USS Lionfish

Did not enjoy it ,probably down to bad acting Not much I can really add Obliged to write 10 lines at least Was looking forward to a good story line ,, ,disapointment Actual filming was quality Jack Daniels well advertised, , me personally it gives me a stinking hangover Heard the F word plenty of times Was impressed by the actors white teeth , was impressed by some of the locations, Im glad I never actually paid money to watch it, I would have been demanding it back I cant believe I have to write so many lines for it to be submitted, ,, , absolutely hate waffling on , feel so sorry for the people that have to read all of this,looking back the actual movie was professionally made, looked good but just so amazed at the totally bad acting

I'm not a big fan of movies about drunks who bring on their own troubles because wahwahwah. Along with the really inane premise and bad acting, the drunk "hero" was very irritating. If I heard the silly chatter at the beginning correctly, they had 24 hours to examine the submarine. The "hero" arrives and the first thing he does is slug back a shot. Way to get the painstaking analysis started! Then for the next several hours (it went from day to night, supposedly), all of them sat at a dining table getting hammered. The excellent reviews for this movie? Must be the cast's mothers.

This was a very tedious movie. I checked it out because it had a 5.8 out of 10 rating, with just 16 people voting. I figured even if it were a 4 out of 10, it'd be OK for my purposes.

Alas! After the first 30 minutes, it dove off a cliff in terms of entertainment value and acting charisma. I have seen fantastically better performances from high school drama teams. Frankly, the soundtrack was a 4 out of 10, and I enjoyed it a lot better when the people weren't talking. The dialog *really* sinks the movie with the sub.

I cannot recommend this movie, however, I hope at least the actors and actresses got a semi-decent paycheck for their part. At least that'd be something good to come out of this shipwreck (pun intended).

Actually, the acting wasn't entirely as bad as many on here are portraying. The lead actor and the woman who played his wife actually did alright. The big problem with this movie - other than the glaring historical accuracies, like; why was it docked in a Boston harbour during WWII when they were fighting in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese? Why would the torpedoes still be armed? How could the batteries still be charged? etc., - the problem was the script. And I don't even mean the military aspects of it either. It was laughingly atrocious, full of cheesy lines, juvenile at best. It seemed to steal lines from every bad war movie ever made, like the line where the guards at the gate to the Naval base roll their eyes and say "civilians", or when they quote the 'there's only two kinds of ships" saying, that can be found on any submarine gift-shop t-shirt. If the script had been better, this movie may have had a chance to rise above it's almost unwatchable level.

Don't watch this expecting a factual WWII war movie because its not. While it may have a small budget and mostly unknown actors it does have an interesting story line, mixing past and present with an unexpected twist. It's one of those movies you need to watch to the end and it all falls together. My only questions were how did the captain get back into the sub after it was sealed up during the war 80 years earlier? And how were the batteries still charged after 80 years? Its a relatively good Action/Thriller in the style of "The Final Countdown" or "The Philadelphia Experiment". Like I've always said "I've never seen a bad Sci-Fi movie" well maybe with the exception of "Christmas on Mars".