Critics’ reviews

The Hunt for Red October (1990)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 70: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of The Hunt for Red October

70
Positive
5
Mixed
2
Negative
0

Most critics find The Hunt for Red October a satisfying submarine thriller, with praise centred on Sean Connery’s commanding performance and McTiernan’s control of tension. The favourable reviews value the emphasis on tense conversations, tactical decisions and a battle of wits, with technology serving the story rather than overwhelming it. Supporting performances and effects also draw approval, though Connery receives the most consistent attention.

The reservations concern pacing, exposition and characterisation, and the spread runs from firm enthusiasm to qualified disappointment. Some critics find the attempts at emotional depth perfunctory, while others regard the ensemble as enough to compensate for thinly written roles. The New York Times questions the film’s logic and politics and finds its entertainment intermittent. Empire is the clearest dissenter, criticising the accents, language choices and sluggish first 90 minutes, although it credits the later action, underwater effects and stunts.

Radio Times
★★★★ · John Ferguson
80

This submarine drama introduces Jack Ryan, with Alec Baldwin playing second fiddle to Sean Connery's charismatic Soviet commander who defects toward the US. McTiernan's direction keeps the tension high throughout, aided by a strong supporting cast.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
29 May 2003 · Nick Schager
80*

The critic finds the film a thrilling edge-of-your-seat trifle that has withstood the test of time. McTiernan orchestrates taut set pieces effectively while the central performances, especially Connery's, anchor the Cold War submarine story.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · TCh
70*

The silent submarine creates nuclear tension as its captain heads for the US, evoking classic thrillers like Fail Safe. McTiernan handles the complex plot well and links technology to character, making for an exciting battle of wits, though attempts at deeper character work feel perfunctory or corny.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
2 March 1990 · Vincent Canby
60*

The film is most peculiar in terms of logic and politics but has entertaining moments as an elegy for the Cold War. It is fun in fits and starts but also lazy, with Connery lending it respectability and elan despite short rations for the rest of the cast.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Angie Errigo
45*

The film is undermined by weak handling of accents and language, over-exposition, and a sluggish first 90 minutes that squander its promising premise. It finally delivers in the final stretch with strong air-sea action, underwater effects and stunts.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
2 March 1990 · Sheila Benson

The underwater thriller has an amiable smartness, with filmmakers favoring story over excessive technology for a satisfying result. Connery leads compellingly and the production is clean and effective, with strong support from the cast and camera work.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1989 · Variety Staff

The film is a terrific adventure yarn, thoughtfully adapted to reflect mellowing US-Soviet relations. Connery is splendid as the renegade captain and Baldwin is intelligent and likable, with strong special effects staging the action intensely.

Read the full review →
Collider
25 February 2020 · Matt Goldberg
85*

The critic calls the film a standout submarine thriller and the strongest Jack Ryan adaptation, praising how it balances the thin lead character with an excellent ensemble cast and realistic naval tension.

Read the full review →
The Ringer
3 May 2021 · Adam Nayman
80*

The critic highlights the film's slow, stately, and classical style with strong performances, especially Sean Connery's, and its focus on tense conversations and crosscutting rather than kinetic action.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate