Below

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.

Director David Twohy's BELOW is a gem of paranoia, claustrophobia, conspiracy, and deep sea creepiness.

The USS Tiger Shark submarine rescues 3 members of a doomed British ship, only to be hunted by Germans from above and haunted by ghostly visions, strange sounds, and otherworldly occurrences below. Unexplained malfunctions and tragedies keep happening in seemingly supernatural ways.

Has a dead crewmember returned, or is the lowering oxygen level causing everyone to go insane?

As the story unfolds, we find that not everyone is what they appear to be. As in all of the best of these underwater thrillers, the action takes place in corridors and quarters so tight that movement is severely restricted. This adds to the tense feeling of suffocation, and makes us feel trapped along with the crew.

The Director and cast are flawless in creating a thick atmosphere of terror and madness. Bruce Greenwood and Olivia Williams are especially good in their roles.

Highly recommended...

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.

I enjoyed 'Below' a LOT more than I anticipated. It's a very similar movie in theme to the disappointing 'The Bunker', apart from the obvious difference of being set on a submarine of course. But unlike 'The Bunker' this movie has interesting characters that a)you can tell apart, and b) actually care about their fate. The script, direction and acting are all superior, and it's very effective in conveying the tense atmosphere of a sub in WW2, despite not being made on a mega-budget. I like David Twohy's debut 'Pitch Black', and I like 'Below' even more. It's not only a very well made suspense movie, but also a good war one. I hope Twohy fulfills his promise in projects to come.

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