IMDb > Full Fathom Five (1990) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Full Fathom Five More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Low budget

Author: ctomvelu from usa
28 August 2002

I remember this movie pretty vividly, although I only saw it once or twice and that was some years ago. It sure as heck doesn't turn up on TV these days, and with good reason! I hadn't connected it to Carl Franklin, who has gone on to much better fare like ONE FALSE MOVE. I will watch anything with Moriarty but he is clearly slumming in this movie which looks at best like a TV flick and is clearly a knockoff of much better sub films.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Holy cow

1/10
Author: 0DegreesKelvin from New Jersey (originally Pittsburgh)
27 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the worst Navy movie I've ever seen. I'm a Navy veteran, and although many Navy movies are inaccurate as far as terminology, ship/weapon capabilities, procedures, crew behavior, etc., I cut them some slack because Hollywood knows that most people are not familiar with these things. And, since the story is fictional anyway, dramatic license takes precedence over accuracy. Fine, I can live with that.

What I can't live with is this abortion of a movie. Dramatic license can't even make excuses for this haphazard production. It had a weak plot, the acting was horrible, and the action barely qualified as lame. The fight scenes (choreographed so badly that you can actually see the actors pulling their hits and aiming wide), the explosions and damage to the sub (yeah, OK, not going there), and all the neat stuff catching fire and falling out of place (mostly air or oxygen tanks), were all so horribly carried out that they simply weren't believable. And of course, the bad guys had to do something totally senseless like count down to their moment of glory, making sure that the good guys had lots of time to annihilate them.

Aside from that, the terminology, the equipment, and uniforms, most notably the rank insignia, bore no resemblance to anything I ever saw in my tour. What was the CO's rank, anyway, Super-Lieutenant? For the year of this movie's production, 1990, there is no excuse for this kind of inaccuracy, not even budget. (How much would it cost to use the correct rank insignia?) Ordinarily, military technical advisors are high ranking officers, but any deck seaman from USS Neversail could have provided better technical guidance than was given in this movie. Weapons consoles could have been something better than Zenith Z-248 computers with EGA monitors using corny graphics for about the same amount of money.

It's a wonder that cable channels are even willing to waste the air time necessary to broadcast this... thing. I encourage anyone who sees it to watch it as long as you can take it, just for an educational experience on how to not make movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

cheap cash-in on HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER

Author: silentgpaleo
1 July 2000

Before Micheal Moriarty was on LAW AND ORDER, he was hitting the skids in cheap-jack action fare such as this. A supposed political thriller with renegade Cubans(or was it Panamanians, what the difference), toy subs in a bathtub masquerading as special effects, and a stiff script.

Moriarty must be thanking his lucky stars that he doesn't have to get his paychecks from flicks like this.

And Carl Franklin...What an auspicious beginning for a career that includes the solid ONE FALSE MOVE.

Renting FULL FATHOM FIVE is a false move.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Entertainingly Bad

1/10
Author: bigmykk from United States
26 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It has been a long time since I saw this film, but many details are burned in my brain, due to the magnitude of their suckness. (I will say though, if you want a "bad for entertainment purposes" movie, Laser Mission (Lazer?) is even better) I picked it up because I had heard the title was good, but they must have been talking about the book. I watched it with my dad, and neither of us wanted to turn it off since, "Surely they the whole thing can't be this bad." We were wrong. It was. I distinctly recall the flame bursts with every gunshot were more like a lighter held sideways than a muzzle burst. The acting was, well, just plain bad. These people wanted to act, and darn if they weren't going to take advantage of their chance. I think that there were a total of 2 shots of a submarine; the side shot as it passed by under water, and the "breeching" shot- the latter possibly ripped from an early copy of "Red October". Each was used a minimum of 5 times. Much else I can't remember, other than I watched it for about 5 minutes thinking it had to get better. The rest of the time impressed that it actually got worse.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Amazingly bad

1/10
Author: NavyOrion from United States
10 April 2008

After 18 years, I still remember being surprised at how bad this movie was. I was in the Navy at the time, and (like several other posters here) could not believe that they couldn't even get the rank insignia correct. OK, so they had NOBODY around that could check this simple fact.

But what I found really amazing was that the American flag wasn't even right! It had to have been more trouble and expense to get a flag custom-made (although incorrectly) than to just pick one up somewhere. Apparently they somehow found enough Botox to freeze Michael Moriarty's entire face; they couldn't find a US flag somewhere?

What a waste of perfectly good filmstock, especially coming out the same year as "The Hunt for Red October".

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Submarines Are Supposed To Blow Ballast, But ....

1/10
Author: LAV25USMC from Memphis, USA
23 February 2004

Submarines are supposed to blow ballast in order to surface, but that couldn't save this one from taking the plunge to the bottom. Other commenters have noted the low budget. That is too kind. There is no excuse for this waste of celluloid. The technical advisor (if there really was one!) had to be asleep or high. They were using comic book tactics and terminology that no self-respecting military member would. For heaven's sake, they were using Navy ROTC cadet insignia on the Khaki uniforms (a minor point I agree, but it's highly reflective of the overall low production quality). If you see this one listed in your program guide or on the shelf of your local video rental, do yourself a big favor, SKIP IT. Thank goodness I saw this on cable and didn't waste any money on a rental. If you like submarine movies, look for ANY OTHER one. If I could score this movie a (.5) out of 10 I would. But with IMDB's system I can only give it a 1 out 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

a solution for this film...use D.O.D. footage not bad models

Author: RED FLAG internet janitor
21 April 2001

FULL FATHOM FIVE was a neat concept yet sub sets that didn't work and bad models hinder this film. They should have shot on a decommissioned WW 2 sub that are scattered across the USA. Insterad of bad effects DOD footage of subs and torpedo launches. This movie isn't a bad premise and the poster was neat yet, there was enough material here to re edit it with DOD footage and rerelease it on video. Many archives for film and video contain SPECTACULAR COLOR footage which can be accessed for a modest fee or for free. Had they used that type footage this film would have done better yet, was not a total loss. The sets are forgiveable yet with stronger footage this film would have scored more on the straight to video market. I guess it didn't do too bad.........what's with the piano thing? Is he his own one man band? I wonder he did it in Q the winged serpent too...I mean is it a commentary? Who knows.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history