Deep Shock

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!

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

Sci-Fi Channel offers this lugubrious, insensitive and heavily-orchestrated North Pole would-be horror flick that is just slow enough to irritate and flashing enough lights to induce a kind of I-Don't-Care-to-Get-It epilepsy.

This is the story of giant electric eels, and maybe they're from another planet. I don't know. Everything is pretty vague. They're trying to melt the polar ice cap, apparently so more of them can come to take over the world. There's this female scientist who seems to think this is a marvelous idea, and basically she does everything she can to help them. She's the "hero" of the story. Yeah, pretty good stuff, huh? She also grins at everything. As another reviewer said, she gets fired, she grins. She thinks she's going to die, she grins. She concocts a plan so that the creatures can come back and wipe out mankind later - after she's had a chance to live her life. She grins. Did I mention she's our hero?

David Keith is in it too, playing the same exact character he plays in everything else he's been in lately.

Special effects aren't too bad in spots, but the eels are really silly looking. Looks like they ran out of money near the end and used unpaid interns to finish up the CGI. Acting is awful - the female lead really steals the show in that category but she had plenty of competition.

So in conclusion, if you're just dying to see a whole pile of cheap CGI and really couldn't care less if the story makes any sense or the acting is any good, hey, this is the film for you!

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.