|
Underwater is film of the year already. If you’re on the fence, just watch it.
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Simplex posted:The premise looks heavily lifted from Leviathan, Deep Star Six, The Abyss, Lords of the Deep and probably 30 other films I'm not remembering. I doubt anyone's interested in this movie unless they have prior knowledge of some interesting twist to the formula. Although it’s obviously part of the same genre as the Abyss or whatever, the style is entirely different. Where those films tend to be fairly “locked down”, Underwater has the dynamic handheld camerawork of a later Michael Mann film (e.g. Public Enemies). It’s also drum-tight and relentlessly paced, moreso than ‘atmospheric’. It’s a full-on disaster movie that just happens to have sea creatures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2020 04:56
|
|
|
Free Drinks posted:How is their design? Comparable to any of the previous undersea monster movies, or is it just fishmen. Minor spoiler: They look like wormy little squid things. Main Spoiler: Those are just babies; the actual creatures are beluga-sized Cloverfield monsters. (The movie functions as an unofficial Cloverfield 2 - Cloverfields - to such a degree that I thought it official.) Don’t read yet: At the very-very end, K-Stew goes to the source of the things and finds that it’s the best onscreen depiction of Cthulhu, which drives her mad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
^^^ There are references to the setting of Alien, but the narrative is entirely different. You may as well say it’s ripping off Outland. Incidentally: Free Drinks posted:I was worried that it was going to pull a bullshit move of having the things that appear in the trailer just be some dream poo poo and this just be a thriller about a underwater facility getting crunched. Underwater is the extremely rare type of genuinely Lovecraftian creature feature, where the monsters cause insanity rather than the reverse (and without recourse to magic powers). That’s to say there’s never any question that the creatures are real, so why all the talk of hallucinations? It’s a film where the mental health of the characters is directly tied to their material conditions in a very direct and straightforward way: the characters’ sanity depends on the facility working ‘as it should’ - the suits, the doors, etc. Access to air. Everything around them is an extension of the body, and therefore if the mind. But they’re also clearly miserable long before the disaster. Although Norah has dialogue about her dead fiancé or whatever, we never actually see this. Her feelings of powerlessness of course actually stem from the ominous warnings about the corporation in the opening credits - from the fact that she and the other workers have no control over the means of production. The death of the finance is just a rationalization. We’re not just talking unionization here; it’s almost impossible to not read this as a climate change story. Sudden massive changes in water temperature affecting habitats, etc. There’s no point in the film where the machine isn’t breaking down. And yet: when Norah detonates herself (and the whole facility) to nuke Cthulhu, there’s no avoiding the fact that she apparently, inexplicably, survives. Is this a dream? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jan 12, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2020 08:54
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I took that to be more like the end of 'Sunshine', where time essentially becomes meaningless at the moment of detonation. That's not how, like, 'time' or 'explosions' work. An explosion is not altering the fabric of spacetime and/or reversing causality or something. Sunshine ends as it does because the ship is effectively flying into a black hole. What we have in this film is simply a cut. It's a break in the narrative logic of the film - which had, up until that point, been very linear. Things had transpired in chronological order, albeit with some distortions (e.g. when Norah refers to events from 'two hours ago', it certainly doesn't feel like two hours have passed). Then, suddenly, we shift into achronological storytelling that aligns with the Sin City-style posthumous monologue. The character persists in the narrative after her death. But what does this mean?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
Free Drinks posted:Her opening her eyes is her actually closing them, it's played in reverse. I took it simply as a different way of having the "flip you off while I blow us both up" moment to the bad guy. Just a depiction of the catharsis she achieved by taking the fish men and Cthulhu out . That’s kind of half-right, because it is obviously metaphorical. But what are the fishmans going to do? Take over the Earth? They have difficulty killing unarmed people, and they’re highly vulnerable to guns & bombs. This is where the parallels to Alien do become important, because Underwater is in a conversation with Alien. Like, for example, Norah’s posthumous monologue mirrors Ripley’s final transmission before going to sleep - where she is uncertain if she will ever wake up again, but still hopeful: “Cargo and ship destroyed. I should reach the frontier in about six weeks. With a little luck, the network will pick me up. This is Ripley, last survivor of The Nostromo, signing off.” The conventional (mis)reading of Alien is that Ripley heroically stopped at nothing to crush the alien rat-monster that threatened innocent humanity. This bad interpretation was ‘canonized’ in the James Cameron sequel: “If one of those things gets down here [to Earth], then that will be all! And all this - this bullshit that you think is so important, you can just kiss all that goodbye!” What the hell is Ripley talking about? The alien is basically just a big panther. But, nonetheless, people are enamoured by how Cameron’s Ripley cuts through the “bullshit” to ruthlessly exterminate the entire species. Nothing else matters to her. But the truth of Alien is that the creature is not the enemy. In its particular way - in its ‘blind’ destructiveness - the alien helps Ripley to destroy her true enemy: the arch-capitalist Mother computer. It pushes Ripley to accomplish what she couldn’t on her own (recall the enormous reluctance and difficulty Ripley has in arming the self-destruct). Ripley begins her arc by enforcing quarantine, determined to protect the ship against an injured coworker - a coworker that Mother had automatically, unthinkingly endangered. Cameron’s version is ultimately in defence of that bullshit. The inciting incident of Alien is when Mother detects the alien distress signal and gradually boots up the systems, preparing to send the ‘expendable’ crew into danger for profit. The inciting incident of Underwater is a mining accident that destroys half the facility and kills over 300 people. The stakes are higher than ever; the system not just coldly hostile; it itself is breaking down and taking us with it. So, long story short, Norah’s ultimate decision is not to nuke Cthulhu; it’s to nuke the company whose pursuit of profit endangers everyone. And while the plot is literally about a woman who dies to accomplish this, the point of the metaphorical narrative is that her readiness to die is what really matters - the change in her subjective stance, from going along with it to actively opposing it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 05:19
|
|
|
BiggestBatman posted:This take is reinforced by the ending titles of the film too. While we're accustomed to horror movies ending with a sign that the monster hasn't quite been defeated, here what we get is a newspaper headline that the company is going to start drilling again. That’s where we get the ambiguity of the ending, because Norah dying to protect the couple stands for a sort of restoration of ‘normalcy’ and ‘balance’. (The woman, Emily, objected to the company on the grounds human greed is harming Mother Earth or whatever. Norah correctly points out that Emily is i]not wrong,[/i] but not right either; the problem is systemic, and so a ‘green’ capitalism is not a solution). Obviously Norah has so much invested in that couple because of how her fiancé died. But then, it’s pointed out that his decision to dive alone was an act of rebellion: diving without a buddy is against corporate policy. There’s a bit of a fantasy that, if she had her husband, things would be ok. But, clearly, the state of the world at the end is not ok. Killing all the Cloverfields to save the couple is almost helpful to the company, because it’s aiding in the coverup - and they obviously don’t really care too much about the loss of the already-compromised facility. This again shows the film’s improvement over Aliens: Cameron’s Ripley is a ‘badass’ who doesn’t care how much it costs to exterminate the aliens - and neither does the company. Though they gloss over it, the loss of the one facility is a write-off for an interplanetary mining company, and they can easily rebuild in pretty much the same place. Despite acting like a rebel, Ripley and the company are in total agreement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
banned from Starbucks posted:The company is evil part wasnt handled very well either imo. They come across as more BP evil than WY evil. "Theyre silencing the survivors!" Ok...and. what's the response? A nuclear explosion happens in the ocean and the worlds just like.."welp they're stonewalling us, oh well" cue credits. Lol. Just to focus on this part - the popular conception of Weyland-Yutani as cartoonishly evil is a strong example of ‘Kirk Drift.’ It’s based on a telephone-game of cumulative misreadings and exaggerations. In Alien 1, the higher-ups in the corporation accidentally program the Mother computer to kill the crew because (as with Skynet) Mother takes their orders more seriously than they themselves do. So a simple order to obtain alien samples for profit is executed with ruthless efficiency where a human would have some ‘commonsense’ self-limitation. In Alien 2, the corporation is presented as totally neutral. The bad stuff happens because greedy, scheming criminal Burke violates company policy, while Ripley works with the company - for the company - to secure their operations and stop Burke. Alien 3 is close to being the exception, because Ripley now thinks Bishop 2 is literally the antichrist. But this isn’t due to the company doing anything atypically egregious for a corporation. Rather, it’s because Ripley is out of her gourd having apocalyptic visions. Tian Corporation‘s half-assed coverup is more evil than anything Weyland-Yutani does in the Alien films. Like, as a direct contrast, W-Y does nothing to disguise the fact that they manufacture bioweapons. It’s all legal and above-the-board.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 07:49
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Wrong, Special Order 937 full on says "crew expendable", like it's literally in the order itself. There was no accident there, it's not like this was a HAL9000 situation where the AI had conflicting orders and went nuts. Special Order 937 flat out says "get specimens, and if the crew gets in the way then kill them". I did not say that Mother is like HAL (who accidentally develops a humanlike psychology after being programmed to lie). I wrote that mother is like Skynet (who unexpectedly takes her programming to its logical extreme). You need to be careful to prevent mistakes like this. Read carefully and be mindful of context. Since this is not the Alien thread, I’ll quickly isolate the specific point where you get tripped up. Using only information from the movie Alien (and none of the comics or whatever), answer the following: 1) Who gives Special Order 937? 2) Who is it given to? 3) When is it given? Answer: Mother herself gives the Special Order directly to Ash shortly after the characters wake up. The order is not given by anyone at the company; they are out of communications range at that point. If you answered that ‘the order is given by Weyland-Yutani executives to Mother long before the events of the film’, that is incorrect. That plot is a retcon of the film’s events, from various EU sources. The first line of the order is “Nostromo rerouted to new co-ordinates.” That’s past tense, meaning the ship was already en route to this specific location when the order was written. Also, Mother’s programmers obviously didn’t intentionally authorize her to kill the CEO of the company or blow up the Earth in the pursuit of an alien. But those are unavoidable possible interpretations of her ‘First Priority’. That’s the joke: mother is super-humanly capitalist. Xenomrph posted:Why we're talking about this in the Underwater thread is beyond me, though. We are talking about the motives of the films’ antagonists, and how they relate to those of characters in other films. The Tian Corporation in Underwater, in its banality, is actually presented in a far harsher light than in Alien. Everyone at the start of the film is well aware that bad things are going to happen, but they’ve resigned themselves to it - trudging towards disaster because everyone feels powerless to effect change. The company’s like “eh, we’ll figure something out”. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
^^^ Thank you Sir Kodiak for the summary. Xenomrph posted:it's not like this was a HAL9000 situation where the AI had conflicting orders and went nuts. Special Order 937 flat out says "get specimens, and if the crew gets in the way then kill them". You’ve mixed up Special Order 237 (which is a confidential message written for Ash) with the clause under Section 8 of the employees’ contracts: “Well, we are obligated under section eight...” “There is a clause in the contract which specifically states any systematized transmission indicating a possible intelligent origin must be investigated... on penalty of total forfeiture of shares.” Mother is programmed to automatically enforce this clause if she intercepts any transmission, which is why she does. Section 8 is obviously not confidential; the crew are all openly discussing it. It is standard procedure to wake the crew and head towards the source of a transmission. Mother, however, has begun to decode the alien transmission and learned that there is a “Life Form” on the moon. So, she drafts Special Order 937 and sends it to Ash. Ash, the specific crewman, is ordered to gather a specimen of that specific “Life Form” at those specific coordinates (preferably the complete organism). Mother is programmed to serve the interests of the corporation, but she is not ordered to murder the crew. That’s not what “expendable” means. Mother is simply programmed to make cost/benefit analyses in the pursuit of profit. Now, we can go over all the little errors one-by-one, but the point is not to quibble over the minutia of the Alien universe; it’s fiction. The point is to get to the source of all the errors. What’s up with your methodology? To put a point on it, the fundamental mistake is is continually depoliticizing the films by dismissing characters as “just nuts”. HAL just goes nuts and kills people. Skynet just goes nuts and kills people. Mother doesn’t go nuts but her bosses are just kill-crazy maniacs high on greed.... All these characters actually have sensible motivations. Skynet was programmed to defend the military-industrial complex against communists, so it kills off the human workers and replaces them with drones - automated factories just aimlessly harvesting resource, to build drones, in order to harvest more resources. It’s not crazy. It was told to defend capitalism against ‘enemies’. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jan 16, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Special Order 937 specifies gathering a lifeform - how would Mother know there even was a lifeform to gather? It’s in the transmission, which she has been decoding. The decoding of the transmission is visualized in the famous titles, where strange lines become the word “Alien”. But again, the point is not to correct you on your knowledge of Alien’s plot. The issue is with the fantasies about how a corporation works, why people do crimes, and what a conspiracy looks like. Conspiracies do, of course, exist. Mother and Ash are conspiring to ignore health and safety regulations in order to increase their chances of catching the creature (this is very different from murder, by the way). The company has also been conspiring against the workers by using loyal robots to keep tabs on them. Actual conspiracies are very banal. In conspiracy theories, on the other hand, we fantasize a dark “god of the gaps” who takes the form of whatever shadowy cabal. The point is to come up with a comforting explanation of why things go wrong. In your theory, things go wrong because the company knows everything in advance and plans it all down to the minutest detail. Then they send a single robot, in a tugboat. The robot is very fragile and has been provided no useful weapons or equipment - but he has been given over 20,000,000 tons of mineral ore. The sensible conclusion is that the conspiracy theory is incorrect; obviously the tugboat was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s why there’s only one robot, that’s why they’re terribly ill-prepared to capture the monster, that’s why they’re carrying 20,000,000 tons of mineral ore, etc. Of course, the conspiracy theorist now says “that’s why they want you to think! They’re using a useless tugboat with no weapons to make the crew’s deaths look like an accident!” But, wait, the goal isn’t to kill the crew. That makes no sense. By mother’s own admission, they just don’t care if the workers survive or not, because they’re just assets. Why bring witnesses along just to kill them? Etc. Underwater is a great film because it shuts this nonsense down before it can start. There’s no evil AI computer-god to get confused over, there’s no way to interpret this as some kind of jewish plot. The fish men aren’t valuable, and the company doesn’t pursue them. The mining operation is simply profitable enough to offset the cost of the inevitable disasters. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jan 17, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I dunno man, when SMG's point is "Mother is willing to get people killed, something the Company wouldn't approve of", which hinges on the Company not approving of Special Order 937. I wrote nothing of the sort. Like, nothing about “approval” at all. I’ve warned you to be careful. The point of Alien is that, where a human person might say “uh, this is a bit silly”, or feel bad about it, Mother indefatigably pursues the alien up to her death by nuclear explosion. This is the basic point of making Mother an operating system rather than a human character. She is the ‘embodiment’ of the corporation’s logic - its policies, practices, internal rules and regulations, etc. And this is where we’re getting back to the problem of depoliticization: if you are a worker, you are already expendable to your employers. That’s why things like labour laws exist. We’re talking of progressive struggle. You don’t need to fantasize a crappy murder conspiracy. Movies like Alien and Underwater are about actual things experienced by people in reality. Lose sight of that, and you get stuff like this: quote:This is what feels like a mixed message - Norah notices the plans to drill in the precise spot where the fish men are, but no attention is given to that point. So were Tian after the fish men or not? No, they are not drilling for fishmen. That’s ridiculous - like saying that the companies producing carbon emissions are trying to obtain Australian wildfires and dead koala bears. There is zero ambiguity here. They are not drilling for fishmen. The innovation of Underwater is that the creatures are presented as a byproduct of the corporation’s functioning. In this way, the film’s politics align with those of District 9 - in which the magical ‘xenomorphs’ are more accurately understood as simply homeless people with guns. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jan 17, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Yes, you did: That’s not what ‘condescending’ means. I am not treating you as stupid. This bad paraphrase: "Mother is willing to get people killed, something the Company wouldn't approve of" Is the opposite of what I actually wrote: “In Alien 1, the higher-ups in the corporation accidentally program the Mother computer to kill the crew because (as with Skynet) Mother takes their orders more seriously than they themselves do.” Why are these sentences opposite? Because a pre-programmed ‘willingness’ to treat workers as expendable resources is not the same as being ordered to kill six specific people (and yourself). Those are different things. The one thing is the cause of the other, different thing. Here’s a rephrasing to help demonstrate: -Mother is ordered to treat the workers as resources. -Mother takes this order extremely seriously. -As a result, Mother kills a bunch of people. Because you missed or ignored the “because”, you lost track of cause and effect. Because of that, you read my post to mean Mother was not really ordered to do anything and just ‘went nuts’. That’s a misreading. Because of such repeated misreadings, I urged you to be careful. I attribute your skipping over words, and glossing cover grammatical nuances, to carelessness - not stupidity. But it is affecting your literacy. Another example: quote:Again, what was there to "cover up"? The characters spell out a ready-made natural explanation for the disaster that removes all culpability from the corporation. In a fairly straightforward metaphor for climate change, the Tian corporation is covering up the existence of the creatures because they don’t want people to do anything about the extremely high risk of creature-related ecocatastrophe. The creatures are a deadly byproduct of the drilling operation - not only endangering the workers, but certainly threatening to have a devastating impact on the ocean ecosystem. But the corporation wants to keep drilling. They are not trying to catch the creatures.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:KStew's rekindled hope, then, just continues a cycle as the movie ends essentially as it starts, with newspaper clippings describing a disaster and then efforts to rebuild. Is the movie trying to argue that the inspiration to rebuild after a disaster only provokes further disasters? That would give the movie an effective punchline, but is that enough to make the rest of the movie less trite? The 'tragedy' of the film is that Norah dies right as she finally gets the right idea, of giving herself completely to protecting the workers and fighting the company. But this is why Norah is ultimately shown impossibly alive after her death: outside the unending downward spiral of disaster and reconstruction, it is this spirit that persists - even despite the coverup. So while the corporation announces plans to drill again, Norah has opened up a new opportunity for us to put a halt to those plans. It's important that the creatures aren't an immediate threat to her. She's not really concerned about them, outside of protecting the two coworkers, and just dispassionately blows up the facility.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:No, Ash's presence wasn't some kind of corporate automation initiative, he was there as an act of deception. What you're suggesting is something you'd expect from a bizarre corporate apologist looking for the "good" justification for obviously bad behavior. Alien was made in the 1970s and, from that standpoint, predicts that human workers in the future will be cheaper than robots. There is only one robot because robots are expensive. (Along these same lines, although Ripley speculates that the company wants the alien to sell as a weapon, the more likely explanation is that it's a potentially-cheaper worker than either a human or a robot - inexpensive to produce, built-in spacesuit, etc. Its usefulness as a weapon is dubious). Here we should point out that Ash is not a robotic arm on an assembly line. He is obviously designed to resemble a human in a way that is entirely superfluous to (and, in all likelihood, hampers) his role as Science Officer. This is because Ash's primary task is to help management spy on the workers. You are not wrong on that point. But the mistake, as before, is that you speculate that this spying is evidence of a far-reaching satanic conspiracy, instead of a mundane union-busting tactic. (All Ash's 900+ "Special Orders" are implicitly to prevent the workers from uniting against Mother and the company). And again: this mistake is the result of depoliticization. The conspiracy theory depends on ignoring the role of labour, costs, resources, the company's profit motive, etc. The executives just 'go nuts' and lie out of malice. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jan 18, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Spite posted:But since this is the Underwater thread, I'll leave it there. This is important to the Underwater thread because the film is, for all intents and purposes, a direct sequel to Alien. But, more importantly, we’re getting into basic questions of, like, why are corporations bad? What makes a corporation bad? If the assertion is that corporations are bad because they’re selling weapons, flagrantly breaking the law, killing people, etc.... well, ‘you’re not wrong’ as Norah says in the film - but that is also far from being true. The vast majority of companies don’t do such things, and companies are bad regardless of whether such things occur. The worst excesses are entirely legal and enacted without malice by boring good people, because systemic problems exist and persist regardless of anyone’s intentionality. This is where it might be helpful to move from Ash to Bishop. Bishop is, by all accounts, a good and honest person - but he exists for the same reason Ash does: to prevent the workers from uniting against their employer. He simply does so by fostering a spirit of friendship between workers and the company, instead of Ash’s bad optics. Almost 60 years after Alien 1, Bishop is part of Weyland-Yutani’s efforts to rebrand itself as a progressive, ethical corporation. He literally provides a human face for the company, speaks in the language of political correctness, etc. But the fact that Bishop is a nice and honest person makes his service more deceitful than Ash’s, not less, because the exploitation of the workers remains the same. This corporate progressivism papers over the fundamental antagonism that is class struggle. Although the company still has a “Bioweapons Division”, Bishop would certainly - and without lying - tell you that those weapons are being developed for humanitarian purposes, to protect the colonies against such terrible threats as the xenomorph. This is why I emphasize that the alien is not the enemy, but actually Ripley’s unnatural ally. This is where Underwater extrapolates from Alien out to the level of ecolosystem. Its message, with its image of humanoid creatures parasitically attached to a collosal leviathan (resembling Junji Ito’s The Thing That Drifted Ashore), is this: “What unites us is that, in contrast to the classic image of proletarians who have ‘nothing to lose but their chains’, we are in danger of losing everything. The threat is that we will be reduced to an abstract, empty Cartesian subject dispossessed of all our symbolic content, with our genetic base manipulated, vegetating in an unliveable environment. This triple threat makes us all proletarians, reduced to ‘substanceless subjectivity’, as Marx put it in the Grundrisse. The figure of the ‘part of no part’ confronts us with the truth of our own position; and the ethico-political challenge is to recognize ourselves in this figure. In a way, we are all excluded, from nature as well as from our symbolic substance. Today, we are all potentially homo sacer, and the only way to avoid actually becoming so is to act preventively.” -Zizek, my bolding As a contrast to, say, James Cameron’s The Abyss, Underwater is interesting because that it doesn’t romanticize the water at all. The film emphasizes its opacity, its choking thickness - air pollution, antithetical to human life. In Lovecraft tradition, the creatures are mutants - altered by evolution, over the course of eons, to barely-survive in this hideous place. The image of the creatures is of course, to Norah, a vision of humanity’s future as well as a reflection of her present struggle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:My main observation is that it felt like it was missing its first act. We never get to see anything functioning properly or the station operating normally for a minute to orient us before everything goes wrong; we probably should have followed the research assistant down for her first day or something. It's a big ingredient--all the Alien movies had it except Resurrection, which sucked the hardest, The Abyss, The Thing, even fuckin Avatar, we need to see the thing that's going to be getting knocked down before it does. The thing that’s getting knocked down is the crumbling rig, and what we see operating ‘normally’ are the evacuation procedures. Underwater is, quietly, a post-apocalyptic film. It’s not a mistake; the premise is that poo poo’s irreparably hosed. And that’s a deliberate contrast to Avatar’s narrative of gradualist improvement through temporary crises. In Cameron’s The Abyss, as with Aliens, there is no particular criticism of the drilling company. We actually have something of an alliance between the liberal company and the benevolent aliens, against insane conservative-types, as they work towards utopia. (The only twist in Avatar is that the role of the liberal company is filled by the organic computer-god Eywa who, in exchange for massive amounts of resources, provides an incredibly elaborate simulation of ‘nature’).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:I haven't watched Underwater, but I'm interested in checking out some underwater horror movies, so I'm looking for recommendations. Which of The Abyss, Leviathan, and Deepstar Six are worth checking out? Or, if there's a different movie I should consider, let me know. It sounds like Underwater is a bit on the derivative side, but feel free to make a case for it too. Underwater is easily the best underwater horror film (and arguably the best horror film to be set entirely in the ocean at all). There isn’t much competition. The Abyss is about on par, and maybe a little better - but it isn’t a horror movie. Leviathan and Deep Star Six are its closest rivals, but are both very mediocre. Neither is as good as Virus (the Jaime Lee Curtis boat movie). Everything else I’ve encountered just sucks out loud.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Yeah; there are still some decent ones out there. (I recommend the obscure TV movie Shark Of Darkness, which is a mockumentary/slasher hybrid about a giant shark.) But that brings us further away from the extreme deep-sea alien horror and more into Jaws territory.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2020 23:46
|
|