Deep Shock

This has to be the cheapest film made in 21st century. It is all the way low quality, but at the end it falls below... everything. All the cheap tricks - like flashing and darkness - are used to hide those crappy computer effects.

All the actors are below average, especially the main character Anne Fletcher (Simmone Mackinnon). There is a scene, where Anne is asked: "Why you seem so careless?" The correct answer is, because she can't act. No matter what happens (the world is about to be destroyed, her friend is dying, she is fired), she has the same stupid grin in her face.

It is not only the movie, which is B -quality. It is also the back cover description (at least in Finland). The text mentions things like Lorica Gray -vessel, Capital -vessel and main character Garrison Harper and Anna (not Anne) Fletcher. The description sounds like a different movie, both featuring character called Fletcher and sea monsters

I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.

So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.

And eels? Come one, really!

Last week I had some minor surgery and had to watch TV. As the previous reviewer stated the Sci-Fi channel loves putting thier 'original' movies onSunday night at 9:00. Maybe because they think no one is watching.

Lately Sci-Fi is not content to just run movies and TV shows, they want to be movie makers. Having seen most of them, I conclude they need to stop it. This movie (and it really isn't a movie, more like an episode of a Twilight Zone-like anthology series) was just bad karma from the first word.

Paint by numbers.

The script was difficult to follow. Seriously I didn't really understand what was going on for most of it. The only clues I had were the rip-off characters from the Abyss, and of course the 'arch evil' corporate, government, mad scientist (insert here) bad guy. Boy, ever since Alien 2 we've always had the Paul Reiser character in every sci-fi tale.

Anyway, the movie was as bad as it's CGI creatures, and had nothing to offer a sci-fi fan.

Yup... another sea creature, oil rig, military tries to deal with creature hamfistedly type straight to video affair. But if you like movies about huge electric eels resembling the creature on the cover of Asia's first album... than this is for you. Especially if you're holding a David Keith film festival. Plenty of drama and tension to be had but the cheap cg sea creatures (say that 5 times fast) are too hokey to provide payoff or menace. Not the worst thing out there for sure but it's nothing you haven't seen already in the last 15-20 years: The Abyss, Deep Star Six, Leviathan etc. etc. All that's really missing is a lesser Baldwin brother.

Well, I can only say the filmmakers tried, at least that's something... And I might also be rather too generous in my rating. But "Deep Shock" is at least worth a little bit more than its poor 1.9/10 IMDb rating (at the time I first saw it; apparently I was right, since it went up to 2.5/10 by now). The film is somewhat of a cross between "The Abyss" (1989) and maybe "Deepstar Six" (1989) and a zillion other "in the deep blue ocean" horror/sci-fi flickies. Juiced up with a lot of questionable CGI and a lame 'ex-wife/ex-husband get back together in the end' subplot. It gets a little credit for the background story that was given to the creatures and how they came to exist. But that's about it, really.