Mixed or average reviews - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 17
  2. Negative: 2 out of 17
  1. 30
    A leviathan bore, big, clunky and ponderously overplotted.
  2. Like the nuclear sub it's named after, the picture is big, shiny, and expensive. It's also cold, hard, and cumbersome, and lacking the barest hint of emotional or psychological depth. [9 Mar 1990, Arts, p.10]
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 37 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 13
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 13
  3. Negative: 1 out of 13
  1. ALF
    Sep 27, 2011
    More proof that Ebert is a hypocrite. I note unlike some films he has criticized, his moral centre seems rather off here. This film is a highly inaccurate account of the true story of Red October. That aside, look at what this film advocates, State theft of the property of another country. Hardly the actions of a whiter than white State and rather reminiscent of Firefox. More State stealing another State's secrets. If this was the theft of American property we would hear that this was the work of Satan or profound Evil. The acting was fine, the script was to much like US propaganda and little to do with telling a true story. K19 with Harrison Ford did this much better and was an infinitely superior film. This is dated Cold War rhetoric. Full Review »
  2. Jan 16, 2014
    Gripping from beginning to end, the only real issue I had with The Hunt for Red October was that the plot was a bit convoluted at times and tough to follow. However, despite that, it was extremely enjoyable and filled with satisfying thrills, as well as good acting performances from the leads, Alec Baldwin and Sean Connery. Full Review »
  3. Oct 22, 2013
    The Hunt For Red October is inaccurate, and some of the scenes and effects aren't that good, but I am willing to forget about that for the amazing performances of Sean Connery and Harrison Ford. Full Review »