Lords of the Deep

Pathetically poor production from Roger Corman and directed by Mary Ann Fisher about sometime in the future when more habitable living space is needed - so a company is trying to mine the depths of the oceans as a future home for mankind. We get to look in on the daily lives of a small group of scientists led by Bradford Dillman as they find another living form hitherto unknown to man. The plot pretext doesn't sound all that bad, but you are in store for a real "treat" as we get nowhere fast with the plot, some inane dialog, some incredibly poor special effects, a pace that would make the tortoise bored, and acting from a paper bag by Dillman and even worse pretty Priscella Barnes trying to convince the audience and the camera that she can act dramatically. There are a couple scenes, where Priscella has just witnessed a killing or heard of one, and she still looks like she smiles throughout the whole proceedings. But worst of all - this film is just plain boring. Nothing of any real note happens, and it has some ludicrous end to try and wrap it all up.

I gave my brother 5 bucks to go buy me a used movie because I was unable to go. He came home with "Lords of the Deep". He said he picked it out because I like underwater movies such as "The Abyss", "Leviathan", "Deep Star Six", and "Sphere". I knew I was in trouble when I looked on the credits and found that Roger Corman was the producer. "Lords of the Deep" ended up being so bad that I donated it to the library. What a horrible viewing experience!

I had read many of the reviews before deciding to watch this anyway. So, I was not expecting much going in.

Many of the reviewers belch out their complaint that it is an "Abyss" ripoff. I guess it is simpler to condemn something and not research anything. In fact, though, Abyss was released over 2 months AFTER Lords of the Deep. So, if their was any "copying" going on, it looks to me that Abyss was copying Lords.

Abyss had 70 million dollars to stick in to the production, whereas Lords of the Deep doesn't even list their budget. Obviously, it was vastly less than 70 million dollars. And it showed.

That is about it for me defending this movie. It was not very good at all. I'm no director, so I cannot say just what I would have done differently, but the "acting" was more "reciting" than acting.

It is set over 30 years in the future, after humans have obliterated earth's resources, so they have moved under sea. I guess. There must be something still going on "up top" because they are continually referencing a replacement crew.

Most bad movies, for me anyway, have something I can grasp onto and hope for more. This thing never gave me a thing. Nevertheless, I was still prepared to give it a 4 star rate. That is, until the final 2 minute sermon. Honestly, if it had had a British accent, I would have been certain it was Greta Thunberg.

Generally, I can give an "if this" or "if that," then watch it. There is really no reason to watch it. Unless you are like me, and just want to see what all the bellyaching is about. I won't ask for my time back, but if it ever gets to the point that this is the ONLY movie left on the planet...I think I will just read a book instead.

It's the quickest cash-in on a popular sub-genre you'll ever see, appearing less than a year following "Leviathan", "The Abyss" and "Deepstar Six", starring the once-attractive Priscilla Barnes as a scientist aboard a deep-sea station who discovers a sinister plot to overcome the occupants of the expedition by a superior alien race via mind control.

Bradford Dillman plays the mothership's long-suffering skipper on his last voyage before a well-earned retirement, and among the otherwise undistinguished cast is John Lafayette as the commander of a satellite shuttle before his career accelerated culminating in back-to-back Tom Clancy inspired films ("Patriot Games" and "Clear and Present Danger").

Imagine "Alien" meets "The Abyss" while channelling "The Thing" on a tenth of the budget, and in half the time and you're somewhere in the vicinity of "Lords of the Deep". Claustrophobic with clunky cardboard sets (the eponymous creatures are truly absurd), limited (though sometimes gory) special effects (some of which is also blatant plagiarism) and astonishingly overwrought acting, it's tremendously bad, but if you're a fan of these types of C-grade rip-offs, and especially those conceived by the great Roger Corman, then it should nevertheless be enjoyable.

I appreciate so much that this 1989 Roger Corman production in no small part demonstrates film-making sensibilities and production values of no later than the 1960s. Imagine if 'SeaQuest DSV' was a contemporary of the original 'Star Trek,' and you start to get a good sense of what's going on here. Despite obvious poor reception to the picture, I don't actually think it's half as bad as everyone makes it out to be: there's a distinct difference between a low-budget, low-grade feature with which people apparently refuse to engage on its chosen level, and a feature that's so poorly written or made as to demand abject vilification. 'Lords of the deep,' I believe, falls neatly into the former category, and not the latter. Yes, of course it's far from a major blockbuster, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun in its own right!

Recognizing the nature of this little flick, I think it's reasonably well made for what it is. I think the crew put in good work all around - production design, art direction, effects (including the creatures), and even the sometimes excitable editing and over the top cinematography. Mary Ann Fisher's direction seems perfectly competent to me in realizing Howard R. Cohen and Daryl Haney's screenplay, which of anything here is the sticking point for me. The story is fine in the broad strokes, even as it plays in some familiar territory. The scene writing is a little more thorny, I think, especially in those moments of '2001'-style "far-out" tripping. Such moments are overindulgent, and moreover require "spaced-out" acting and direction that I think constitute the weakest parts of the picture. Elsewhere, such as leading into the second half, scenes as written manifest some slothfulness in the pacing that bogs down the experience in some measure. And more than anything else, I think 'Lords of the deep' quite struggles to find just the right tone at any point, oscillating between "it's inspiring!" and "it's horrifying!" and back again, or sometimes just failing to carry much of a mood at all. If Fisher's contribution is to be condemned for anything, then maybe that's it - the writing fails to deliver a major spark, but so does her direction.

With all this in mind, the cast make what they can of what they are given. None of the acting makes any special impression; if anything, like the lacking immediacy of the film overall, the performances are just kind of flat. Again, however: this isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable. It's flawed, but modestly interesting and entertaining even such as it is. All the right ideas were here as far as I'm concerned - imagination, and intent, and skill - only, the result is less than vibrant, at best equal to the sum of its parts but not greater, and possibly lesser. When all is said and done I can honestly say that I like 'Lords of the deep,' and I'm not entirely sure why it's been the subject of such denigration over the past 30 years. In my mind the worst that can really be said is that it fails to evoke earnest thrills or otherwise active responses, but seeing as how the same is true of many more robustly financed genre flicks, well, I can't specifically blame this title. All told there's maybe no need to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across it, I think 'Lords of the deep' is a fairly good time, and worth checking out.