• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Submerged - review

Wow, I thought this was one of SS better movies to date. If only it had a bigger budget, story was good but I did not go into the movie expecting "Nico", "Marked For Death" or any of his early theatre days!

The Voice Dubbing really hurt this film, not just SS dubs but the other cast as well, and how the camera was always focused away while another voice dubbed SS speach.

...BMatt
 
BrunnenMatt said:
Wow, I thought this was one of SS better movies to date. If only it had a bigger budget, story was good but I did not go into the movie expecting "Nico", "Marked For Death" or any of his early theatre days!

The Voice Dubbing really hurt this film, not just SS dubs but the other cast as well, and how the camera was always focused away while another voice dubbed SS speach.

...BMatt
Ahhh another person who thought Submerged was good! :D :D

I don't know why people like seeing cartoon submarines, literally no fight scenes, so much dubbing, and Seagal in the dark so much to hide his aging and weight on his face.
 
tenshinaikidoka said:
Oh yeah, I personally thought that Into The Sun was superior in everyway to Submerged, but this is my opinion. I also thought Into The Sun was the best work since, well, a long long time!!!
Finally a sane member on this site when it comes to judging Seagal films! :D :D

Into The Sun, I loved that movie, I really did, Submerged, blah! Need I say more. :D :D
 

Nick

The Writer
When you are backed against the wall. With no exit in sight, you might ask yourself "What am I willing to do for survival". Am I willing to lower my standards? Extinguish the flames of my ego? Am I basically willing to prostitute myself for survival?

Steven Seagal has become a true King of the Direct to Video Market. He is a ruler of endless plains of DVD's. There's no one that can quite compare to him. Van Damme and Snipes seem mere peasants.

That being said, so far we haven't truly saw the desperation in his eyes until this movie came along. How low can he go you asked? The answer came along in the form of this Film.

With the plot being similar to Manchurian Candidate you ask yourself "Is this going to a Tribute, Parody, or Direct Copy?". I am not sure how I can answer. Let's see what metaphor I can think of. We can make a comparison to quicksand. It sucks you in to it so quickly you just never had the time to assemble all the pieces. But wait that's quite not right. It's more like mud. It's a mess that is being pushed aside with you two feet. But there's an endless amount of it. You will never quite be able to make a path for yourself in time. There's hack writers who write tripe like Wild Things 2 and 3 or even Single White Female 2: The Psycho. But whoever wrote this Film, like Seagal is the King of his trade. Congratulations on giving me a headache. Maybe they conspired with pharmaceutical companies. Bad Film = Headache = Advil = Money For Both.

But we don't see Steven's Films for the Plot do we? They used to be decent a long time ago through, hack even great with Hard to Kill. But we come to expect different things with time. We come for the Fight Sequences. This brings me to my next point. If you have Seagal aboard your Project why would you only use him for Two Fights?

We will never know the answer, but are these two fights at least good? How can I answer the question without hurting your feelings? I simply can't. I can only be bold. What do you expect from twenty second fight scenes with almost no choreography? It's basically twenty seconds of Slap Fighting which is a new martial Arts Form introduced by Steven in the last five years.

The first one had so much potential. You have Gary Daniels as the opponent facing Seagal. But what does the Director decide to do? He intercuts it with a terrible fight scene happening in some other quarter of the submarine. And the length... I frowned, I sighted, and I shook my head. Side to side not up and down. I should time it but I don't believe it’s longer than say twenty seconds. Was it supposed to top the knife fights in Under Siege 1 and 2? Well you failed. And that's the other thing. It's a knife fight. I fell in love with the previous ones, couldn't you put some thought in to it. Being lazy equals terrible results. The main question is. Was he doubled? I am not sure. I can't be bothered to check. There were enough far away shots who knows. Plus the terrible lighting.

The second fight was especially great said I sarcastically. Not only was it a few seconds longer but it had Stevie doubled every second shot. Basically every shot not showing his face. Must be hard business flailing your arms about to non existent choreography. The insurance company must have come in and said "This is way too dangerous Mr. Seagal."

I should stop wasting my time Reviewing something that belongs in a garbage bin. What can I give a movie like this? Steven looked physically sick. He was sitting for the majority of the movie. And in some scenes his face just made me look away. It was an awful sight. His voice was dubbed throughout the majority of this gem of a Film. I love the walkie-talkie scene. He couldn't even say a single line. And the fights which can usually save a terrible Film were clear-air echo's.

I will give it 1/5 just for the two decent car scenes and the fact that the shoot outs actually looked somewhat gruesome compared to his other Direct to Video Films. Anthony Hickox has done four good Films in his lifetime. Three of them I loved as a kid and still enjoy. They are Waxwork 1 & 2 and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat. The last is Hellraiser 3: Hell on Earth. I recall him writing Waxwork in just a few days. He probably followed the same formula with this project just to have drivel highlighting numerous pages of paper. What a waste of good paper. Whatever he had to offer with his previous projects isn't found here.

I try to be open-minded, non-biased, not influenced by other Reviews, positive, and most of all have faith in Seagal. It's becoming a real task now through. He is officially the King of the corner. Prostituting himself from one Film to another. What makes one do this? In his case Money. In most cases "money".
 
Nick said:
When you are backed against the wall. With no exit in sight, you might ask yourself "What am I willing to do for survival". Am I willing to lower my standards? Extinguish the flames of my ego? Am I basically willing to prostitute myself for survival?

Steven Seagal has become a true King of the Direct to Video Market. He is a ruler of endless plains of DVD's. There's no one that can quite compare to him. Van Damme and Snipes seem mere peasants.

That being said, so far we haven't truly saw the desperation in his eyes until this movie came along. How low can he go you asked? The answer came along in the form of this Film.

With the plot being similar to Manchurian Candidate you ask yourself "Is this going to a Tribute, Parody, or Direct Copy?". I am not sure how I can answer. Let's see what metaphor I can think of. We can make a comparison to quicksand. It sucks you in to it so quickly you just never had the time to assemble all the pieces. But wait that's quite not right. It's more like mud. It's a mess that is being pushed aside with you two feet. But there's an endless amount of it. You will never quite be able to make a path for yourself in time. There's hack writers who write tripe like Wild Things 2 and 3 or even Single White Female 2: The Psycho. But whoever wrote this Film, like Seagal is the King of his trade. Congratulations on giving me a headache. Maybe they conspired with pharmaceutical companies. Bad Film = Headache = Advil = Money For Both.

But we don't see Steven's Films for the Plot do we? They used to be decent a long time ago through, hack even great with Hard to Kill. But we come to expect different things with time. We come for the Fight Sequences. This brings me to my next point. If you have Seagal aboard your Project why would you only use him for Two Fights?

We will never know the answer, but are these two fights at least good? How can I answer the question without hurting your feelings? I simply can't. I can only be bold. What do you expect from twenty second fight scenes with almost no choreography? It's basically twenty seconds of Slap Fighting which is a new martial Arts Form introduced by Steven in the last five years.

The first one had so much potential. You have Gary Daniels as the opponent facing Seagal. But what does the Director decide to do? He intercuts it with a terrible fight scene happening in some other quarter of the submarine. And the length... I frowned, I sighted, and I shook my head. Side to side not up and down. I should time it but I don't believe it’s longer than say twenty seconds. Was it supposed to top the knife fights in Under Siege 1 and 2? Well you failed. And that's the other thing. It's a knife fight. I fell in love with the previous ones, couldn't you put some thought in to it. Being lazy equals terrible results. The main question is. Was he doubled? I am not sure. I can't be bothered to check. There were enough far away shots who knows. Plus the terrible lighting.

The second fight was especially great said I sarcastically. Not only was it a few seconds longer but it had Stevie doubled every second shot. Basically every shot not showing his face. Must be hard business flailing your arms about to non existent choreography. The insurance company must have come in and said "This is way too dangerous Mr. Seagal."

I should stop wasting my time Reviewing something that belongs in a garbage bin. What can I give a movie like this? Steven looked physically sick. He was sitting for the majority of the movie. And in some scenes his face just made me look away. It was an awful sight. His voice was dubbed throughout the majority of this gem of a Film. I love the walkie-talkie scene. He couldn't even say a single line. And the fights which can usually save a terrible Film were clear-air echo's.

I will give it 1/5 just for the two decent car scenes and the fact that the shoot outs actually looked somewhat gruesome compared to his other Direct to Video Films. Anthony Hickox has done four good Films in his lifetime. Three of them I loved as a kid and still enjoy. They are Waxwork 1 & 2 and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat. The last is Hellraiser 3: Hell on Earth. I recall him writing Waxwork in just a few days. He probably followed the same formula with this project just to have drivel highlighting numerous pages of paper. What a waste of good paper. Whatever he had to offer with his previous projects isn't found here.

I try to be open-minded, non-biased, not influenced by other Reviews, positive, and most of all have faith in Seagal. It's becoming a real task now through. He is officially the King of the corner. Prostituting himself from one Film to another. What makes one do this? In his case Money. In most cases "money".

Nice review Nick, I appreciate it alot.

But I thought you were the one that liked Submerged and always argued with me that you liked that film. Hmm? Oh well.

Thanks for the reveiw. :)
 

Nick

The Writer
My memory isn't what it used to be, but I can remember this without doubt. Never did I defend the Film(And I mentioned this to you once before). I remember writing countless negative things about it. But I realize that was amateurish considering I haven't seen the Film at the time. But this exactly what brings us together again. Siding over something then splitting apart on the next Film etc If you applauded my writing style that's Fine but as far as the Film we shouldn't get in to this again.

I posted my opinion that's where it ends. I don't care anymore to get in to discussions trying to force my opinion on anyone. People can retort, contradict, and bring out the torches. I am nonchalant, and frankly non bothered to the point where I just don't give a damn.

Stevie bring on the next gem that's all I have to say.
 
Just watched Mercenary for Justice- and I thought it was good. One of the better straight to DVD movie Seagal has done. He used his own voice and many fighting sequences with him doing the moves.
 
Nick said:
When you are backed against the wall. With no exit in sight, you might ask yourself "What am I willing to do for survival". Am I willing to lower my standards? Extinguish the flames of my ego? Am I basically willing to prostitute myself for survival?

Steven Seagal has become a true King of the Direct to Video Market. He is a ruler of endless plains of DVD's. There's no one that can quite compare to him. Van Damme and Snipes seem mere peasants.

That being said, so far we haven't truly saw the desperation in his eyes until this movie came along. How low can he go you asked? The answer came along in the form of this Film.

With the plot being similar to Manchurian Candidate you ask yourself "Is this going to a Tribute, Parody, or Direct Copy?". I am not sure how I can answer. Let's see what metaphor I can think of. We can make a comparison to quicksand. It sucks you in to it so quickly you just never had the time to assemble all the pieces. But wait that's quite not right. It's more like mud. It's a mess that is being pushed aside with you two feet. But there's an endless amount of it. You will never quite be able to make a path for yourself in time. There's hack writers who write tripe like Wild Things 2 and 3 or even Single White Female 2: The Psycho. But whoever wrote this Film, like Seagal is the King of his trade. Congratulations on giving me a headache. Maybe they conspired with pharmaceutical companies. Bad Film = Headache = Advil = Money For Both.

But we don't see Steven's Films for the Plot do we? They used to be decent a long time ago through, hack even great with Hard to Kill. But we come to expect different things with time. We come for the Fight Sequences. This brings me to my next point. If you have Seagal aboard your Project why would you only use him for Two Fights?

We will never know the answer, but are these two fights at least good? How can I answer the question without hurting your feelings? I simply can't. I can only be bold. What do you expect from twenty second fight scenes with almost no choreography? It's basically twenty seconds of Slap Fighting which is a new martial Arts Form introduced by Steven in the last five years.

The first one had so much potential. You have Gary Daniels as the opponent facing Seagal. But what does the Director decide to do? He intercuts it with a terrible fight scene happening in some other quarter of the submarine. And the length... I frowned, I sighted, and I shook my head. Side to side not up and down. I should time it but I don't believe it’s longer than say twenty seconds. Was it supposed to top the knife fights in Under Siege 1 and 2? Well you failed. And that's the other thing. It's a knife fight. I fell in love with the previous ones, couldn't you put some thought in to it. Being lazy equals terrible results. The main question is. Was he doubled? I am not sure. I can't be bothered to check. There were enough far away shots who knows. Plus the terrible lighting.

The second fight was especially great said I sarcastically. Not only was it a few seconds longer but it had Stevie doubled every second shot. Basically every shot not showing his face. Must be hard business flailing your arms about to non existent choreography. The insurance company must have come in and said "This is way too dangerous Mr. Seagal."

I should stop wasting my time Reviewing something that belongs in a garbage bin. What can I give a movie like this? Steven looked physically sick. He was sitting for the majority of the movie. And in some scenes his face just made me look away. It was an awful sight. His voice was dubbed throughout the majority of this gem of a Film. I love the walkie-talkie scene. He couldn't even say a single line. And the fights which can usually save a terrible Film were clear-air echo's.

I will give it 1/5 just for the two decent car scenes and the fact that the shoot outs actually looked somewhat gruesome compared to his other Direct to Video Films. Anthony Hickox has done four good Films in his lifetime. Three of them I loved as a kid and still enjoy. They are Waxwork 1 & 2 and Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat. The last is Hellraiser 3: Hell on Earth. I recall him writing Waxwork in just a few days. He probably followed the same formula with this project just to have drivel highlighting numerous pages of paper. What a waste of good paper. Whatever he had to offer with his previous projects isn't found here.

I try to be open-minded, non-biased, not influenced by other Reviews, positive, and most of all have faith in Seagal. It's becoming a real task now through. He is officially the King of the corner. Prostituting himself from one Film to another. What makes one do this? In his case Money. In most cases "money".
I don´t think as you, but I respect your critic.The two fights are great for me, short, but Seagal Style, and the double is for the backward of Steven.Vinnie Jones is really great, and I love the pysho credits intro.

You gave 1/5, I gave the flic 3/5.Good enough to enjoy,much better that the all doubled crap TYD and better than the interesting but shame at fights of Black Dawn.

Kind Regards
 
yea

This didnt really feel like a Seagal movie to me. It seems like a bad action film that is just starring Seagal. I was bored and annoyed by Seagal's voice being dubbed the entire film until the last 15 minutes and suddenly i was really into the movie. At the end it suddenly becomes a Seagal film.

He drives his car through a building. Shoots like 10 guys. Beats up a huge black man and then blows his brains out and then to top it off.....Kicks a guy like 20 yards through glass. If the whole movie was like the end I would have loved it, but of course the rest of the movie sucked.
 
I think that there could be another 'submerged' made as it ended so there could be another one done..pity the black girl got brainwashed i liked her better then the white girl..he should have more black females in his movies i think..liked the movie just an little bit slow in parts but it was ok..
 
Just watched this for the first time. The script meanders somewhat and could have done with tightening up. There aren't enough surprises and twists, with the traitor revealed too soon. The sequences on the submarine seem rushed and the plot development following seems rather dull with the opera house sequence reminding me of a cut price GODFATHER III!

It might have been better had it stuck to its DIRTY DOZEN-esque "men on a mission" roots and skipped the MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE/TELEFON developments. The dubbing of Seagal is the heaviest so far. Horrible.

On the plus side, the climatic showdown is actually quite good, with the helicopter crash actually containing some convincing model work (the bad guy should have been diced here). The fights aren't as good as some of Seagal's previous DTV efforts, but it does up the action quotient.

Vinnie Jones and PH Moriarty from LOCK STOCK make their familiar faces welcome (I was quite sad Vinnie bought it in the end), but Gary Daniels' fight with Seagal should have been longer.

On a personal note, Alison King, now starring in the UK hugely popular CORONATION STREET, is very sexy as "Damita." I only wish we'd got a better look at her in the bikini at the end! :)

Next up: TODAY YOU DIE
 
Took another look at this movie today and thought it would have worked much better if Seagal wasn't in it. The looped dialogue by another actor was annoying enough but Seagal didn't seem to have his heart in it. The fight scenes were way too short (in one case it was allegedly because Seagal nixed a longer fight scene with Gary Daniels) and the opening special effects were laughable. I thought the pace picked up when they were off the sub and there were a few laughs to be had with Vinnie Jones as they were on their way to the opera but the film slowed down again when the focus went back to Seagal's character.

The direction was adequate and was flashier than most of Seagal's DTV efforts. I'm a fan of some of Anthony Hickox's films like the Waxworks films, Hellraiser 3 and Sundown (which I thoroughly recommend, especially to fans of Bruce Campbell) and I think he did an okay job here but I did get the feeling that, like Seagal, that his heart wasn't in it.
 
fakeshemp;181797 said:
Took another look at this movie today and thought it would have worked much better if Seagal wasn't in it. The looped dialogue by another actor was annoying enough but Seagal didn't seem to have his heart in it. The fight scenes were way too short (in one case it was allegedly because Seagal nixed a longer fight scene with Gary Daniels) and the opening special effects were laughable. I thought the pace picked up when they were off the sub and there were a few laughs to be had with Vinnie Jones as they were on their way to the opera but the film slowed down again when the focus went back to Seagal's character.

The direction was adequate and was flashier than most of Seagal's DTV efforts. I'm a fan of some of Anthony Hickox's films like the Waxworks films, Hellraiser 3 and Sundown (which I thoroughly recommend, especially to fans of Bruce Campbell) and I think he did an okay job here but I did get the feeling that, like Seagal, that his heart wasn't in it.
Well, the fact of the overdubbing support your point of view.But the movie is good.The prove is the European rental success in the countries where have been overdubbed in his own language: France, Spain, Italy...The movie likes a lot.Because of Vinnie Jones too, of course.
 

Taft

New Member
Nice bit of Crumpet;129434 said:
Vertigo, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, Submerged within in the first ten minutes the class of all these films becomes immediately obvious. All four films feature stunning script writing, amazing directing, unbelievable acting and subtexts only rivalled by the works of Joyce. In Submerged we see two young upcoming actors add their physical, mental and artistic peaks. Steven Seagal plays one of his most memorable roles in a truly heart-warming portrayal of a man battling against all the odds. I find it difficult to even imagine Thomas Hardy creating a more believable heroic and yet somehow someway strongly familiar character. But to lavish all the attention on Mr Seagal would be a grave insult to what stands as the films shining light. Here we find Gary Daniels to make the film his own with a harrowing deep and controversial portrayal of a man driven to desperate means by his penury and abject demoralisation yet somehow we find his character, Sharpe, to be the most memorable and likeable in the piece. Perhaps it is his overt charity, compassion and a reaffirming voracious` ingenuity which makes Sharpe possibly the most popular character in film history The cinematography is reminiscent of a young Kurosawa and the directing constantly sweeps between Ridley Scott epic ness and Aranofski humanity. The directing is the first in my memory at least to name the artist in question a virtuoso in his field. If you've ever loved, if you've ever lost, if you've ever fought against the odds for something you believe in, this film will serve as your grail. And so I must depart but I will leave you with some words from the great man himself Gary Daniels "Believe it, achieve it".
This film will change your life, don’t miss out.
Really? I thought it was good.



Not really. ;)
 
Overdubbing doesn't bother me. I wanted to see Gary Daniels put up more of a better fight with Steven Seagal, but apparently, Gary isn't adequate enough of an actor nor martial artiste' to withstand the superiority of Steven Seagal's martial arts on film.