There's a certain class of film, it seems above all among those hailing from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, that any well-rounded viewer will surely recognize. They're not bad, and in fact are mildly enjoyable, but are definitely nothing special, and one can usually "watch" without especial active engagement. Such films may be overly casual about exposition, and plot development generally (including in the direction, and subsequently the acting), to the point that some information is imparted so indifferently or outright poorly that it's easy to miss - but it doesn't particularly matter anyway, because the storytelling is on the lighter and less robust side of things. In case it's not already clear, 'City beneath the sea' counts among such films. As one expects we also get some ham-handedness, intended humor that may or may not elicit a real reaction, tiresomely old-fashioned dynamics between men and women, and variable levels of quality. I admire Charles P. Boyle's smart cinematography, for example, including the underwater sequences; in contrast, the sound design is imbalanced and unreliable. The cabaret sequence where we first meet Venita is fun and well done, and Suzan Ball makes a stunning first impression; on the other hand, part of why this scene stands out is because meaningful care and energy was put into it, whereas many other scenes are handled so blithely, often with a happy-go-lucky frivolousness and frivolity, that ensure they come and go as unremarkably as that one square foot of sidewalk you walked over that one day. Don't remember any patch of sidewalk? Yes, that's the point.
The sets are pretty terrific, and the costume design, hair, and makeup are easy on the eyes. Those stunts and effects that are employed are rather splendid. While Ball makes a great first impression, and there are some noteworthy names and faces starring alongside her, the cast don't necessarily stand out otherwise. In addition to meek treatment of the material the picture also struggles with pacing, not least in scenes that take place underwater (remember the dull climax of 'Thunderball?'). There are some swell ideas here, both in terms of scenes and the overall narrative; incidentally, it seems to me that some of the best writing is reserved for moments that include Ball. But too often the plot development, sequencing, and storytelling at large feel scattered, and less than fully committed or convincing. Why, it almost comes across that no one involved was specifically interested in the movie they were making. I don't mean that no effort was made, because that's not true, and there are some definite sparks in the acting. Those sparks are erratic and irregular, however, and no matter how well done the various bits and bobs are, there's a considerable lack of vitality in the feature as a whole. What traits 'City beneath the sea' carries with it at its best - attentiveness, energy, discernible skill and intelligence - needed to be more present and consistent throughout the entire length, in every regard. Had they been, the title would be remembered as more than a footnote in the careers of those who participated in its creation, and one of the few credits to Ball's name. In fairness, the climax is well done, and that quality carries through to the end.
I do like this, but it's something to watch on a quiet, lazy day, and nothing that one needs to go out of their way to see. Moreover, it's recommended most for those who are diehard fans of those on hand; for general audiences, take it or leave it. Granted, not every film needs to be a revelation, and it's enough for some to be gently entertaining. And that's kind of true here. Would that it weren't also so easy to see how the end result might have been improved. 'City beneath the sea' is passably decent if you happen to come across it, and maybe we should just leave it at that.
