Reconfirmed Why U571 is a STILL a DTS Reference Disc...

[John Beresford]

From the first time I watched Jonathan Mostow's U571 on DVD in DTS, I knew this was going to be one of my favorite demo DVDs to show off the system with....explosions that come from every single 5.1 speaker, loud creaks and moans of the inside of a submarine, and DANGEROUSLY loud bass from exploding depth charges...in fact, my subwoofer was turned up so high when watching this DVD some time back that it sounded dangerously close to being damaged....since that time, my system has been tweaked a couple of times and the subwoofer level has been significantly dropped both in calibration and volume, so it was no surprise that when watching this again last night -- with the friend who brought over T3 when I reviewed that -- the depth charge scenes didnt have the exact same impact from what I remember...but this film STILL remains reference quality for many reasons.

My friend never saw U571, but after telling me he was a fan of Crimson Tide, Hunt For Red October and the Widowmaker, I knew he would like this...and he did. The surround DTS track was so startling that there were many times he looked at my surround speakers in disbelief----it REALLY DID sound like we were inside that sub with the creaking pipes and steam blowing around us. As I said, when the depth charges blew off, I could remember, prior to lowering my sub's levels, during these scenes the bass so loud and deep it would rumble my whole apartment....since turning these levels down due to strain on my sub that I later discovered, the impact during the depth charges weren't so direct---but they were there; it just didnt rumble as loud or deep as I remember.

After U571, we watched the newly remastered Escape From New York, which I reviewed on here, because my friend is a fan of the film like me, and it was tough to go from such a loud, aggressive DTS soundtrack like U571 to Escape's 5.1 Dolby Digital remix.

Make U571 your demo disc, still....or one of them....you wont be dissapointed...

[Keith from Canada]

You are correct, U571 is a very well done disc with very explosive audio. However, IMO, it is the second best sounding submarine movie on the market. I much prefer the audio track on the Das Boot (Superbit) edition. Although the depth charge scenes are not as pronounced, the actually sounds taking place in the hull of the sub sound far more eary and 'realistic' to my ear. It really makes you feel like you're in a sinking tin can whenever they dive the boat to avoid the charges.

Of course, the fact that I'm a big history buff and Das Boot was a considerably more accurate portrayal of actual events does sway my opinion somewhat.

[John Beresford]

You are correct, U571 is a very well done disc with very explosive audio. However, IMO, it is the second best sounding submarine movie on the market. I much prefer the audio track on the Das Boot (Superbit) edition. Although the depth charge scenes are not as pronounced, the actually sounds taking place in the hull of the sub sound far more eary and 'realistic' to my ear. It really makes you feel like you're in a sinking tin can whenever they dive the boat to avoid the charges.

Of course, the fact that I'm a big history buff and Das Boot was a considerably more accurate portrayal of actual events does sway my opinion somewhat.

Very interesting Keith....I never saw Das Boot, although every review of U-571 makes direct comparisons to it....I will have to rent that very soon. I am sure your analysis of the accuracy of sounds is spot-on.

[Enmei]

I am with you guys about the U-571 is a reference dvd, eventhough I like the DAs Boot more in term of story line, the only problem with DAs BOOT is that it is a very long movie ( about 3 and half hour long) so it is not very casual watching/ sat night movie, alomost twice as long as U -571.

Also another sticky point of Das Boot is how sub looks when it was shown from outside the "boot", inside it looks superb. of cource, with the technology back when they produced the Das Boot, we can't hold this against them.

[arc_light]

I am with you guys about the U-571 is a reference dvd, eventhough I like the DAs Boot more in term of story line, the only problem with DAs BOOT is that it is a very long movie ( about 3 and half hour long) so it is not very casual watching/ sat night movie, alomost twice as long as U -571.

Also another sticky point of Das Boot is how sub looks when it was shown from outside the "boot", inside it looks superb. of cource, with the technology back when they produced the Das Boot, we can't hold this against them.

Technology lacking? Das Boot was released in the '80s, and I recall they had access to next to the real thing.
U-571? Is that the one based on a true, tremendous event and couldn't see fit to leave it alone, messed it all up, and dummied it down to appeal to the comatose masses like Hollywood always sees fit?

I don't want to go off here, but I have no idea why folks eat up fictional trash from Tom Clancy et al when there are so many incredible books of true accounts out there.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Technology lacking? Das Boot was released in the '80s, and I recall they had access to next to the real thing.
U-571? Is that the one based on a true, tremendous event and couldn't see fit to leave it alone, messed it all up, and dummied it down to appeal to the comatose masses like Hollywood always sees fit?

I don't want to go off here, but I have no idea why folks eat up fictional trash from Tom Clancy et al when there are so many incredible books of true accounts out there.

Because Tom Clancy's work is easily transferred to film. Not everyone wants to go to the theater and view reality film. Sometimes you just want to be taken away from reality, and transported to somewhere else. Tom Clancy's writings are made for film books, that is why he is contracted with Paramount for the rights to his books.
Das Boot actually used a decommissioned sub for filming.

I find that each soundtracks is exemplary in its own right. However, the sheer power of feeling a sub 15hz tremor from an explosion is like riding a really thrilling roller coaster. This is where U571 totally rocked!!

[arc_light]

I can't argue that Clancy's novels more often than not make the transition to film easily, and the majority of others are too difficult and/or too costly to bother, or just simply can't cut it.
The point I was trying to make was I just can't comprehend how popular non-fiction writings are with the general public.....especially those of Clancy's genre, this being stories of wars, military intelligence and espionage, etc.
There are any number of mind-boggling, true, first-hand accounts penned by folks who were there or party to these events. Why read make-believe stuff?
I can understand why some fiction might have a following, like sci-fi, romance, LOTRs-type stuff, et al, but what's the appeal of fictional accounts versus true accounts of the same genre?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I can't argue that Clancy's novels more often than not make the transition to film easily, and the majority of others are too difficult and/or too costly to bother, or just simply can't cut it.
The point I was trying to make was I just can't comprehend how popular non-fiction writings are with the general public.....especially those of Clancy's genre, this being stories of wars, military intelligence and espionage, etc.
There are any number of mind-boggling, true, first-hand accounts penned by folks who were there or party to these events. Why read make-believe stuff?
I can understand why some fiction might have a following, like sci-fi, romance, LOTRs-type stuff, et al, but what's the appeal of fictional accounts versus true accounts of the same genre?

This goes back to what I said earlier. Its seems that most of the movie going public prefers to be taken OUT of reality, rather than looking at it when going to theaters. Tom Clancy's books just happen to be perfectly written for the film genre, are easily translated to the screen, and enjoy a popularity amoung film goer's. In quite a few cases a fictional account of a particular event is too difficult to film cost effectively, or it doesn't translate well to the screen.

[Tarheel_]

This goes back to what I said earlier. Its seems that most of the movie going public prefers to be taken OUT of reality, rather than looking at it when going to theaters. Tom Clancy's books just happen to be perfectly written for the film genre, are easily translated to the screen, and enjoy a popularity amoung film goer's. In quite a few cases a fictional account of a particular event is too difficult to film cost effectively, or it doesn't translate well to the screen.

I cannot agree more with ya...most real stories are too real for viewers. Case in point, i spent a few years as an Army MP and attended sniper school...honestly can say my service time was memoral and makes for great story telling..my wife and friend love to mix a few martinis and let me ramble on....but would these make great movies? Probably not, most encounters are quick and rare...so you would have to append story after story to recreate a true non fiction real-life-hero story and the public doesn't want that...they want it all and within 2 hours. period.

[Crunchyriff]

I have both sub discs (though not the DB Superbit version)- heck, I'm a big submarine sub movie fan anyway...but I much prefer Das Boot. Ja.

U571 may excel slightly in sound,( I love a good DTS track!); but, in spite of DB's length, I feel it's a far superior movie- in storyline, production, and so on. U571 is like a quick, cheap fix in comparison (but it's ain't so quick, either), with far less substance to it. Do I like it, in spite of that? Yes! But it's not even in the same class as Das Boot, IMHO.

At a different level, Bill Paxton, for one thing, just doesn't make a believable character. I think he's pretty weak, personally, a crummy actor.....and I'm not trying to be nasty about it. The only part I saw him play that was barely tolerable was 'Chet' in Weird Science. That stiff upper lip scence where the cap'n was denying a commission to his 2nd in commmand was laughable. Absolutley HORRID. Terrible.

McCaugnahey (sp?) is measurably better, but more likeable.