), a frogman, is wooing a gal named Sally. Before he is rousted for a secret mission, he
finds out Sally is actually an intelligence agent who was checking him out for
security purposes. Ouch! That marriage proposal sure seems awkward
now. Meanwhile, the sub Barracuda is
returning from a failed patrol with an unhappy crew. it seems Commander Stevenson (Edmund O’Brien)
followed orders and stayed on the bottom as a juicy Jap fleet passed by. Adding to the crew’s frustration is the
belief that an injured mate died because the sub stayed on the bottom. Stevenson gets a chance at redemption when
Braden’s secret mission comes along. He
is ordered to deliver Braden to a Japanese held island so he can steal a code
book and thus win the war. When they
arrive, the by-the-book Stevenson is averse to going in close so Braden is not
on a suicide mission. He and Braden butt
heads over Stevenson’s cautious approach.
On the way to the island the sub has encounters with a plane and a
destroyer. Braden gets to swim ashore
and steal the code book and blow stuff up.
Spoiler alert: We win the war!
I
have seen a lot of sub movies in the last month. It never ceases to amaze me how often common
sense sub tactics are tossed out the window either for entertainment purposes
or just out of plain apathy. “Up
Periscope” is a good example of this.
There was no reason for the Barracuda to stay on the bottom as the
Japanese fleet passed by (other than to get the injured sailor killed for
dramatic purposes). There was no
indication the Japanese were aware of the sub’s presence, so why could it not
simply leave the area? Later, when a
destroyer attacks, the Captain releases oil to fool it, but he does this while
still viewing through the periscope! He
also releases a “false target shell” which is described as “an explosion of
bubbles” to fool sonar. This was a new
one on me. Stevenson decides to enter
the lagoon because there is a ship outside.
Shouldn’t that have had the opposite effect?
Aside
from the bull crap, the movie is weak in most aspects. The special effects are disappointing. Are you telling me that sixteen years after
“Destination Tokyo”, director Douglas had to rely on footage from that
film? Talk about lazy. The interiors are too modern looking and far
from claustrophobic. There is little
sailor behavior or banter. Only two
characters are developed. Luckily, these
characters are in capable hands. Garner
shows the wit and charisma of the leading man that he would evolve into. O’Brien is good as the unlikeable
captain. His blockheaded insistence on
following orders does not fit the most celebrated sub captains, but maybe he is
going to be one of the numerous ones who were canned early in the war. His redemption arc is typical Hollywood, but
having him report himself for violating orders is a silly post script.
“Up
Periscope” is a fairly entertaining movie if you are not familiar with the
submarine subgenre. If you have seen a
lot of sub movies, it comes off as almost a parody of the subgenre due to its
overload of clichés. It ties “U-571” for
most clichés in a sub movie. At least it
does not take them to ridiculous extremes like “U-571”. It does not pile them into a bonfire of
ludicrousness. Although I give it credit
for restraint in its unoriginality, it is still an average film that should
have been much better. The 1950s were a
fertile period for sub movies and yet the last of the run did not advance the subgenre
at all. Hell, it had to borrow from a
1943 movie.
GRADE = C
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.