Arctic Armageddon

Having been in the military I tend to get a little critical over technical inaccuracies. This movie was one of the worst I've seen. On the submarine, haircuts, uniforms, rank structure, and submarine features were so far off to be laughable. The submarine's executive officer (XO) wore the rank of a first class petty officer a mid-level enlisted grade ... not an officer. The helmsman wore the rank of a seaman, but referred to as a petty officer. It was inferred that the submarine had to frequently surface to exchange air. Torpedoes were launched through what appeared to me the missile launch tubes. Decisions at the Pentagon were being called by the Secretary of Homeland Security rather than the Secretary of Defense. I could go on an on but I'd advise skipping this one unless viewing for the comic effect.

The actors are awful, the scenario is awful, the special effects are awful, everything is awful, to the point that they almost match the worst film ever filmed.

However, I enjoyed it. A lot. I laughed at the indigent play of the actors, of the green screen effects, at the scenario which merits an igNobel Prize in Physics, everything is so low-cost that Ryan Air becomes Air France face to this inept film.

However, I enjoyed the hairstyle of the actress playing Dr Wood, I will ask my wife to copy that haircut.

Finally, I would like to thank the director who perpetrated this film. I spent an enjoyable moment by laughing in front of my TV.

The first moment they show the navy sub that plays a central role in the movie, they show what looks like an auditorium, with a vaulted ceiling, not even a pretense of the tight spaces of a real submarine, and the cheesiest mock-up of radar stations I've ever seen. Then the Commanding Officer calls a woman "Commander" and "XO" (Executive Officer) who is wearing the proper insignia of a First Class Petty Officer (E-6), which is beyond stupid. It seems like they did it as a joke to see if anyone would notice. Every moment looks like something completely different from a submarine CO giving orders to his crew.

All the other comments about the acting are really true. The acting is Mark-Hamill-as-Luke-Skywalker-in-the-first-Star-Wars-movie bad. I can't understand what inspired the 7 out of 10 rating, but it's certainly one of the worst movies you should spare yourself the trouble of watching.

I almost gave this a 3 star, even hoped for a 4, but that was just the first five minutes of the movie. After that it was clear that everyone associated with this movie is clueless in their role. I only gave a 2 because a very few actors and the camera work was worthy.

Where to start?

The script is AWFUL. Not only the words, but the staging (the director takes responsibility for some of this also), the events and responses, everything. And the actors, could you be more stiff? Admittedly I would have had a hard time delivering those lines knowing how awful the script was.

Throughout the movie the viewer constantly loses attention, wondering why they do/say what they did, events/actions that don't make sense, places that don't look real, often don't even look like they fit.

And whomever was responsible for stages (writer, director, and production team) find other jobs. One example, and my biggest gripe (of many)... have you never seen a submarine movie?

A little advice, look up the term "suspension of disbelief". Its key to the art.

First, there's no action. It's all talk. And it's all "scientific" blah blah blah that bores you.

Then, you have what could be considered a confidential and impactful conversation in front of all crew members.

The special effects are so bad and every frame feels that they are in a set or stage. It's just awful.

Even at the most "action" moments, there's so much talk. OMG.

I wonder if the actors make these films because they need money or if they are doing someone a favor because I'd be embarrassed to be in a film like this one.

Save yourself time and don't watch this movie. It is honestly not worth watching.