dwolf

I was looking forward to seeing this movie. I begin my review with this statement because high expectations unmet can't help but affect our opinions.

The acting was for the most part excellent. The direction was excellent, especially cinematographically. But the writing left me cold.

Often times writers will sacrifice believability for plot twists or mere convenience. This happens in The Departed. Characters often act in ways which don't make any sense.

Examples: (warning plot spoilers)

Dignam and Queenan know everything about Billy Costigan, including intimate family details, but don't know that Sullivan grew up working for Costello, that Costello came to Sullivan's graduation at the police academy, that Costello was paying for Sullivan's apartment that he obviously couldn't afford on his own etc.

Near the end on the movie Sullivan's story of the shootout would have never satisfied any investigator on his word alone.

Both of these occur for plot convenience only and are not believable. There are many other examples.

It should be noted that while most of the characters were fantastic there were two major exceptions.

Dignam's character has NO redeeming qualities; he is a one dimensional hot head. Why does Queenan put up with him?

Madolyn has to be one of the most dull love interests in recent memory. The energy in the movie dies every time she is on screen. This is made worse by the fact that she, coincidentally, is the love interest of both male leads.

I wanted to like this move and I didn't hate it. I only wish the plot had been thought through a bit more.

I admit it. I like Steven Seagal movies. It is a "guilty pleasure" because most of his recent movies could hardly be called "good". I also have a odd fondness for submarine movies. So I couldn't believe my luck when Mr. Seagal made a movie called "Submerged".

There are BIG problems with this movie, however. The plot makes little sense from beginning to end. I can accept a little silliness in an action movie but watching a group of supposedly highly trained commandos stand in the middle of a concrete tunnel and just "shoot it out" with an oncoming squad of soldiers (with a tank, mind you) without ducking for cover is not good nor believable action.

I'm not certain: why the submarine was located where it was; why it was stolen by commandos; why they approach a US carrier group submerged and without radioing them first; why the "brain washed" soldiers take over the sub and order them to submerge when they already ARE submerged; why the carrier group commander orders the sub to be fired at only if it surfaces (because we all know subs are much more dangerous and up to no good when they surface) and on and on. And to top it all off, the submarine wasn't even in much of the movie.

The plot and plot holes only get deeper from there. Mr. Seagal's signature fighting style is only demonstrated rarely and in extreme closeup. And I have no idea why it was set in Uruguay. I'm not certain any of the people involved with this move has ever been to Uruguay or can even point to it on a map. Does Uruguay even have submarines?

In fairness, this movie does not appear cheaply made. It had okay stunt, special effects, lots of gunfire and explosions. The submarine unfortunately looks like something I made in my backyard as a kid, however.

I still like Mr. Seagal's movies. They are still silly fun. But avoid this one. Go rent "Under Siege" or "The Glimmer Man" instead (my personal favorites).

At the beginning of this movie we meet Charlie, a hot headed teen who is constantly fighting at school. His home life is miserable. His father is an equal hot head who argues constantly with his mother driving her to drink. To make matters worse he's just fallen in with a group of troublemakers. He gets blamed when one of his friends steals a purse. The principal, played by James Caan, agrees not to suspend him if he works off his debt to the purse's owner, Mrs. Ritchie (Gina Rowlands).

Mrs. Ritchie proceeds to teach Charlie about living and caring for each other.

The movie start out poorly. The setup of Charlie's character is painful and the scenes with his friends cliché and over dramatized.

However, when Gina Rowlands appears on the screen as Mrs. Ritchie the movie takes a wonderful turn. Mrs. Ritchie is offbeat and colorful; her zeal for life intoxicating.

Don't let the start of the movie keep you from enjoying a delightful and uplifting film.

The only enjoyable thing about watching this movie is making fun of it. The plot makes no sense at all. The movie making problems are numerous. The opening scene has Lundgren involved in a mission stealing what would appear to be a US Stealth aircraft, but from whom? Some of them wear US uniforms and some wear a hodge podge of various other uniforms. It is not explained. The "submarine" set looks nothing like a sub including concrete pillars and cinder block walls in some shots.

THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES PLOT SPOILERS but since the movie is very predictable they don't spoil much.

Here are just a few of the problems: It is not explained how the terrorist get on to the sub in such great numbers. The virus incapacitates and kills most of the crew within seconds but the terrorists continue to operate fine for a long time when exposed very directly to the virus. Dolph Lundgren's actions directly result in the destruction of a US submarine and crew but is portrayed in the movie as heroic. A US fighter plane changes into a Swedish fighter and is then shot down by the terrorists in the sub using a missile designed to sink surface ships. The US Navy then launches fighter aircraft who launch air-to-air missiles which miraculously turn into torpedos. The many torpedoes fail to hit the sub in spite of no one being in the control room to launch counter measures or take any evasive action. The two remaining characters at the end of the movie have about a zero percent chance of knowing how to surface a submarine but don't seem worried.

I could list many more.

This movie was lost in its own voodoo curse. The script made no sense. Actors were given long emotional speeches to which no one else on the screen responded to or gave any hint of listening. They just seemed to be waiting their turn. Scenes bounced around without any rhyme or reason. Characters took actions with as much thought as a zombee. I started the movie because I hadn't heard of it and it featured a talented cast. I finished the movie only to see if I could find one redeeming quality. There was none.