Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Jerry Wald. Copyright 1 January 1944 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Strand: 31 December 1943. U.S. release: 21 December 1943. Australian release: 8 March 1945. U.S. running time: 135 minutes. Australian length: 9,332 feet. 103½ minutes.SYNOPSIS: One U.S. submarine takes on the entire Japanese Navy in Tokyo Bay.NOTES: Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Story, Steve Fisher lost to William Saroyan's The Human Comedy. Bosley Crowther included Destination Tokyo in his New York Times Ten Best Films of the Year.COMMENT: Disappointingly dated war heroics - over-talkative, embarrassingly clichéd, juvenilely characterized, tediously familiar hokum.Mind you, I thought it excellent when I first saw it on TV 25 years ago. In fact, I found it exciting enough to justify every minute of its length - and this of course was the full 135 minutes, being shown for the first time in my beck of the woods.I commended the incident-packed script, enacted by a capable cast under Daves' proficient direction. My only criticism concerned the obvious over-use of models in the studio tank. More money could have been spent on special effects.Alas, the screenplay that seemed fresh and exciting in my early youth, well before my army career, no longer interests me to-day. These service types with their cheery horseplay, their lowbrow minds and their one-dimensional loquacity are just so many tediously talking cut-outs with as much resemblance to real servicemen as a dog kennel to a Nissan hut. The materials may be the same and the resultant building may satisfy a dog (or a child) but an adult finds it lacking size, comfort and breadth.True, solid acting can often transform unintentional caricature into a believable dimension - but that doesn't happen in Destination Tokyo. Cary and his comrades are all eagerly heroic, but fail the test of life. As for John Garfield, he is dismayingly wasted in a role far below his charisma and ability.Daves' first film as a director - but the direction does not impress me now either. It's as dull and flat-footed as his script. The other credits are likewise lacking in luster.All I can say in the film's praise is that some of the incidents are still moderately exciting, there are a few snatches of believable dialogue (principally from Tom Tully) and the movie does have curiosity and nostalgia value.Just how much entertainment Destination Tokyo offers depends on how lenient or unsophisticated you're prepared to be. At least we are spared the two heroes fighting for the same girl story - or the one about the new commander the crew resents. But negatives do not necessarily make for positive excitement. So far as submarine pictures go, I much prefer John Ford's Submarine Patrol (1938) or John Farrow's Submarine Command (1951).

LT. Duke Sub movies up to recent times are one way or another seeking to borrow the formula Delmer Davies conceived for this timeless war picture. First, careful attention was paid to technical accuracy. So consistent was the movie to the procedures of WW2 subs, it was shown as part of the instructional program at the Groton Sub School. Second,the picture is punctuated by great action sequences quickly followed by personal profiles of the crew or the officers--but especially the crew. Alan Hale is memorable as Cookie. John Garfield nails it as the more-talk-than-action with the dames "Wolf." Dane Clark hits a homer as a transfer from the surface navy to the special world of the submariner. He gets dubbed "Tin Can" by Torpedo man and 1st Class Petty Officer Mike (Tom Tully) who is the older guy that rookie Robert Hutton ("Slim") gains guts and spiritual sustenance from on his first patrol. Of course Cary Grant is his magnetic self as the skipper of the USS Copperfin. A young Tony Curtis saw this movie and enlisted in the Navy during the war in hopes of becoming a submariner too (he didn't but years later he played one in Operation Petticoat along with his idol Cary Grant). Third, the movie respects the heck out of the sailors for what they do and their loved ones for the allegiance they bear them. Those three factors make the formula that--if adhered to--will invariably produce a submissible addition to the genre. Now, the movie is not without its flaws. The chronology is anti-historical. We are told that it is Christmas 1942 and the guys are about to assist in executing Doolittle's Raid. Problem is the raid went off 8 months earlier in April. The physical environment of the sub is too big, too comfy, and too dry. But these and other nit picks aside, check it out. I watch it 3 or 4 times a year--especially at Christmas time. I got the colorized version a few years before they went off the market. Contrary to the naysayers and purists, I am a fan of colorizing.When you watch it, try to put yourself in the desperate days just after Pearl Harbor when the nation was aching for some scrap of good news. From December '41 through March of '42, it was a succession of gloom, doom, and defeat in the Pacific. These guys are off to give the nation something to cheer about. Go along with that ride. Suspend disbelief. Acquire the climate of opinion that prevailed at that time. If you can do it: you will be transfixed.

LeonLouisRicci Talky and Overlong WWII Submarine Movie that was Made in the Middle of the War and is Heavy on Sentimentality and Propaganda. These Sub Crew Members are Cut out of All Stripes from the American Flag and make No Bones about Speechifying and in One Case, John Garfield, Extreme Braggadocio about Babes.Cary Grant Plays Against Type as a Super Serious Commander with Nerves of Steel and a Countenance of Concrete. The Overbaked Story is Ludicrous but Entertaining as the Sub Slips into Tokyo Harbor Unimpeded. The Battle Ensues on the Way Home and the Climax is Bombastic and Filmed with some Gravitas and Impressive Detail.The Failings in the Film are the Flashbacks, Religiosity, and Norman Rockwell Portraits of these Patriots, plus the Enormous Length. This Type of Heavy Handedness is best Served in Small Doses. But Patient Viewers and Gung-Ho Types will get Their Rewards and it can be Satisfying and Enjoyable if Viewed in Context.

gkeith_1 My take on this movie:I reviewed the Cary Grant movie, "Sylvia Scarlett", a long time ago. I love Cary as the music hall fool in "Scarlett" or as the comical leading man opposite K. Hepburn in other movies. "Tokyo" was sooooo serious. Cary did a good part, and gave his men a lot of confidence. Garfield was funny. Hale was hilarious.Technology: All the heavy by-hand and by-eye reactions to the enemy approaching would nowadays be done by computer and in cyberspace. Cary would not have gone inside to make the phone call. He may have excused himself to go off to the side and call on his BlackBerry. Maybe he would have texted, if that were possible from so far away.Racist language is annoying to listen to, even considering 1943 and the time period. Japs and Nips are screechingly uncomfortable words. I know that many Japanese Americans at that time were put into internment camps, to protect them from American paybacks for Pearl Harbor. I thought of that as I watched this movie, since during coursework for my recent American History degree I studied what happened to the Japanese Americans during World War II. Nowadays, people have to tell their children that these racial epithets are no longer used -- before the younger ones watch these dated movies.Hale in the barber chair was hilarious. He would never sit back far enough for the barber to cut much of his hair, but at the end he declared his hair looked great. I also like Hale in "Robin Hood" and "Adventures of Don Juan" with Errol Flynn. Remember that Alan Hale was the father of Alan Hale, Jr., the skipper of TV's classic "Gilligan's Island".Garfield, with all his blowhard loser-in-love stories, was getting monotonous. He is always a joy to watch and to listen to, however. He played the part well.Cary was only around 39, but looked 49. Was he a heavy smoker like so many of those old time stars, ending up with a heart attack and cancer? At any rate, he had a lot of responsibility as the skipper in this movie.That's about all. No singing or dancing in this movie. Drat. Not even Katharine Hepburn. Cary was not able to use his English music hall background in "Destination Tokyo".Oh, yes. In my theatrical censorship class, I researched Cary regarding Mae West, in "She Done Him Wrong" (see my review). She said she originally discovered Cary Grant. He was 11 years younger. That was just right for her. In that movie, he turns down her advances. He was like a little sparrow being pounced upon by an aggressive tiger. She says, "Come up and see me." He says he's too busy. She says, "I'll tell you your fortune." Cary wants to run away and hide somewhere. Poor Cary. What have they done to my little English boy?, to sort of quote a phrase.12/10