Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

bob the moo As 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.

alvink oh 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

bla-bli-blu The 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.

jfsjbb ... 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