This movie is just silly. I can't believe it took 3 people to write this. It seems like it was written by an 8th grader who had to turn in a paper for homework at the last minute. The external underwater shots look pretty cool, but otherwise the sets are super-cheesy, they look like they were made in someone's backyard. Bad script, bad acting, bad sets, bad bad bad. But when the director bails from his own movie what do you expect. After seeing this movie, I wouldn't ride with Stephen Baldwin in a golf cart, let alone a submarine. Side note: for some reason, this movie is shown on the USA network under the name "Submerged", which is actually a totally different (and better) movie.
Add a Review
-
culwin1 August 2001
-
Lil' Oz23 July 2000I sat back to view this with very little expectation. I am a sucker for anything underwater. It's your typical "the competent people are trapped and need to be rescued from the misfit group" type story. Gabrielle Anwar is the highlight of the movie while Baby Baldwin is its nadir. He proves that the acting gene in his family decreased with the birth of each child.
Still, the movie is fun in a brainless way. The best visuals are of the ice caps from beneath. -
killer-1225 February 1999The filmmakers apparently made no effort to maintain even the lowest acceptable level of technical/scientific/logical consistency. It was never explained convincingly why the crew abandoned the conn (was it the gas leak? if so, why didn't they put their gas masks on?) effectively losing all control over their boat and fate, the procedures presented are way off the mark, the exhausted, asphyxiated crewmen find the energy (and the oxygen!) to cheer at the end, the conning tower diving planes have miraculously broken through the ice without leaving any trace (they are much wider than the trough opened by the sub), etc., etc. A waste of time and money, both for the makers and the viewers. Only thing worth it is Gabrielle Anwar (mainly because she is very agreeable to look at).
-
bob the moo16 May 2004As part of a new cooperative programme between research bodies and the military, the Portland nuclear submarine sets off on a several week mission with the three-man crew of a smaller submarine on board and the mini-sub attached to the bodywork. When the environmentalists are out in their mini-sub doing work, the main submarine collides with a Russian submarine and, badly damaged, plummets to the seabed where it rests totally disabled and trapped beneath thousands of feet of ice. With their craft still intact and powered up, the research team are the only hope for the Portland's crew.
A submarine movie with Baldwin in it? Sounds great I haven't seen Red October for ages! What? Oh. It's Stephen Baldwin. And it's a much lower budget affair than Red October. Despite this I thought I'd give this film a good in the hope that it would give some low budget tension and excitement. Modern submarine movies have shown that, even with a reasonable story, it is easy to generate tension in a confined, predominately male environment where danger is all around Crimson Tide and Red October are both good examples of this. However Sub Down doesn't seem able to be exciting once. Although the film has a low budget it cannot hide behind that excuse for this failing the fault lies with the script and the direction. The dialogue is poor pretty consistently whether it be unrealistic and silly banter between characters who are moments from death or the sheer improbability of the plot. These failings could have been covered if the film had been tense and involving but sadly it is not it is flat and surprisingly dull.
Of course part of this is down to budget, but the director could still have used the movement of the camera, music and urgent performances to convince us that everything was urgent and dangerous. However he doesn't his direction is very much a matter of setting a camera and filming, there was no style and sense of using the camera as a dramatic aid rather than just a method of recording the story. Even death scenes and scenes of sacrifice are delivered with very little emotion or tension again proof of just how flat and unengaging the whole thing was. For a low budget film the effects were OK. The internals of the sub were a little too wooden and lacking in metal to convince and it did look like a soundstage, however the external shots work OK. The one thing with the externals in submarine movies is that even average model work can be covered by the lack of light underwater hence the dark shapes gliding around in this film convinced me just a shame that the scenes with the two subs are edited too quickly, diminishing the impact and the excitement. It is a shame, because the basic 'sub trapped on sea bed' idea has potential but this film squanders almost all of it. By the time the stupid (yet sadly predictable) conclusion comes, it is unlikely you'll care anymore.
Even some of the effects hide the low budget, the cast do not how far down a wish list do you reckon a podgy, doggy-haired Baldwin comes? Here is a dumb hippy stereotype and never wins the audience. Partly it is the fault of the script as his dialogue is mostly bad and he has no character, but Baldwin is bad even with me making excuses for him. Anwar overplays her English accent to the detriment of sounding like a real person. Conti is as low rent as they come and is really slumming it here. The support cast includes some typically gruff and heroic performances from bargain-basement actors such as Mulkey and Plana recognisable faces but they have nothing to do but try and be gruff and heroic a job the script makes harder for them.
Overall a bad script, a bad plot, average acting and bad direction all combine to suck any potential out of this film, leaving it floundering, lifeless as it totally fails to ever really get going or engage the audience. It takes real effort to take this basic premise and suck all tension and excitement out of it but sadly, this film manages to do it from the very start. -
Theo Robertson20 April 2004... They want you as a new recruit
And if that Village People anthem didn`t get you to sign up to join the navy what chance has SUB DOWN ? No chance really
There`s rather a lot of problems with this movie . One is having Stephen Baldwin as an action hero . Personally speaking I think Mike Baldwin from CORONATION STREET has a better than even chance of becoming an action hero , and according to folklore it`s bad luck to have a woman on a boat . Considering she`s played by Gabrielle Anwar that`s bad luck for the entire movie too not to mention the audience
But the thing that annoyed me was the script . Check this out : A trio of environmentalists get a trip on a nuclear submarine . The submarine crashes and the environmentalists have to save the day . Yeah I`m sure the US navy are so overjoyed about being asked that they`re going to allow a bunch of greenies on their ship , ( I`m sure the Pentagon have been overwhelmed by Greenpeace members asking if they can go to Iraq to do research into depleted uranuim ) though to be fair there`s a lot of environmentalists who`d like to be stuck on a sub with a lot of sex starved sailors , none of whom are female .
Oh and the script is terribly slow , it`s about a third of the way through before anything actually happens and until it does we have to put up with lots of techno-babble which will be of absolute no interest to anybody . It shows you how bad a movie is when you start wishing both a bunch of terrorists AND Steven Seagal would turn up to enliven the scenes
SUB DOWN is one of those movies that`s credited as having Alan Smithee as director ( ie the director didn`t want his real name to be listed ) but the director here can be forgiven for the most part since it`s obvious the budget - Like the script - wasn`t up to much , so the relatively unspectacular crash doesn`t deserve a tirade of criticism . The only thing the director can be blamed for ( Apart from casting Baldwin and Anwar - That goes without saying ) is a scene where a torpedo works loose and slides towards a sailor`s head , unfortunately the shot cuts away before you see his head get squashed . Oh well . I do congratulate the director for including a really funky tune in the opening credits because if it wasn`t for that I might have given SUB DOWN one out of ten but I`ll give the movie two out of ten -
This was one bad movie. The story, action and acting were all bad. Even the music was hokey. It sounded like a joke. I don't think any of the sub movies we love will be blown out of the water by this one. Maybe in the sequel we can watch them all freeze on the arctic ice.
-
mr-2520 November 2004This movie has it all: Stupid script, terrible acting and so filled with clichés that you don't believe it. The dialog is so predictable and stupid, that - at first - you think the movie is a comedy. Sadly, it is not...
One example of the bad script: The climax of the movie. After hours of struggling with the sub - the crew almost suffocating in the rear end of the sub - finally our hero and heroine (on the bridge) manage to break through the ice to the surface. They open the hatchet, and gasp for air, then apparently they spend some time chatting and laughing. Surprisingly they couldn't care less about the crew still trapped inside the sub without air. The producer must have thought "Oooh... nice shot of the hero and heroine, let's add a little romantic mood here. Never mind the script is totally crap and full of holes" -
jfsjbb8 March 2003... if it takes only two civilian scientists to rescue a sunken boat?
=== Attention, no spoilers ahead, the whole movie is a spoiler ==> I really like submarine movies (all time favorites are 'Hunt for Red October' and 'Crimson Tide'), but this one is utterly insulting. Without going into the details (sonar screens that look like faked radar screens (not even real ones...), a reactor that reminds me of a giant milk cooler on old McDonalds farm, etc. ....) the whole story is absolute rubbish. If it was possible to operate a submarine with only two people (who aren't even properly trained to do it) I guess the Navy would probably do so.
-5 out of 10 -
sutcal5 January 2000This isn't a bad movie at all. If you allow for some fairly "reality check plot gaps" and lack of special effects (compared to other genre movies), the movie is a pretty good suspense thriller.
I am slowly warming to Stephen Baldwin and Gabrielle Anwar I could watch all day. Tom Conti is also good.
Take a look at this one, you may be pleasantly suprised -
A good example of mediocre writing, poor editing and how people can really screw up even a so-so idea. Acting wasn't great, story is tired and frankly unbelievable if you have any basic understanding of how subs work. Don't bother unless you're 15 or younger and really don't have anything else to do with your time. Frankly, it really works better on fast forward.
-
steveprior18 May 2001This is a great film. Easy to watch, no dull moments, good suspense. The Baldwins can sometimes do rubbish films, but in this case in no way did this come across as a B movie, even though I'm sure the budget intended it to be. Just watch it.
-
craigwyllie20012 December 2001I agree that this movie is slightly under-rated. I was clicking through the channels when I came across it, and it caught my attention and did well enough to keep me interested until the end. The acting isn't bad and the script isn't bad. Sure there are no big chase scenes and the climaxes aren't as big as in blockbuster movies. This movie would be bad in a theater, but for a TV movie, it's quite alright.
Two things they could paid more attention to. The soundtrack, especially in the last half hour of the movie. It was awful.
<SPOILER>
And a bit better explanation as to why half the sub was habitable and salvagable by a pair of amateurs, and remind us an extra time or two why half the crew is trapped in the rear and can't get any of the AC that the front two thirds has. -
carl-366 February 2001So my home-on-leave-from-his-submarine son and I sat down to enjoy a nice submarine movie directed by that fine technician, Alan Smithee. Seeing the apartment sized submersable that not only had plenty of room for the three civilians, but a hot tub and sauna.
OK, OK, not the hot tub. My son quickly asked for a piece of paper to list the technical errors he noticed. Soon he asked for another piece of paper, then another. Starting with the incorrect hull numbers on the boat, to the CO's tee shirt (with writing on it), to the showers -- the woman used enough water for ten men to shower for a week, not to mention the green coolant and the reacter starting like an old flathead Ford, my kid stopped counting at 65 errors.
Fo me, I like to kick back and enjoy movies without nitpicking. I can overlook minor mistakes. I know reality when I see it. My favorite part is when Stephen Baldwin finds and repairs the cause of the boat's crash dive to the bottom. A loose battery cable! One touch and everything works! Thank goodness for Diehard! -
alvink3 August 2003oh my goodness. i don't review movies that haven't watched, and i watched this one. having watched it, i asked myself 'why?'.
two reasons:
one, gabrielle anwar is extremely attractive, and i hope that her participation in this 'ed wood special' does not harm her career, because i would like to keep seeing her (sort of like a betty grable pin-up, a farrah fawcet poster, she is indeed an attractive human).
two, it is as bad (or as good, if you like) as ed wood's movies. (for you young'uns, ed wood made a string of amazingly ludicrous sci-fi movies in the old days) this movie just barely qualifies on this level. i mean, they use credibility as a bungee cord, as something to be streeeetched to try to save the poor writing/poor budget/lack of imagination/poor acting.
but above all, (since there is nothing else to take as important in this film) baldwin has the worst haircut in the history of film, one which he has used in at least one other film. ¡hello! ¡goodbye!
catch it cable, don't pay to rent- my goodness, it's worthless. 'plan 9 from outer space' does it better, and is equally *realistic*. but it's true, ms. anwar is indeed prettier than 'Vampira'.
alvink, xalapa, veracruz, mexico -
JMan-527 December 2001When I saw this movie, I couldn't figure out what I was more amazed at, That someone would produce such a terrible film, or that I had actually sat through it. Stephen Baldwin plays in a cliched role as a smart talking jerk who is the only hope for hundreds of people. The story is muddled and confused, and can't seem to walk a straight line. When the military sub that Baldwin, a civilian, is on crashes into a Russian sub, all the trained sailors who know how to run the now damaged ship are trapped somewhere. Only Baldwin and his girlfriend( Gabrielle Anwar)can save the crew. They miraculously learn how to run the sub and then bring the whole thing to the surface. Basically, it is a waste of two hours in front of the screen.
* out of **** -
We have a contrast and almost a conflict of characters when in an attempt at public relations a U. S Navy sub carries three vary stereotype civilian whale biologists, Stephen Baldwin, Gabrielle Anwar, and Tom Conti.
Naturally, due to Navel macho attitudes, the submarine is disabled. From there we have the standard disaster. The only thing missing is the hysteric screaming woman (only one whimper from a distraught sailor.) There is blood, guts, water leaks, and plenty of sparks.
Full of music as if anyone was listening one appropriate title that is sung is "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" and of course "Wipe Out" by the Safaris
How will they get out of this situation or will they? -
bla-bli-blu27 March 2003The story of this film is almost unbelievable silly. The factual errors which even I have recognized are not acceptable (e.g. Russian submarine turning just around(suddenly "switches" direction on the "sonar"). I have really enjoyed watching it in a laughing way. And something for trivia: Kevin Connollies girlfriend (only shown very short in the beginning) is Nikki Cox. Both play brother and sister in "Unhappily Ever After". Just wanted to say it.
-
andreas-198 January 1999In my opinion this is the best submarine movie. It is suspenseful, has a good dialogue (check the quotes section), characters to care about, and good acting (great as ever: Gabrielle Anwar). The only thing that I missed in this movie was a Hans Zimmer score. See this movie, it's worth it! (my vote: 10/10)
-
rgeorgel30 August 2002The sets were atrocious. The inside of the sub looked like the inside of a giant metal tube decorated with anything they could lay their hands on. Supposed to be a nuclear sub? Look at "Search for Red October"; "Grey Lady Down" and other 'modern' movies for ideas about sets for nuclear subs. Other than that I rather liked the movie.
-
Ranb17 February 1999This film was a gagger. Why is it that the sailors here seem to be helpless? And the technical details; they must have been filmed like this for laughs. Green reactor coolant? A man dying from radiation exposure due to a coolant leak? Give me a break!