Depth Charge (2008) Reviews

• UInder Siege, underwater, underwhelming

  rbsjrx2008-09-02

  In "Under Siege", a group of terrorist/extortionist wackos hijack a battleship and threaten devastation with a nuclear cruise missile. Unknown to the bad guys, they don't completely get rid of the crew and the hero (Steven Seagal) kills them off in reverse order of billing. In "Depth Charge", it's a submarine rather than a battleship, Trident missiles rather than cruise missiles, and pair of generic white and black guys as the heroes. The only big names were Eric Roberts (villain) and Barry Bostwick (president), both of whom I noticed were missing from the credits list. As a TV movie, I might have given it a 5 or 6 for most of the show. However (and here comes the spoiler) I bumped it down to a 2 because of the ending. The script was passable and the performances reasonable (we won't go into the plot), but the direction was terrible - an example of paint-by-numbers direction! Toward the end, it got rushed which made the big climax anticlimactic. Worse, there was one bad guys left alive on the ship who's conveniently ignored as the two heroes congratulate each other on a job well done. I really wanted to throw things at the screen because of the director's incompetence! AVOID!!!

  More

• Kinda Like "Under Siege" Except In A Submarine And Really, Really Horrible

  rebelco2010-06-21

  You know how some movies are really bad that instead of being shown in theaters, they end up directly released to DVD? Well, this one is about a couple of levels lower and released directly to the bargain bin (although the garbage bin would've been more appropriate). Aside from all sense of logic and common sense being thrown out of the window, there isn't anything vaguely original about this film as they cut out slices from other more superior movies and tried to piece together a very messy pizza of a movie that was totally predictable and an insult to any semi-intelligent person watching it. It was essentially "Under Siege" except in a sub but they also stole scenes from "Crimson Tide" and "The Hunt For Red October" and ripped off "Air Force One" by repeatedly saying "Get Off My Sub" (by the 5th time I heard it, I was about ready to put myself in a self-induced comma). One of the fight scenes were reminiscent of "Total Recall" and when he got shot on the gut and treated his own wound, clearly an imitation of "Rambo 3". There were a couple of semi-familiar actors that played a very minor role on some semi-successful movies a million years ago but the rest of them, a collection of forgettable nobodys. The sets were decent enough but I wished they would've made more instead of using the same four ones 50 times. In the sound department, I was really annoyed by the non-stop continuous inspirational music as they had it on a little too loud that on some of the talking scenes, I could barely understand what the characters are saying. Had they have a scene of the president taking a dump in the toilet, they would have surely had loud, patriotic music blaring at the background....a moment of silence here and there would've been more appropriate. They left a lot of things unanswered so in order to save time and space, I'll list it in question form: I highly recommend not watching this "movie". If you are an insomniac or just want to fall asleep fast, then definitely watch it as it was an uphill battle to stay awake all throughout the flick....and even when I was awake, it was pretty painful to watch and during the first 10 seconds, long before the opening credits even finished rolling, I already know where this train wreck was going. Trimming your nose hair, popping zits from your face, and cleaning the lint from your belly button are more exciting activities compare to this and I would rather jump off a cliff than watch this garbage ever again but luckily for me, I live in the prairies so there are no cliffs to jump from but knowing how unpredictable Hollywood is and if somehow, someway, sequel(s) of this are ever made, I may have to dig myself one. Good riddance!!

  More

• A Good Action Movie But Could Have Been Better.

  Pratik1122008-08-30

  Similar to action movie themes such as the "Die Hard" Movies which starred Bruce Willis and "Under Siege," which starred Steven Segal. The difference is that this it involves a submarine and two men who try to regain the control of it. A American Nuclear Submarine is high jacked and the Government is threatened by Nuclear Missiles and the demand is that of firstly money and then the resignation of the President. But unknown to the demented captain of the submarine, two original members of the crew begin to ensure that his plans are distracted. The movie stars Jason Gedrick and Chris Warren Jnr and is directed by Terence O'Hara. As I have said in the summary, this could have been better and more-so, if you liked the "Die Hard" movies and "Under Siege." But never the less, the concept of this is good and is worth watching if you like to watch action movies.

  More

• Under Siege Under Water...sort of

  davidfurlotte2011-08-22

  In the movie "Under Siege" it was explained that Steven Segal was a former SEAL that now wanted nothing more than to be a cook, so it made sense when he was able to move around the ship and take out bad guys pretty easily. He was trained and we all knew it. In THIS movie we have a glorified medic who dropped out of high school and got into the navy when he was 25. (At least that is what his service record said according to the CIA.) So I've come up with a theory. I THINK that the 'doc' had recently watched "Under Siege" and in his spare time he practised all of Steven Segal's moves from the movie and he was just WAITING for the day somebody would take over 'his sub' so he could show his stuff. Either that or the Navy's Medical corps has evolved into some kind of Special Ops force that nobody knows about. Normally I don't like Eric Roberts in movies but his performance in this was excellent, it would have been nice if it was a film worthy of his performance, unfortunately this movie is NOT. His performance is the only reason I gave it 3 points. It would take a team of professional writers a minimum of two years to close up the plot holes in this movie. Like leaving a bad guy alive at the end or how two guys all by themselves are able to run all the systems on board a nuclear submarine. (Makes you have to wonder why all those other guys are on board the boat, doesn't it?) Oh, and you have to wonder where the bar is that all these former submariners hang out that can be recruited for piracy actions, etc. This movie has all the clichés of BAD action films. 1. Bad guys can NEVER hit what they're aiming at. 2. IF the good guys are hit, "it's only a flesh wound." 3. We have the token Asian female who knows how to fight but loses to the good guy. 4. When you CATCH the good guy who has been causing all the trouble you ALWAYS allow him an opportunity to escape AND when you DO catch him, you NEVER bother to tie him up or cuff him or anything like that. 5. The set has to expand to allow the good guys sufficient space to run and hide when they have to. All in all, give it a pass unless you are capable of submerging your brain.

  More

• Why do I watch these films ..

  ScanlonPJ2009-04-08

  I knew it was going to be bad, but still I watched it. It is full of silly plot holes, the script writers clearly knew less about submarines than they did about film making. The 2 good guys get shot, yet are still able to run around fighting the bad guys. They seem to have no trouble killing the bad guys - except when they have been knocked out - then they just leave them. The reactor turned off, but surprise surprise, they can still control the boat. Did one of them talk about running on diesel? Phone calls and video links whilst submerged? Oh come on. Bad film - avoid.

  More