USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage

Name: USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage
Genre: Action, War
Released: November 11, 2016
Duration: 128 min
Rating: 30

2016

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 8 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 24 Ratings

See All

3.6

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.6	Your Score
3.6	User Score Generally unfavorable reviews based on 24 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

USS Indianapolis: Men Of Courage

Now Playing: USS Indianapolis: Men Of Courage

Movie Details & Credits

Saban Films | Release Date: November 11, 2016 | R

Summary: The harrowing true story of the crew of the USS Indianapolis, who were stranded in the Philippine Sea for five days after delivering the atomic weapons that would eventually end WWII. As they awaited rescue, they endured extreme thirst, hunger, and relentless shark attacks.

Director: Mario Van Peebles

Genre(s): Action, War

Rating: R

Runtime: 128 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Rex Reed

Nov 9, 2016

As a movie, it lacks the unlimited manpower to equal Hacksaw Ridge, but as a dramatic postscript to the factors that led to Japanese surrender, its power and importance are undeniable. Read full review

Noel Murray

Nov 10, 2016

Director Mario Van Peebles brings real tension and excitement to the scenes where these men are surrounded by predators, but the tone of the film is awkwardly split between the grit of modern cinema and the boisterous adventure of old Hollywood. Read full review

RogerEbert.com Glenn Kenny

Nov 11, 2016

The movie USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage is not exactly unwatchable, but it’s also completely not worthy of watching. Read full review

Owen Gleiberman

Nov 7, 2016

"USS Indianapolis” is a World War II “epic” that’s overscaled yet underimagined. It’s a tale of survival that never provides the audience with a basic entry point into how and why we should care. Read full review

Frank Scheck

Nov 12, 2016

As banal as its title, USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage lacks even the impact of the monologue about the subject delivered by Robert Shaw in Jaws. Read full review

Neil Genzlinger

Nov 10, 2016

The film, directed by Mario Van Peebles, brays the story in broad strokes and clichés as if the horror of it didn’t speak for itself, which it most certainly does. Read full review

Ignatiy Vishnevetsky

Nov 9, 2016

The sets are either claustrophobically limited or anonymously empty; the period detail is nonexistent; and the special effects are on par with a Syfy original. Read full review

SEE ALL 8 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

cj63

Jan 22, 2017

This film is reasonably acceptable but it has its flaws. The explosions on board the ship are very amateurish and not a true reflection on what would be happening. The shark attacks were far from believable taking the film in to the fantastical rather than the believable. A particular shotThis film is reasonably acceptable but it has its flaws. The explosions on board the ship are very amateurish and not a true reflection on what would be happening. The shark attacks were far from believable taking the film in to the fantastical rather than the believable. A particular shot depicts the poor quality of the direction, the shot involves one of the crew who is sat on the edge of the dinghy and witnesses an attack on a ship mate but all he does is dive in to the sea rather than taking the time to seem shocked at whats happening then going in to the sea. Overall this movie is watchable but does not do justice to Nicolas cage nor Tom sizemore as seasoned and respected actors, instead it puts the film in to the category of good when it could have been brilliant… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

MIRZ04NIS

May 29, 2021

Увы, но кроме эпичной музыки от Лорена Эйкема ленту больше не за что хвалить.

Том Сайзмор переигрывает, Николас Кейдж недоигрывает, драматичные моменты вышли смехотворным фарсом, а режиссёр... Стоп, а он есть?Увы, но кроме эпичной музыки от Лорена Эйкема ленту больше не за что хвалить.

Том Сайзмор переигрывает, Николас Кейдж недоигрывает, драматичные моменты вышли смехотворным фарсом, а режиссёр... Стоп, а он есть?

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Birdpatch

Jan 25, 2017

Would have been a great movie if not for several discrepancies that writers & directors should have caught or known better. The movie would have been more realistic. 1- the black men using the phrase "crackers". The use of the word in reference to whites was not used until 1964 when it wasWould have been a great movie if not for several discrepancies that writers & directors should have caught or known better. The movie would have been more realistic. 1- the black men using the phrase "crackers". The use of the word in reference to whites was not used until 1964 when it was coined in a Malcolm-X speech. 2- Reference to "tampons" - that official name was not used prior to LATE 1940's. They were simple called "plugs". 3- The phrase "Cluster-F***" was first coined in the 1960's by Ed Sanders and was originally coined as "A Mongolian" Cluster-F***. 4- The left-handed black man. In the 20's & 30's when he would have been educated, the left hand was commonly tied behind a child's back to force right-handedness. This would have been especially true of a black child.
All small details, but anyone 50 or older would easily catch (as I did).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

bfoore90

Mar 30, 2017

It just seems like this movie wanted to be a cheap shark attack movie rather than an actual historical drama with some weight to it. Nick Cage gives it his best, Thomas Jane is merely on screen for a few minutes and some of the supporting cast gives it their best but this is just a reallyIt just seems like this movie wanted to be a cheap shark attack movie rather than an actual historical drama with some weight to it. Nick Cage gives it his best, Thomas Jane is merely on screen for a few minutes and some of the supporting cast gives it their best but this is just a really cheap and poorly made film with cheap Sharknado special effects and an overall cheap overall film. It just seems like they only wanted to skip the historical aspect of this film to make a generic shark movie. If you want a good adaption of this, watch Jaws and listen to Quint's monologue about the Indianapolis.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

tp122

Oct 13, 2018

Actually cringe-worthy, starting with a script which seems not to know what to do with the true story, and provides dialogue that makes the already awful cast sound like they just dropped by from the local mall rather than weary combatants in a war 70 years ago. Nicholas Cage furrows hisActually cringe-worthy, starting with a script which seems not to know what to do with the true story, and provides dialogue that makes the already awful cast sound like they just dropped by from the local mall rather than weary combatants in a war 70 years ago. Nicholas Cage furrows his brow admirably, but is as phony as the second rate special effects. What a disgrace that Hollywood has managed to turn a true and tragic incident into a C grade TV movie with the production value of 'Sharknado', and at least that one was intentionally humorous.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 5 REVIEWS