I appreciate so much that this 1989 Roger Corman production in no small part demonstrates film-making sensibilities and production values of no later than the 1960s. Imagine if 'SeaQuest DSV' was a contemporary of the original 'Star Trek,' and you start to get a good sense of what's going on here. Despite obvious poor reception to the picture, I don't actually think it's half as bad as everyone makes it out to be: there's a distinct difference between a low-budget, low-grade feature with which people apparently refuse to engage on its chosen level, and a feature that's so poorly written or made as to demand abject vilification. 'Lords of the deep,' I believe, falls neatly into the former category, and not the latter. Yes, of course it's far from a major blockbuster, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun in its own right!
Recognizing the nature of this little flick, I think it's reasonably well made for what it is. I think the crew put in good work all around - production design, art direction, effects (including the creatures), and even the sometimes excitable editing and over the top cinematography. Mary Ann Fisher's direction seems perfectly competent to me in realizing Howard R. Cohen and Daryl Haney's screenplay, which of anything here is the sticking point for me. The story is fine in the broad strokes, even as it plays in some familiar territory. The scene writing is a little more thorny, I think, especially in those moments of '2001'-style "far-out" tripping. Such moments are overindulgent, and moreover require "spaced-out" acting and direction that I think constitute the weakest parts of the picture. Elsewhere, such as leading into the second half, scenes as written manifest some slothfulness in the pacing that bogs down the experience in some measure. And more than anything else, I think 'Lords of the deep' quite struggles to find just the right tone at any point, oscillating between "it's inspiring!" and "it's horrifying!" and back again, or sometimes just failing to carry much of a mood at all. If Fisher's contribution is to be condemned for anything, then maybe that's it - the writing fails to deliver a major spark, but so does her direction.
With all this in mind, the cast make what they can of what they are given. None of the acting makes any special impression; if anything, like the lacking immediacy of the film overall, the performances are just kind of flat. Again, however: this isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable. It's flawed, but modestly interesting and entertaining even such as it is. All the right ideas were here as far as I'm concerned - imagination, and intent, and skill - only, the result is less than vibrant, at best equal to the sum of its parts but not greater, and possibly lesser. When all is said and done I can honestly say that I like 'Lords of the deep,' and I'm not entirely sure why it's been the subject of such denigration over the past 30 years. In my mind the worst that can really be said is that it fails to evoke earnest thrills or otherwise active responses, but seeing as how the same is true of many more robustly financed genre flicks, well, I can't specifically blame this title. All told there's maybe no need to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across it, I think 'Lords of the deep' is a fairly good time, and worth checking out.
Recognizing the nature of this little flick, I think it's reasonably well made for what it is. I think the crew put in good work all around - production design, art direction, effects (including the creatures), and even the sometimes excitable editing and over the top cinematography. Mary Ann Fisher's direction seems perfectly competent to me in realizing Howard R. Cohen and Daryl Haney's screenplay, which of anything here is the sticking point for me. The story is fine in the broad strokes, even as it plays in some familiar territory. The scene writing is a little more thorny, I think, especially in those moments of '2001'-style "far-out" tripping. Such moments are overindulgent, and moreover require "spaced-out" acting and direction that I think constitute the weakest parts of the picture. Elsewhere, such as leading into the second half, scenes as written manifest some slothfulness in the pacing that bogs down the experience in some measure. And more than anything else, I think 'Lords of the deep' quite struggles to find just the right tone at any point, oscillating between "it's inspiring!" and "it's horrifying!" and back again, or sometimes just failing to carry much of a mood at all. If Fisher's contribution is to be condemned for anything, then maybe that's it - the writing fails to deliver a major spark, but so does her direction.
With all this in mind, the cast make what they can of what they are given. None of the acting makes any special impression; if anything, like the lacking immediacy of the film overall, the performances are just kind of flat. Again, however: this isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable. It's flawed, but modestly interesting and entertaining even such as it is. All the right ideas were here as far as I'm concerned - imagination, and intent, and skill - only, the result is less than vibrant, at best equal to the sum of its parts but not greater, and possibly lesser. When all is said and done I can honestly say that I like 'Lords of the deep,' and I'm not entirely sure why it's been the subject of such denigration over the past 30 years. In my mind the worst that can really be said is that it fails to evoke earnest thrills or otherwise active responses, but seeing as how the same is true of many more robustly financed genre flicks, well, I can't specifically blame this title. All told there's maybe no need to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across it, I think 'Lords of the deep' is a fairly good time, and worth checking out.