Lords of the Deep

Pathetically poor production from Roger Corman and directed by Mary Ann Fisher about sometime in the future when more habitable living space is needed - so a company is trying to mine the depths of the oceans as a future home for mankind. We get to look in on the daily lives of a small group of scientists led by Bradford Dillman as they find another living form hitherto unknown to man. The plot pretext doesn't sound all that bad, but you are in store for a real "treat" as we get nowhere fast with the plot, some inane dialog, some incredibly poor special effects, a pace that would make the tortoise bored, and acting from a paper bag by Dillman and even worse pretty Priscella Barnes trying to convince the audience and the camera that she can act dramatically. There are a couple scenes, where Priscella has just witnessed a killing or heard of one, and she still looks like she smiles throughout the whole proceedings. But worst of all - this film is just plain boring. Nothing of any real note happens, and it has some ludicrous end to try and wrap it all up.

In the future, the government has established colonies on the bottom of the ocean to contend with the threats of global warming. Priscilla Barnes plays a scientist who becomes dazzled by what discoveries she makes living underwater.

This is dull, dull, dull. There is no action, no violence or nudity, and Roger Corman has a cameo. The special effects are passable, but some of this stuff is lifted from past Corman flicks, which ads to the cheapness. Mostly, the characters just talk a lot, and argue.

This is no way to spend 79 minutes, unless you like looking in at fake aquariums.

I maintain that the films in the preemptive strike against The Abyss's freshness are all more entertaining than James Cameron's odiously idealistic and cliché-ridden special effects bonanza of the same year. I can't stress enough, however, that Michael Biehn's performance as Coffi is the best performance out of the many films of this nature released that year.

LORDS OF THE DEEP is no exception despite the hindrances of its low production value. Unlike the other fairly rushed efforts it deals with peaceful aliens, much like THE ABYSS, and the problems come from its villain, played very well by Bradford Dillman. It deals with environmental issues and doesn't do it with the same nasty insubordinate tone of James Cameron's disgustingly evil ideas in the propaganda that is THE ABYSS.

The aliens themselves are a treat when you see them and they're quite cool to look at.

The plot itself, especially the actions of Dillman's villain, is absolutely serviceable, as is the music.

I wouldn't rate it as good as LEVIATHAN, DEEPSTAR SIX, or even THE RIFT, because it doesn't have much re-watchability, owing to the lack of special effects, but it's fine for chilling out to.

The main thing I took from this movie was that I want the horrible jumpsuit that they all wear, it's so 80s yet also timeless. The movie was bizarre yet somehow boring. The energy from the cast was as if they were all acting in different movies. The commander was in a Shakespeare play for some reason and all the other men looked exactly the same and I was lost honestly. The only way I could get around this was by giving them all stargate character names since the one guy is called jack O'Neill. It's a good film to make fun of

I had read many of the reviews before deciding to watch this anyway. So, I was not expecting much going in.

Many of the reviewers belch out their complaint that it is an "Abyss" ripoff. I guess it is simpler to condemn something and not research anything. In fact, though, Abyss was released over 2 months AFTER Lords of the Deep. So, if their was any "copying" going on, it looks to me that Abyss was copying Lords.

Abyss had 70 million dollars to stick in to the production, whereas Lords of the Deep doesn't even list their budget. Obviously, it was vastly less than 70 million dollars. And it showed.

That is about it for me defending this movie. It was not very good at all. I'm no director, so I cannot say just what I would have done differently, but the "acting" was more "reciting" than acting.

It is set over 30 years in the future, after humans have obliterated earth's resources, so they have moved under sea. I guess. There must be something still going on "up top" because they are continually referencing a replacement crew.

Most bad movies, for me anyway, have something I can grasp onto and hope for more. This thing never gave me a thing. Nevertheless, I was still prepared to give it a 4 star rate. That is, until the final 2 minute sermon. Honestly, if it had had a British accent, I would have been certain it was Greta Thunberg.

Generally, I can give an "if this" or "if that," then watch it. There is really no reason to watch it. Unless you are like me, and just want to see what all the bellyaching is about. I won't ask for my time back, but if it ever gets to the point that this is the ONLY movie left on the planet...I think I will just read a book instead.