U-571 2000

Susan Stark, Detroit News: Plays like a third-rate disaster movie -- and an assaultively noisy one at that . Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: Its perspective is that of a well-drawn, reasonably thoughtful comic strip. Read more

Elvis Mitchell, New York Times: Manages to work up some generic claustrophobic discomfort. Read more

Bob Longino, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: This submarine flick has some tense moments and plenty of action. Read more

Louis B. Parks, Houston Chronicle: It's a wham-bam bumpy ride, great fun in the old-fashioned war movie tradition. Read more

Paul Clinton (CNN.com), CNN.com: Enormously entertaining. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: U-571 could sure use some depth. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Represents the return of something that I'd feared was gone for good: the inspired genre magician. Read more

Globe and Mail: Read more

Peter Rainer, New York Magazine/Vulture: An entertaining action-adventure flick minus the hokiness of most World War II films. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: Despite its weaknesses, this movie offers two hours of solid, kinetic entertainment. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: You can enjoy U-571 as a big, dumb war movie without a brain in its head. But that doesn't stop it from looking cheesy. Read more

Charles Taylor, Salon.com: U-571 is bombastic and anonymous. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: If watching a two-hour submarine movie is this nerve-shattering, imagine what the real thing must have been like. Read more

Time Out: Without much charge and even less depth. Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: The submarine goes deep but the story never does. Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: It's a simple pleasure watching an American movie that respects genre. Read more