Kursk review

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
I posted a review of the 2018 Kursk movie that was declined for the reason stated that you believed it contained inaccuracies.  Everything in that review is documented and verified accurate.  The review was a faithful narrative of the actual Kursk mishap and used those historically accurate points to praise the movie for being faithful.

Those of you making these review decisions need to be willing to step forward and justify their decisions.  

I wish to be advised precisely what historical fact you believed was inaccurate.  I think at the minimum, you owe that much.
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 15 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes

Posted 3 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 15 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
This is that review:

Quite sad to read so many ill informed comments that attempt to portray this movie as a work of fiction. Whatever the motivations of such people, they are entirely unfair and wrong.

The historical facts of the Kursk disaster are established well enough and this movie went to great lengths to chronicle the essential facts accurately. Post-accident examination indicated that the surviving crew in the rear compartment were mostly killed when a chemical oxygen cylinder was accidentally dropped into the water, and those few who survived the fire soon died of oxygen deprivation since the resulting flash fire consumed the remaining oxygen in the air. Again, based upon recovered diaries, it is believed this final catastrophe happened about four hours after the initial explosions of the torpedoes.

The cause of the mishap was a torpedo explosion, which set off a cataclysmic secondary explosion, very accurately portrayed in this movie.

Artistic license was taken for fair dramatic reasons to show a singular foreign rescue effort, but in addition to the excellent services of the British, many other governments with assets capable of rescue, offered immediate aid and were rebuffed by the Russian government.

The Kursk did lie partially embedded about 72 feet into the clay seabed at a 60 degree angle. This would have likely prevented NATO DSRV's from rescue of the crew had they been able to arrive in time, as they are rated up to a 45 degree incline to make a proper seal.

The foreign rescue effort that was eventually accepted was accurately portrayed as being a Norwegian rescue vessel supported by Royal Navy LR5, deep sea rescue submersible. This actual recovery mission was thwarted by Russian concerns over preservation of classified documents and instead featured holes cut into the bulkheads and only Russian divers allowed inside to recover dead crew and classified documents. As it is, most experts believe the survivors died of oxygen starvation within four hours of the initial explosions, long before any capable rescue assets arrived on scene.

The horrible manner of the public address where a Russian mother was involuntarily sedated was shown to the world, and remains a terrible injustice.

Vladimir Putin was savaged in Russian media and soon thereafter embarked upon a campaign to eradicate non-state media operations.

It is doubtful anyone will make a movie of this event that is better, or more historically faithful. This production deserves respect and should be watched to gain valuable insight.
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3414 Posts
  • 3265 Reply Likes

You could add...


The Command  (2018) 
Kursk  (original title)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4951982/reference

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4951982/reviews - 52 Reviews

.

(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12528 Posts
  • 9224 Reply Likes
Hi Ken -

Based on the text you provided, I can see that your User Review was likely declined as reviews should not include personal opinions on real life events or subject matter on which a film is based, as per our User Review guidelines.

I would making sure that your review is commenting on the context of the film itself, you can then re-submit and our editors will take another look.
(Edited)
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 15 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
While I appreciate your reply, it seems to miss the point that the provided reason for rejection was the belief that my review contained "inaccuracies."  Now, you wish to say it provided personal opinion.  Again, all reviews contain a degree of opinion and those opinions that I did provide quite clearly focus on the movie presentation.

Consequently, I find the follow up answer to lack credibility.

If you search through the very large number of reviews that were approved for this movie, you will find dozens that question the integrity and accuracy of the movie presentation.  Those reviews make assertions that do not agree with the documented post-accident investigations, as published.

Some of those reviews even question the involuntary needle sedation of a Russian mother at the press conference.  Yet, that event was absolutely historically true and there are many links to raw news camera footage showing the actual event.  Being an adult when the events took place, that sedation created an international firestorm of protests as being medically unethical and unsafe.

My comment on Putin is likewise confirmed by news media presentations, and by numerous post accident historical investigations and narratives.

I do not write information without first taking the time to research the events in question.  And I would appreciate it very much if your organization provided me with a concrete example of anything I wrote in my review which can rationally be asserted as being inaccurate.

That was my original request, and so far unfortunately, no such example has been provided by your staff.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7186 Posts
  • 9313 Reply Likes
Hi, Ken Stallings. I'm not sure, but it seems like the IMDb site authorities would rather no references be real life events beyond the context of the specific movie being reviewed at all. This issue of reviews involving criticism of accuracy of a movie has come up, time and time again, on this forum.
Photo of Ken Stallings

Ken Stallings

  • 15 Posts
  • 17 Reply Likes
That may be true, and I think at least you offer a logical input.  However, to be fair, such a policy has to be enforced equitably, and certainly cannot be ignored when a movie is unfairly maligned for being historically inaccurate, and reviews that accurately convey the history to provide basis to assert, as my review attempted to do, that the movie got the essential information accurate.

If the review that supports the movie's essential accuracy is to be censored simply for portraying the real events portrayed in the movie, then at minimum those reviews that are entirely unfair in maligning the movie must be removed also.

Personally,I would argue that the best way to counter unfair reviews is to allow fair reviews to be posted.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12528 Posts
  • 9224 Reply Likes
Hi Ken -

Just to clarify, you are welcome to comment on the real events pertaining to how they are portrayed in the film, however, your review should focus more on the film than on the context/history of the real event, if that makes sense.

You are welcome to re-submit your User Review for consideration, however, if it is declined again, please make sure you are focusing primarily on the film verses the real life event.
(Edited)