Underwater

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Underwater

    So it seems each decade we get a deep sea, "hey we are stuck under the water and something weird is happening" film. (Leviathan 1989, Deepstar six 1989, Abyss 1989, Sphere 1998, 47 Meters Down 2017 etc.)

    I love deep sea scifi myself. Even though many deep sea films aren't that great (except for the abyss which was awesome) I still have fun watching them.

    Underwater starring Kristen Stewart was about the same as all the others. It's a fair to middling film with expected scares and such.

    I did like the "feeling there" feeling I got with many of the sequences. There were some nice claustrophobic bits included in this film which were reminiscent of The Descent (2005).

    The acting was fairly good but a lot of mumbles in the dialog and for those who know me that is a pet peeve of mine. Diction folks! It's important.

    There were some interesting things in regards to the creatures, but I won't spoil it for anyone.

    I do recommend seeing this one if you love scifi, deep sea films, or just a good popcorn film. Have fun ya'll

  • #2
    Re: Underwater

    the script was on the 2015 Hit List. it's a fast read. walter hill action lines. great dialogue. just finished reading it, and it's good. but $80 million budget, whew! underwater tanks be ex-pen-sive.

    there was another one on last year's annual black list ( 2018) that i read. i thought this was that, but it wasn't. it's titled DARK. it was good, too.
    "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist,- Pablo Picasso

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Underwater

      It was entertaining. I kept wondering about the budget because it looked pretty expensive to make with the huge tanks underwater; big sets. Didn't look cheap. I didn't read reviews or get influenced by word of mouth, so my impression was that it was enjoyable. The writer seems to be having a hot career. Didn't know that he writes these expensive spectacle films.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Underwater

        Originally posted by Friday View Post
        It was entertaining. I kept wondering about the budget because it looked pretty expensive to make with the huge tanks underwater; big sets. Didn't look cheap. I didn't read reviews or get influenced by word of mouth, so my impression was that it was enjoyable. The writer seems to be having a hot career. Didn't know that he writes these expensive spectacle films.
        It feels like a contained thriller when reading it, which it is, but because of the setting (underwater most of the entire film), it's expensive. Yikes, it's at $2.5 million in two days--2700 theaters.

        It's a really good script, not sure what the end result is, but I'll go see it.

        The Abyss in 1989 had a $70 million budget and returned $90 million.

        Sphere in 1998 had an $80 million budget and returned $37 million total, pretty much a bomb.

        I remember Prometheus' original opening scene when they discover the hieroglyphs was an underwater scene... they changed it to a land based cave in development. Probably because they determined the expense wasn't worth it. I think the moment is still strong without being under water.

        An underwater contained thriller might not be the best choice for ROI, but it's got that "claustrophobic" element, that you don't get much elsewhere.

        I think The Descent was awesome at this, but that was straight up horror. With a 3.5 million GBP budget it returned 57 million worldwide. That's an amazing ROI.
        Last edited by finalact4; 01-13-2020, 05:58 AM.
        "Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist,- Pablo Picasso

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Underwater

          Originally posted by finalact4 View Post
          It feels like a container thriller when you're reading it, which it is, but because of the setting (underwater most of the entire film), it's expensive. Yikes, it's at $2.5 million in two days--2700 theaters.

          It's a really good script, not sure what the end result is, but I'll go see it.

          The Abyss in 1989 had a $70 million budget and returned $90 million.

          Sphere in 1998 had an $80 million budget and returned $37 million total, pretty much a bomb.

          I remember Prometheus' original opening scene when they discover the hieroglyphs was an underwater scene... they changed it to a land based cave in development. Probably because they determined the expense wasn't worth it. I think the moment is still strong without being under water.

          An underwater contained thriller might not be the best choice for ROI, but it's got that "claustrophobic" element, that you don't get much elsewhere.

          I think The Descent was awesome at this, but that was straight up horror. With a 3.5 million GBP budget it returned 57 million worldwide. That's an amazing ROI.

          Well, it's more like Ridley Scott's idea of a contained thriller. I didn't read the script, but the movie itself had a lot of very expensive action set pieces. It didn't just look like they were stuck in a small tank or room the whole time. They looked like they were under the ocean. I guess I can't say what the set pieces were without spoiling the plot, but I started counting in my head how expensive that movie is. My pet peeve about contained thrillers is most of them look like they spent ten cents on them. That was not the case here. They definitely put a lot production value into it. I had assumed the writer was mostly a comedy writer, but nice to see that he's so prolific, he's also doing spectacle films like this. Anyways, it was a very good cast and an enjoyable popcorn movie. Unfortunately, it opened against that juggernaut "1917," which seems to be one of those financially successful movies that will be racking up a lot of awards.

          Comment

          Working...
          X