I may be one of those few who think that a more exciting flick about the Bismarck would have been achieved had those making this movie stuck to the real story and focused entirely on it. Not that I am against the "human touch" or romantic love in films like this, but I think the Bismarck saga is a far more exciting war epic that is shown in STB! and so deserves the whole and undivided attention of an audience.First, to back my point, some facts that I don't see much mentioned, yet which are essential to the story: a) The Bismarck losing the shadowing cruisers had nothing to do with Lutjens' brilliancy and everything to do with luck. Both ships started zigzagging out of fear of possible U subs nearby so they went for 10 mins. to left, then 10 mins. to right, so every time they reached the most outward points they lost the Bismarck for a few minutes. It was during one of these occasions that, coming back, they realized they hadn't her anymore in their screens. b) The Bismarck being located again wasn't either the result of any brilliant hunch but simply the fruit of Lutjens's pessimism and of his overestimation of the British radar—he gave it a range bigger than it really had—belief which made him think that he still had them in his wake when he sent to Paris a 30 min. message depicting in detail past events, giving the Brits time enough to locate his ship through radiogoniometers--not that the Brits did any better then: they fumbled the data and gave the Germans yet another crucial advantage which was eventually neutralized by the torpedo hit on the rudder. (By then they knew she was going to St. Nazaire anyway, the closest friendly port, sort of, where the Germans could fix a +50.000-ton ship.)c) Speaking of which, that torpedo hit on the rudder could have never happened: as HMS Ark Royal was rushing to the scene she was spotted by U 556, which could have readily sunk her with torpedoes. But it didn't do it because it didn't have any left, it had just spent them all.d) The Bismarck was a condemned ship anyway as his design was already outdated, the result of Germany having been prevented from developing any serious naval research during wars. The result of it were dramatic: use of dual main batteries while other navies were already working with triple or quadruple batteries. Lack of dual purpose secondary guns, for both surface and AA fire. Great amount of room on decks wasted on lifeboats--instead of inflatable boats--room that could have been better spent on AA guns of all calibers, their failure at shooting down even one Swordfish WWI relic makes this point well.e) On the plus side, a few advantages that even if very impressive wouldn't have made a difference: it could fire her 15" much faster than her RN opponents, one shot every 22 seconds.--acc. to Von Mullenheim Rechberg--to one each 45 sec. Superb fire control, with the best optical instruments available at the time. And Krupp steel of course.As space runs out I resume: not really a very accurate reenactment of a true life event as the other More historical flick was, much more of a war propaganda movie with a human touch. Yet still very aptly done and more entertaining than it seems, with More and the rest playing it to a tee. Some superfluous melodrama, though, in a few scenes. And as in ANTR it takes you to the heart of the action on the condition that you know little or nothing about the subject matter. The less you know about it the more chances you'll have to enjoy it. 7/10.

The Bismarck with a jammed rudder circling back towards Valhalla. Classic stiff upper lip Brits versus arrogant soon to be drowned Prussians. The movie world seemed so much simpler back than...and smarter. Good movie to watch late at night with a few beers reminiscing about how todays rudderless movie world is heading toward its own Dumb & Dumber Valhalla.This classic movie was made in-between now long forgotten Cowboy movies. This war movie didn't go full cartoonish retard . Sink the Bismarck probably was the most historically correct out of the common WW2 blood feasts that had the evil Nazi Storm Troopers dropping like flies into the late 1970's until Quentin Tarantino resurrected that dumb genre.You almost feel sorry for the doomed Germans out-numbered, out-gunned and circling aimlessly in the North Atlantic . With no help over the horizon just waiting for the British Battleships to catch them in a circle of 12" shells.

The behemoth Bismark epitomizes the folly of German thinking during WWII. Build the biggest battleship with guns that could shoot farther than the enemy's and Germany could knock them out before they could touch the Bismark. Sounds great, in theory, but the idea was one war too late. It would have worked in WWI, but by WWII there were aircraft capable of knocking out ships. The biplanes and flying boats used against Bismark are antediluvian compared to the aircraft carrier planes used later in the war, and yet the Bismark couldn't knock them out of the sky. What's wrong with this picture, readers? Modern civilian viewers know, so why couldn't the German military anticipate this? Answer: Conceit. But it was not without reason: The Bismark had the advantage of Krupp steel for its plating and enormous guns. The movie uses Admiral Günther Lütjens to voice this conceit, when actually he was the one urging caution, recommending that Bismark stay in port until she could be accompanied by three other ships. In hindsight we can see that even the world's largest battleship needs to be accompanied by an aircraft carrier for defense. So Sink the Bismark! is interesting from a historical perspective as the end of the dominance of battleships. The story is told largely from the perspective of Capt. Shepard (whom we learn after the credits never existed, and "in no way" depicts Capt. R.A.B. Edwards, the actual director of operations). As such, it follows the model of Command Decision and 12 O'Clock High in showing that caring people had to learn to shut off feelings and thoughts about the men who would inevitably die. The key here is that it was thought imperative to sink Bismark before she attacked convoys, and that she might be invincible in the open sea (sort of a German Titanic). I'm not sure this point was driven home fully, perhaps because viewers at the time knew this, though Churchill's phone call did underscore the point. This urgency is what drives the film, but I don't think the movie explains the danger adequately. It assumes the viewers at the time knew the background of the Bismark. I remember the old Johnny Horton 45 rpm single, whose lyrics set up the drama better than the movie. (Why didn't they insert it at the beginning of the movie?)As a modern viewer, I am annoyed by the cartoonish characterization of Admiral Lütjens. It makes him look conceited, impulsive, heartless. He is a rabid Nazi who addresses the crew as fellow Nazis, when, in fact, the military were forbidden by law from joining political parties, including the Nazi Party. This propagandistic error could be forgiven in movies made during the war, but 15 years after it was a cheap shot.The real Admiral Lütjens was quite different, according to Wikipedia: "While in command of personnel department (of the German Navy) he did nothing to enforce the Nuremberg Laws on race in the Kriegsmarine. In November 1938, Lütjens was one of only three flag officers, including Dönitz, who protested in writing to Erich Raeder, Commander-in-Chief of the navy, against the anti- Jewish Kristallnacht pogroms."Lütjens wasn't a conscientious objector like Captain von Trapp, but he certainly deserves to be treated with more than the usual respect. Protesting Nazi policies from within the navy takes at least as much courage as leaving the country to avoid military service. The movie has one of the British officers state that their big advantage is the conceit and foolishness of the German military leaders, such as Lütjens. Actually, their big advantage was the conceit and foolishness of Adolf Hitler. I am not a naval historian, but it seems the invincibility of the Bismark was over-rated. The Bismark's sister ship, the Tirpitz, spent a significant part of the war at anchor under camouflage in Norway before being sunk in 1944. Apparently, the Germans realized that the enemy knew their Achilles had a vulnerability in the heel: the rudder. And then there's the matter of the "sinking." In the movie, the Brits keep launching torpedoes until she goes down. In the end, the Germans scuttled her, a view backed up by modern underwater examination of the wreck. The movie portrays the British rescuing survivors. History says the ship left before picking up all survivors, claiming a U boat maybe might have been sighted. Another nit to pick is that the decision by Lütjens to return to France for repairs was never explained, instead showing him wanting to tough it out with leaking fuel. If the Bismark needed repairs, Brest was the place to go, so the decision by Kenneth More character was not such a gamble. Plus, we know now that he had access to Enigma code messages. So, combining the facts that the central character, Captain Shepard, was fictional, Admiral Lütjens might as well have been fictional given the inaccuracies, the invincibility and superiority of the Bismark was not fully explained, the invincible Bismark had an Achille's heal at the rudder, and the Brits didn't sink Bismark so much as disable her, that doesn't leave a lot of meat on the bones of this story. From my perspective, the best part of the story is seeing Edward R. Murrow re-enact his role as CBS war correspondent from London. It is sad is that this story is hurt largely by British bias. Perhaps it could be improved by a remake. (James "This is Not a Disaster Flick" Cameron, are you listening? "Bismark -- The Hottest Love Story Ever Told!!!")However, what remains is the Bismark as a monument to Nazi Germany's foolhardy confidence, much as Colonial Britain was convinced of the unsinkability of its Titanic, and its empire.

Advances in aviation and air-to-surface weapons led to the death of lumbering, iron clad battleships. By the early 60s most of these ships were scrapped or decommissioned. As a result, Lewis Gilbert's "Sink the Bismarck!" is one of the last films to feature real, WW2 era British warships. It's also one of the better of many naval movies released in the late 50s and early 60s ("Damn the Defiant!", "The Caine Mutiny", "The Sand Pebbles", "The Bedford Incident" "Run Silent, Run Deep", "The Sea Chase", "The Enemy Below").Adopting a dry (it's a British production, you see), somewhat documentarian tone, the film is a cat and mouse techno-thriller in which the British Admirality, led by Chief of Naval Operations Captain Jonathan Shepard, attempts to intercept and sink the Bismarck, a deadly German battleship (the largest ship ever built by any European country) which has been decimating Allied convoys.Unlike most of these films, the action takes place largely in an underground war room where tactics and orders are cooked up and transmitted to the fleet. It's a chess game, our Chief of Naval Operations, who spends the film looming over maps and war boards, risking thousands of lives with each decision.Unsurprisingly, the film demonizes Admiral Lutjens, the man in command of the Bismarck. He's your typical Nazi villain, bent on destroying the world with his deadly toys. In real life, Lutjens despised both Nazi policies and Hitler, and was deeply pessimistic about both his mission and the capabilities of his super ship. The film is designed to appeal squarely to WW2 veterans and their wide eyed sons. It captures the skill of British naval gunners at the time; the Bismarck may have out-gunned and out-tonned her opponents, but British gunners were notorious for hitting their targets early, fast and precisely. Bismarck was one year old when she bit seabed.7.9/10 – Worth one viewing.