Generally not. It's a cinematic effect to look cool. In both musket-loaded firearms, land and ship cannons, and later turrets on warships, there was benefit to firing in what's called a salvo, or every gun on the line firing simultaneously.

This had a few benefits:

It's really devastating to the oncoming troops to get hit all at once. It's much harder to figure out where the next shot is going to land and avoid it. Those old guns also just didn't aim very well, especially before the invention of rifling, so best to send one big blast.

In older firearms before smokeless powder, it gave time between shots for some of the smoke to clear so the next salvo could be aimed. You are at a disadvantage if your side is blinded by the smoke of individual guns still firing while the other side has a clear shot between salvos.

It took a long time to reload a musket or a cannon. By firing in a salvo, you can have two or more "lines" of fire and alternate between them, so one is firing while the other is reloading. Much easier to coordinate this back and forth between two salvos than 30 individual guns.

Hitting a moving target was especially hard. You needed to fire, see how you missed, then adjust. If firing consecutively, it would be difficult and ineffective for each gun to try this individually. Best fire in a salvo and have one officer watch and adjust everyone together.

That being said, the firing mechanisms on those old guns wasn't very precise either. Even if your firing officer told everyone to fire at the same time, it would probably take a few seconds for every gun to go off, just due to differences in how they were lit, primed, packed, etc.

There is also a legit speed of sound or signal delay on the order to fire down the line in a large formation. Some guns may only realize they should fire when they see the one next to them doing the same. So the result was probably often a semi-sloppy "ripple" of fire down the line anyway -- just not an intentionally planned and precise one like the movies.