Sumergidos

Periodically I go through fits where I'm convinced that the American public is losing the capacity for thought in entertainment; that 99% of the movie-going public has reached the point where every smallest nuance must be telegraphed as loudly and as blatantly as possible, and any intelligent content must be simplified so it's comprehensible to the lowest common denominator.

Below is not like that.

This is a movie that simultaneously gives one hope (that something this stylish and subtle could be made in 2002), and despair (that the studio has shown so little faith in it that they've cast it adrift without any advertising or backing). Why this hasn't received even one quarter of the attention of Ghost Ship I can't fathom--if you have a choice, go see Below instead.

If you like beautifully photographed, well-thought-out eerie psychological horror films that don't tie everything up in a nice pretty package of explanations in the final shots, and are willing to give the relatively unknown but excellent cast a shot, then by all means hunt this one down.

9 out of 10

I don't recall this one being released, but it didn't do very well. However it had a very tidy story, some more or less decent acting, and was a visual treat.

The story seems pretty simple - WWII sub picks up a couple survivor, is pursed by a German ship, and then strange things start to happen and some secrets about various crew members are slowly revealed.

This is more of a thriller than a horror movie. While it does contain some jump scenes in it and some spooky goings on, one is left with a feeling of "was it just cabin fever?" As said, visually, this movie looked nice. It somewhat captured the cramped life on a sub and the tense moments they go through. However, some liberties were taken on the set design to provide more room. The class of sub they are on are not nearly as comfy as this would make one think.

Bruce Greenwood gives what I though was a very good performance. The movie can even stand up to a little bit of rewatch as well.

Its's a bit weird that after all these years the overall rating is 6.1. I am no movie critic but I have watched this movie in my younger years and just did it again. And I can tell that nothing is fundamentally is wrong with it :/ . Acting is OK, story is enticing, effects are decent and soundtrack is befitting the vibe of the movie. Story is quite good too. I have watched every horror movie rated above 7 except black and white oldies and I rate it 6.5 easily.

So, should you give up a couple of hours and watch this film. If you're one of those people that are happy to chat with everyone around you while watching films or laugh at parts that are meant to be touching or scary, then no. (Okay, don't get me started on that.) If not, you'll enjoy this film, you'll enjoy the acting and you'll enjoy the atmosphere and the tension. I think the 6.? score is to be honest down to people who'd rather watch a documentary on WW II. Yes the submarine seems a bit roomy at times but that doesn't spoil the drama for me. As for the plot, without giving anything away, the sin at the heart of the story grows larger and darker. I won't say any more, just that you'll see some good actors here that have popped up and become more famous 10 years after this film.

This was only playing at one cinema in my area (off my usual track) and when I saw it listed in the paper I thought "Wait, how did I miss that?" But it was rated R (always a plus for me; for one thing, an R rating means the F-word gets used at least twice, so it'll have at least that much realism) and I had read somewhere (probably on IMDB) that it was about submarines, so I thought I'd take a crack at it. My venture was well rewarded.

Set during World War II, an American submarine rescues 3 people on a liferaft, one of whom turns out to be a woman, news of which galvanizes the sub's crew, who seem to know every female slang term ("Brillo pad" was new to me). The movie pays tribute to the German "Das Boot," the best submarine flick ever, as the camera goes darting from one passageway to another as the crewmen are introduced. Then some odd things start occurring.

Helping to win me over was the sheer copiousness of period detail with all the 1940s technology used by the crew to run their boat plus their cigarettes, girlie pin-ups, phonograph records, a Yo-Yo, etc. The actors all rang true except for the young idealistic guy. Lots of great claustrophobic atmosphere; limited but effective use of a certain kind of special effect. One needs to pay attention, such as the mirror scene, where you might think "Is that image duplicating what the guy is doing, or not?" Slow but steady heightening of tension and development of otherwordly aspects. Delightful underwater renditions with plankton & manta rays cavorting. Some drawbacks: too much use of flashbacks, some of which may be "false" (Hitchcock used a false flashback once & always regretted it); too much action occurring off-screen, to where it calls attention to itself. There's a central flashback issue that seems to call for an awful lot of expository dialogue, some of which occurs when one would suppose the characters would be engaged with more pressing matters, such as running out of air.

Given how many other recent movies have cost a lot more money, been given much more ballyhoo but have had much weaker plot, characterization and atmosphere, it seems a shame "Below" must rely entirely on word of mouth, or keyboard. I won't claim I was on the "edge of my seat" throughout but I definitely "bought into" the situation. There's a really lovely closing shot, like a shorter & underwater "Koyaanisqatsi," that no one should find overly corny or contrived.

Bottom line: if you can't find this one in a cinema or reach it before it goes away, keep an eye out for video. The studio made a mistake just blowing the movie off, it deserves better.

In one scene we see a seaman with pet fish in a tank, a nice ironic touch.