July 22, 2009
Not all bad, especially with the ideal casting of legit badass Vinnie Jones in it. The story and fight scenes are pretty good in this, making it worth a viewing. I can't stress enough how supremely bad Vinnie is. He beats guys to death with his bare hands and has the best lines in this thing.
April 25, 2008
this is nto one of his better one but i can still rate it pretty high cause he made some kick ass moves in this one
July 15, 2007
Chris Cody (Steven Seagal), the world's best counter-terrorist agent, is released from prison-but there's a catch, Him and his crack team of soldiers must work out the reason an American Ambassador was assassinated by the Secret Service. They run into hostile fire from an enemy force but come out for the better and take some prisoners with them, only to learn that these men were soldiers from another unit that mysteriously vanished that have now become vicious, maniacal killing monsters. They dig deeper into the conspiracy and finds it leads all the way to a twisted doctor (Nick Brimble) and his mind control experiments and soon find themselves in a desperate fight for their lives.
Submerged floats tantalizingly just above the "It's complete crap" zone and manages, incredibly, to be reasonably entertaining. For me, the saving graces of this movie are Vinnie Jones and William Hope. Hope shows here that he is a pretty good actor and Jones just cracks me up with his Brit-Thug routine. Sadly, though there is one attempt at a knife fight on board a submarine, the result is not that pleasing. The rest of the movie is mostly gunfights and Jones beating the crap out of people, not Seagal. But overall, this is a very sloppy production.
July 27, 2014
The ONLY upside to this awful movie is that big Steve paid off a few bills, besides that this really couldn't be much worse. Why can't the makers of these low budget action movies just keep things simple and make a fun watchable little time passer, is it really too much to ask? Seagal is his usual lazy self, and like many of his films these days his dialogue is clearly re-dubbed by someone else, it's all a little tragic really. Vinnie Jones tries, but just like every other "character" he's fighting a losing battle with a beyond terrible script/plot, appalling editing and lousy direction. The movie is shit, pure and simple, and it isn't even so bad it's almost good, just plain old boring cheapo shit that belongs in a bank vault to be forgotten about forever.
April 6, 2014
Totally botched affair. Seagal has been redubbed with someone who doesn't even sound like him and the film seems to have been rewritten after it was shot. This hardly even has to do with a submarine. One of his WORST.
July 29, 2010
Mediocre, to much dubbing
January 27, 2011
First I don't really understand why this is called what it is called, and why the synopsis on the DVD says what it says. In fact the submarine sequences last for about 10 minutes if that. Even for a Seagal film that's bad. Second the story is ridiculous. Now I love Seagal's films so I'm used to ridiculous, but this I think takes the cake. Brain control, and plenty of other things that just don't make sense. I could have tolerated this movie for the fact that Vinnie Jones and Seagal are in it. However, there are very few Seagal moments. When he started kicking butt, I was entertained. Otherwise I just didn't find anything nice about this movie. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who absolutely loves corny action movies.
|J J G.||
July 3, 2009
The synopsis shown for this film is extremely WRONG!
September 26, 2007
[font=Arial]The synopsis shown for this film is so far off it might as well be describing a different film. [i]Submerged[/i] has a relatively brief submarine scene that is just as irrelevant as the rest of the scenes that make up this all but incomprehensible movie. Why Steven Seagal agreed to be in it is a mystery. Avoid at all costs.[/font]
January 29, 2006
Starring: Steven Seagal and Christine Adams
Director: Anthony Hickox
Commader Cody (Seagal) and his group of misfit special operative submarine crew are released from a Navy brig so they can assault the stronghold of an international criminal who is believed to have somehow managed to assassinate a U.S. ambassador. Treachery is piled upon treachery, and Cody and his crew find themselves fighting against a foe who can turn even the firmest friend into an enemy through a flawless brainwashing technique.
There are some movies that are just plain bad, and "Submerged" is one of them. It's got a nonsensical script that is so badly paced and so flimsy in its motivations that it manages to sap even unintentional humor from the notion of a collection of action movie stock characters who conduct secret missions that rely on stealing submarines to be successfully concluded. The most remarkable thing about the movie is how pathetic the submarine sets are, given how central the submarine is to the first half of the movie (which, by the way, has virtually nothing to do with the second half). I would very much like to have the hour-and-a-half I wasted on thismovie back.
On the other hand, I should have realized that any writers so dumb so as to name a character Commander Cody in a movie we're supposed to take seriously couldn't possibly turn in a decent script. It's too bad really. There was a time when Seagal made *fun* cheesy movies instead of awful ones.
July 21, 2005
This was a terrible film. The only positive element was that Steven Seagal's acting was hillarious. His accent was terrible and he seemed very out of shape. I had watched Van Damme's Wake of Death a few nights ago and I found that film to be very entertaining. One of his best films so I decided to check this film out. I was debating between getting "Into the Sun" or this film and I unfortunately picked the latter. Into the Sun still looks like a decent action film but I think I've had enough Seagal for a little while.
June 13, 2005
Steven Seagal, oh Steven Seagal, why must thou continue to make movies? Ol? Stevie boy is at it again, as he lumbers around this occasionally diverting, yet heavily recycled piece of garbage. Seagal over the last few years has made a whole plethora of films. Ever since he experienced a brief comeback in hit film Exit Wounds, Seagal has reverted to doing DTV movies, with only the disastrous Half Past Dead as his last Cinema film. Since 2001 Exit Wound?s we have been offered, HPD, Ticker, Foreigner, Out For A Kill, Out Of Reach, Belly Of The Beast, Into The Sun, as well as a small role in Korean Action flick, Clementine. That is a lot of movies from 2001-2005, andhe has a possible 3 more films to come this year or early 2006. My god! Exit Wounds came after Seagal had, had a 3 year break from filming and he is making up for lost time. Steve?s cinema appeal has seemingly waned now but in the video market he continues to draw in punter, with some of his movies making upward of 20 million dollars in the rental market. He is certainly still the market leader, despite his laziness and complacency. His efforts, post Wounds, have been dire to say the least, with one common feature: Seagal looking bloated, old and extremely bored. It gets so bad at times he is being dubbed by some one else and in Submerged this is particularly evident, with large chunks of the trite dialogue being performed by a rather bad Seagal impersonator. So his movies stink, he stinks and can?t be convincing as an action hero anymore, so why do people rent his movies? God knows. I do so in the vein hope that one day he?ll make another kick ass action flick like Nico, and be about 3 stone lighter. Chance would be a fine thing!
So how does Submerged rate in the grand scheme of things. Well firstly for a DTV action flick it isn?t too bad on some levels. It is also perhaps Seagal?s most enjoyable since Exit Wounds as well. The film has an inane plot about brainwashing which they have stolen form classic films like The Manchurian Candidate and Ipcress File, and done without any of the cleverness of those films. It?s a pretty conventional action film to say the least but has the advantage of having plenty of bang for the buck. There is a good amount of action and we have shootout?s and car chases and all manner of explosive and bloody deaths. It?s solid R-rated violence. Of course although the plot is stale, that matters not in a DTV Friday night easy going piece of entertainment. We want action and B-movie veteran Anthony Hickox handles that side reasonably well. The action is solid, with plenty of carnage and some neat stunts. This certainly marks a step up from the directors recent works, with far lower budgets. With a bit more money to play with he has done a lot better it seems. Of course his view on the action is to simply mimic John Woo, but if your going to mimic an action director it may as well be the Woo. The main problem with the flick though, is thus: Steven Seagal. The film starts off not half bad with some neat action and a good pace to open with. However no sooner does Seagal lumber towards the screen in slo-mo accompanied by a Heavy Metal soundtrack do the problems arise. Seagal stinks up the movie whenever he appears. From his atrocious accent, one expression lameness, to his heaving, plodding physical performance in his action scenes, he just stinks. The movie has a good cast, with no fewer than 3 people who appeared in Guy Ritchie films, most notably Vinnie Jones, who is the best thing in the film. Action veteran Gary Daniels appears, acts as badly as we know he can, and gets killed like a little bitch and after co-starring with another action superstar Dolph Lundgren, he has been thoroughly wasted in what should have been his best two movies. Brit babe Alison King is sexy in full on Lara Croft mode as well. The action is well staged but it?s the old problem that when Seagal is on screen fighting, the director has to make up for his lack of speed and agility by filming from the chest up and watch him wave his hands about. It?s embarrassing. Of course Seagal doesn?t actually participate in a great deal of the action anyway, only about half, so thankfully we don?t have to put up with him too much in that respect. One can?t help feeling though that with a more able leading man, this could have been a grade up and more enjoyable. Van Damme, Snipes, Lundgren, even Lorenzo Lamas, would have been better in the lead. Vinnie Jones could have led this movie, he steals the film to be honest, looks tough. Jones in fact revels as an action man and you can?t help but feel that when he puts on his crazy face in his fights scenes, he is a bit too into it and probably landing a few punches on the poor old stunt guys or co-stars.
Overall this is fairly polished and although not as crisp looking as Seagal's Into The Sun, looks better than some of his other efforts, while the amount of action is ample for genre lovers. However thanks to Seagal this manages to become somewhat avoidable. Watch Lundgren?s Direct Action instead.