Hunter Killer – Review

Hunter Killer film review

Like so much of US industry, Hollywood rose to primacy in war. As it became clear WWI would not be over by Christmas, belligerents moved to a war-footing more total than any before it. A complete mobilisation of industry and populations to feed a war effort that would consume 40 million souls and $200 billion (USD in 1913). In 1915, with Europe tearing it apart, the fledgling but relatively sheltered USA began to throw its weight behind the Allies outright. Part of this effort was an intense propaganda campaign, manufactured in Tinseltown. Much like the state empowerment of Boeing, this wartime expansion paved the way for US dominance of global markets post-war, and set it upon the path of the irrevocable enmeshing of its industry and military.

From Top Gun and Transformers to America’s Got Talent and Oprah, few barriers are impermeable to the war-economy. And of course, there is an editorial price for accepting the help of the military-entertainment complex. The Department of Defense’s chief Hollywood Liaison has the final say over any script or production the Pentagon is involved with. There is no joke too pithy or criticism too small to escape the notice of the censor. On the set of Iron Man, director Jon Favreau and liaison Phil Strub ended up in a row over the line “People would kill themselves for the opportunities I have.” The offending line did not make the cut.

I preface my review with this brief overview of the intersection of Hollywood and Langley because Hunter Killer is the most obvious piece of blockbuster propaganda I have seen since Battleship (though I would need six months and a $1000 of FoIA documents to prove it), and I want to provide you with the historical context so as not be mired in conspiracy. Its role as a propaganda film effects every creative decision. No character is untouched, no plot point unaffected, by the need to put forward a worldview where the US armed forces, and its ‘adventures’, are indisputably GoodTM.

Hunter Killer does not really have characters, just broad archetypes. Butler’s Captain Glass is the average-joe-badass whose country, nay world, needs him. His submarine crew are all the same interchangeable, person-with-a-job-to-do in-an-impossible-situation. The SEALs are models 1 through 4 of the ultra-competent, quippy, hero-soldier that don’t know nuthin’ ’bout politics, which are apparently mass-produced like the orks in The Two Towers. Even Gary Oldman and Michael Nyqvist are underutilised, playing a cookie-cutter bellicose-but-heart’s-in-the-right-place military man and stoic, silent-type seaman respectively.

It approaches casting and costume almost like a live-action political cartoon, sans effort. If someone looks like a villain, they are a villain. It tries to be about something, but the only theme is that our leaders are good people trying to make hard decisions, and our problems are from a few bad actors not vast systemic issues—a sentiment tired in 2008, let alone 2018. It aspires to the tension and chemistry of The Hunt For Red October (a propaganda film I actually recommend) but lacks the focus and dedication to pacing necessary to create a sense of intrigue. And I know this is tiny, but the accents are weirdly inconsistent. Like this review, Hunter Killer is bloated by its message. Nuance and subtlety are abandoned, and what could have been an excellent self-contained submarine spy-thriller is just another bland, uninspired piece of Pentagon cinema. If you just want to watch some submarine action it’s passable, but you are better off re-watching The Hunt For Red October.

1 Comment

  1. Good review. Personally, I liked this movie. I kind of see it as a guilty pleasure type action movie. It was well-made, but the story is conventional (USA vs Russia) and the characters are a broadly written. Overall, I view the film as a perfect suitable choice for someone looking for movie escapism.

Leave a Reply