Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

jthompson16 Typical and inaccurate Hollywood portrayal of men in a difficult situation during war. Showing the American fighting man the way Hollywood wishes he were. Completely false portrayal of a situation that an NCO with 19 years service, including WW II and Korea could have handled easily. The prisoner would have been kept in the ship's brig or some locked space not in the same room as the soldiers. They would not have obeyed the orders of an ROK officer to kill the prisoner. There would have been no hesitation about ignoring the order. No soldier would kill a prisoner he had under complete control behind the front lines. Another thing, using a B-25 as a North Korean bomber was a laugh. In 1953 the US had complete control of the air over all of Korea South of the range of Chinese MIG-15s.

MartinHafer The intro to this film indicates that this story is universal and could apply to any war...or any country...and this is quite true. And, this universality of the story make this an exceptional war film.When the story begins, some American soldiers are loading trucks with airplane fuel which will soon be transported to the front. However, during this process, a North Korean plane attacks...killing one of the men. The plane soon crashes and a lone man bails out of the craft. Now when the surviving three American soldiers enter the ship, they have a prisoner.Once aboard the ship, the men contact headquarters and are told that they were NOT to bring the prisoner in with them. In other words, they were to kill him! This is clearly a war crime...and is against the articles of war. The sergeant (Kirk Douglas) clearly seems to LIKE this order...one of the men, one of the privates (Robert Walker Jr.) thinks the order is monstrous and refuses to do it. The sergeant takes delight in goading this private but despite this, he will NOT kill the man. So, the sadistic sergeant then tries to get the other private to do it...The story is a great look at human nature...the good as well as the bad. And, it reminds us that the German soldiers of WWII were not the only ones who murdered and chalked it all up to 'just following orders'. A very strong film whose only shortcoming is its pacing (it could have been shortened a bit and that would have made a stronger picture).

Randy Cliff I enjoy watching movies and will most often make a selection because of the actors, then maybe because of the theme, or occasionally because of a recommendation. "The Hook" is a movie that I had never heard of, so seeing Kirk Douglas on the cover is what hooked me for this war movie. Also Robert Walker Jr is someone that I first saw in TV's _"Star Trek" (1966) {Charlie X (#1.2)}_ (qv) playing a 17yr boy, so what would he be like in a movie produced 3 years earlier.The opening of this movie includes "This is a story of men in war, not men at war. And the two are not the same." To understand my view, I am a baby-boomer who has never served in the military, but I have known many who have served. Most of these men don't really talk about their experiences, so I often wonder if my views on war movies would be very different of those people who have served. My preference would be that countries would not be at war, but regardless of this I believe we need to support those who chose to serve in the roles in which they are assigned."The Hook" is a title that showed no relevance before I watched the movie, and I never did catch. Is this an anti-war movie, or a personal interaction story, or war conflict drama, and this question repeats itself for 90 minutes. Regardless the movie itself is compelling. We are engaged with three surviving servicemen vacating a military post upon a 'neutral' merchant vessel, plus an enemy retrieved after he has bailed from his failing aircraft. Your journey is to imagine your response to their scenarios. Would you have rescued the enemy at all? How would you treat him on this merchant ship? Just imagine how you would respond to engaging an enemy on the battlefield; how is it different or the same, across an eating table? Kirk Douglas, Robert Walked, and Nick Adams are the enlisted men facing these scenarios.I enjoyed this movie, in spite of moments of "I wouldn't do that!". The movie is a must for Kirk Douglas fans, and highly recommended for anyone interested in war movies. I don't know if actual enlisted people would behave this way, but "The Hook" is wonderfully acted and does not need the tonnage of special effects that are today's production norms.

Penfold-13 Kirk Douglas runs the gamut of emotion from about A to C, and most of the rest of the performances are similarly limited. In other words, some better actors would have made this a better picture. The most convincing performance comes from Enrique Mangalona as the POW, who, speaking no English, is almost silent throughout.It's by no means action-packed. The action all takes place on board a neutral ship, on which three US servicemen wrestle with their consciences which get in the way of their murdering a Korean POW.It's a psychological think-piece, but it's tense and quite involving. It's not in the class of Twelve Angry Men, but it's that sort of genre.Not worth staying in for, or renting the video, but very likely better than the crud on the other channels, given that it's most likely to be shown as a space filler in the small hours.