What's new

Underwater (2020) (1 Viewer)

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
22,000
Real Name
Malcolm
Yeah, Leviathan, uh, "borrows" quite a lot from The Thing design-wise. I like Deep Rising better, but it's a fine line. ;)
Yes, Deep Rising is another good one. Reminds me that I haven't yet watched my Kino blu-ray of that film.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
22,000
Real Name
Malcolm
Of the three older movies mentioned, I like Deep Rising the best. It’s more fun and it’s got Benny (from the Mummy).
They were both directed by Stephen Sommers, who often casts Kevin O'Connor in his films (kind of like Joe Dante and Dick Miller back in the day).
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
8,983
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
So, I went over to the old Roger Ebert site because I was reading reviews of 1917 now that I have seen it and they basically give 1917 a crap review but I noticed they give this film, Underwater, basically a glowing review and claim this is well worth going to see.

Interesting to me because I thought 1917 was one of the best films of the year by far and I thought this was probably highly questionable as to if it would be any good. So, go figure, ha! Shows how differently people can see things.
 

Tino

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
20,536
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Ouch.....



Disney/Fox had the TSG/Chernin Entertainment Kirsten Stewart action movie Underwater and it’s two duds in a row for the Twlight alum after Charlie’s Angels with this $50M movie from Sundance wunderkind William Eubank hitting rock bottom with $6.7M in the No. 7 spot. The one piece of news for this movie which Fox sat on heading into the new Disney regime, is that it didn’t get a ‘F’ CinemaScore like The Grudge last weekend. But, it received a C, the lowest grade of the new entries. On PostTrak, Underwater has 2 stars and a 35% definite recommend, while Grudge in weekend 2 on the Comscore/Screen Engine audience exit service has no stars. Essentially, if you’re going to release bad movies, a studio has to do it at times when there is at least access to good traffic so they can try and make as much back in the first revenue stream as possible.

Deadline
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
40,335
Location
The basement of the FBI building
So, I went over to the old Roger Ebert site because I was reading reviews of 1917 now that I have seen it and they basically give 1917 a crap review but I noticed they give this film, Underwater, basically a glowing review and claim this is well worth going to see.
I have a buddy who said Underwater was good but very similar to alot of other (better) movies. He loved 1917 though.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
22,000
Real Name
Malcolm
Yeah, most of the criticism seems to be from people making comparisons to other movies, rather than just reviewing the movie itself. I'm not sure how anyone makes a deep sea disaster/horror film anymore without similarities to older films. There are only so many ways to go with regard to water pressure, oxygen or lack thereof, and sea monsters. Everyone had to compare The Meg to Jaws, too.

There's nothing new under the sea (or in film criticism).:P
 
Last edited:

steve jaros

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 30, 1997
Messages
962
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Real Name
Steve
Saw Underwater today before the NFL. Surprisingly entertaining, liked it for what it was start to finish. Way better than Bad Boy, e.g.

B-
 
Last edited:

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,703
So, I went over to the old Roger Ebert site because I was reading reviews of 1917 now that I have seen it and they basically give 1917 a crap review but I noticed they give this film, Underwater, basically a glowing review and claim this is well worth going to see.

Interesting to me because I thought 1917 was one of the best films of the year by far and I thought this was probably highly questionable as to if it would be any good. So, go figure, ha! Shows how differently people can see things.

It's also a matter of what one expects from the movie.

One goes into a film like "Underwater" with different expectations than a film like "1917", so it becomes about how well the movie achieves its goals.

I've not seen "Underwater" - mainly because the trailers made it look awful - but I guess the reviewer thought it did what it set out to do better than "1917"!
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,703
Sometimes I see movies based on timing. I didn't plan to see "Underwater" but it showed at the right time and there was nothing else I was dying to see, so I went to it.

Meh.

It wears its influences on its sleeve and never really gets a head of steam. It feels like it SHOULD be exciting but it isn't.

I can't call it a bad movie, and at about 90 minutes, it's over too soon to wear out its welcome.

But it never turns into anything especially interesting. You've seen similar stories, and you've seen it done better...
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,703
Question for anyone who saw it:

Did we ever get any indication of the origins of the creatures?

I'm under the impression they're ancient critters who've been on the ocean floor for eons and the drilling awoke them, but that's just my take. Not sure if the movie gave us a better backstory and I missed it somehow!
 

Jason_V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
8,204
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Jason
Question for anyone who saw it:

Did we ever get any indication of the origins of the creatures?

I'm under the impression they're ancient critters who've been on the ocean floor for eons and the drilling awoke them, but that's just my take. Not sure if the movie gave us a better backstory and I missed it somehow!

I don't think they ever nailed that down. I'd go with your theory or the creatures came up into the ocean through the drilled hole somehow.

The "great" thing about Underwater is it doesn't really spend a ton of time trying to justify the creatures. It launches right into the action and doesn't stop until the end. It's mercifully short but never as fun as The Meg or as thrilling as The Shallows or 47 Meters Down. It's just kinda there, provides a bit of action, a thrill or two and ends. Nothing stupidly offensive, but nothing which stands out either. I don't recommend it, but if you just need to turn your brain off and watch people run and jump and you like water-based movies, I guess it's fine...?
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
22,000
Real Name
Malcolm
Haven't yet seen the film, but a couple of reviews seemed to float the possibility of

a supernatural origin, like some kind of demon or "guard dogs" of Hell, or some such thing.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
11,703
Thanks for the thoughts on the creatures' origins. I was pretty sure we got no real information - which makes sense, since the characters wouldn't know.

Just couldn't recall if there was something in the movie that gave a hint! :)
 

Reggie W

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
8,983
Location
Agua Verde
Real Name
Pike Bishop
Finally saw this, on blu, and I thought for about two thirds of the picture it was decent, well made, tense, looked nice, and the cast was good...then you reach the end and it was just bland as all hell. They definitely were tilting their cap a bit to Lovecraft which was a plus but this sort of feels like a film that they chopped up because somebody was unhappy with it. You can feel it was going somewhere but there is no real payoff to it.

On the question about the creatures, it is never explained where they come from or what they are but one character briefly theorizes that the huge drilling operation stirred them up. It does move at a fast pace and so you likely won't get bored and you have two sexy females running around in panties so that's all eye candy.

Is it original? No way but it is mostly well made and the cast is good. In my opinion the ending really stinks.
 

Tino

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
20,536
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Just watched it with the wife. Better than I expected based on reviews. I was entertained.

Derivative as hell but still fun.
 

Malcolm R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2002
Messages
22,000
Real Name
Malcolm
I assume Kristen Stewart's character will survive. Can't have the strong female lead getting eaten by a monster.
Finally got this and watched last night. Well, I was

wrong about Stewart surviving. Rather surprising. Right up to the end, I thought for sure she'd use her engineering skills to get the other escape pod operational, or that the light would suddenly switch to steady green at the last second. After all, she'd already pried open the control panels and fixed 3 or 4 other things.

The "great" thing about Underwater is it doesn't really spend a ton of time trying to justify the creatures. It launches right into the action and doesn't stop until the end.
Yes, very surprising. I expected the first half hour to be quiet character intros and such.

Nothing earth-shattering here, as others observed, but a fun 90-ish minutes. If you have the extras available, watch the "real bunny montage". Apparently they intended to have Paul's companion be a real, live bunny, and filmed the scenes with it. However, in the end decided that the bunny was so adorable that the audience would be more interested in the bunny's welfare over that of any of the human characters. Probably a smart choice, as that bunny's damn cute.

I didn't notice anything more about the origins of the creatures, other than a couple tossed out lines like "we went too deep" or "man wasn't supposed to be down here" that seems to imply that they were awakened or let loose by the drilling rigs. In my post viewing reading, there was also some speculation that it might have been done purposefully:

from IMDb: Director William Eubank has confirmed in an interview that the sea monster seen in the movie is, in fact, Cthulhu of H.P. Lovecraft's mythos. Strangely, the mining company is called Tian Industries: in literature, the adjective "LovecrafTIAN" is used to indicate this type of cosmic horror. Also, there is a hint that the company awoke the monster on purpose: as the characters look at Chtulhu from the station's windows, the recording states "Tian Industries. We have big things in store for you". In the Cthulhu Mythos, a common trope is the existence of a powerful cult that attempts to wake him.

Also, the news clippings at the end seemed to indicate that the company was planning to immediately rebuild and start drilling again.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
351,439
Messages
4,952,906
Members
143,051
Latest member
jas50
Recent bookmarks
0
Top