Deadliest Sea (TV Movie 2009) Poster

(2009 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Based on a true story --- NOT
rgcustomer23 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens with "Based on a true story". Sure, that's nice. Of course, they never do tell you what story it was. They do mention a book I don't have. That doesn't help me.

But the end of the film is where things get legal, and the truth comes out. "... any resemblance to persons living or dead is PURELY COINCIDENTAL" (my caps).

You can't have it both ways. It's either "based on" or it's "purely coincidental". I call BS.

But it doesn't matter anyway. With typically poor Canadian acting and cinematography, the movie is barely watchable. And for something supposedly happening in the open sea, those were not stormy ocean swells we were seeing. You'd have more dangerous waves at a water park wave pool. That said, I do feel badly for the actors who had to suffer through the wet to make this thing -- even if they did reuse some of their reaction shots to water hitting them, instead of hitting them multiple times with water.

Some of the special effects were so bad I burst out laughing. Even the original Gojira movies had more believable effects. It was hard to remain interested in the story after that. Not that they made it easy. As the movie goes on, it gets harder and harder to figure out what people are saying, who is speaking, who is on screen, and whatever. I never did figure out the whole thing about sucking the water out of the hose, or who died at sea, or why. The IMDb plot says there was a rogue wave. Really? When did that happen? Was that the CG part?

On the flip side, a lot of the dialogue was not stuff people would really say, but was instead put in there to tell the viewer stuff that should have been explained other ways. Like "how long can he survive out there?" Who would ask that, as their crew-mate is drifting away at sea? Is there something more important to do, besides saving him, like play a game of chess, or serve tea?

The great Canadian writer-director James Cameron gave the world Titanic (not to mention Avatar). Scott and Young give us this. James must be so proud of what his work has inspired.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No....
jeff-246720 July 2009
Ouch, why did I watch this? .... Specifics: wooden acting, inconsistent personalities, bad special effects. Most of it looked like it was filmed in a bath tub. Water seemed to come from places it couldn't possibly come from. Occasionally when somebody threw a bucket of water at the actors from off set, they seemed genuinely surprised. The plot (and I use that term loosely) seemed to fall apart at every turn. I have to give the camera crew credit, they were able to induce the true feeling of sea sickness in me, even as I watched on a fairly small screen. I am sure that all the people involved in this are nice and everything, but this production did not come together well.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
badly written story of tragedy on the Bering sea.
lauragodfrey6521 July 2009
It is a hundred times more fascinating to hear a tragic tale straight from the mouth of a survivor than it is to see it re-created so badly. I was mad at myself for continuing to watch this movie. It could not have been made worse if Shelly Winters had shown up on deck. The characters were unlikeable and written so poorly, I felt sorry for the actors. The conversations they were having were pointless, especially while they were losing their lives in the water. It seemed less important to have a good script than to make sure every actor had blue eyes. The producers should do us a favor and stick to reality television.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
terrible
jbirm42025 July 2009
bad acting, worse effects, and the most terrible thing is the ridiculous conversations and antics between the "actors", if they could even hold the title of "actor" after this filming. I'm deeply disappointed in discovery for this one. And, more disappointed in myself for not changing the channel 10 minutes into it. Don't make the same mistake I did and throw away 2 hours of your life! I just signed up for your website. I proceeded to comment on a movie. Your guidelines require 10 lines of text? That is way more than 500 words. This is ridiculous, you recommend 200-500 words and no more than 1000. Why couldn't you leave it at that? By adding ten lines 200-500 is out of the question, its damn near impossible actually. Please take me out of your system. Its already absurd. I just want to comment on a movie and have to go through this?
10 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bad bad bad
rps-226 January 2010
Forget for the moment that this is a simply terrible movie, ninety minutes of cardboard people shouting incomprehensibly while being splashed and soaked. It is yet another case of a movie subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer that is set in the United States. Is the purpose of tax subsidies just to create jobs in a branch plant Canadian film industry or is it also to develop films that tell Canadian stories? Yet time and time again our tax dollars go to pay for bad movies that tell American stories. We have three seacoasts in this country. There have been any number of adventures/tragedies/explorations/incidents/battles on each of them. Could the chicken livered flunkies who made this bad movie not have turned their mediocre talents to making a bad movie about the Franklin expedition, the Newfoundland seal hunt, the sinking of the Empress of Ireland etc. etc. etc. Canada has much in common with Australia. Yet Aussie film makers don't find it necessary to suck up to the American market in this demeaning manner. The irony is that the film, and others of its ilk, are so bad I doubt if a fifth ranked UHF station in Dubuque Iowa would want to schedule it even at 3am. Bah!!!
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Once you leave Port, it's too late
bcthedj4 April 2011
.

OK, some of the others reviewing here lasted only 10 minutes into this

I made it to almost 14

As an ol' Navy guy who has seen my fair share of Blue Water and White Waves, was interested in this Film and its Story. Love Rough Water and Bouncing Boats.

And even have a Nephew who took a turn on one of these Alaska fishing boats. ONE turn, then as he put it - felt half lucky to make it back to shore, and never go out again.

So had great hopes as this Film started, but they quickly sank, like this Film.

Am always willing to grant 'literary license' to the Teller of a Tale, and even be forgiving for what may be shortcomings in how 'good' a Story could have been Told. Either in reading a book, for example, or here in a Film.

But, when the Young Kid - in town for less than an hour - signs on with a Boat and Crew he knows nothing about ?

Damn, what a dumb azz.

THEN, the one guy empties the Kid's stuff on the deck and throws the suitcase onto the pier ?

AND - the Kid still wants to stay with THAT boat and crew ?

Damn, what an Official Dumb Azz.

OK Kid - you'll get what you deserve

But you won't get me to 'sign on' with the crew of this film and story. Like said above - willing to give a little bit, but this is too far from reality for my taste. OK, yes, perhaps it is realistic in the context of this Story for the Kid to be a Dumb Azz and sign on with that Boat and Crew only after JUST meeting them, but I'm not him.

So yes, like a smart rat - I know when to get off a sinking ship, even at 14 minutes

If you're reading this - you'd be advised to do the same

And be like my Nephew - don't go back .
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An Exciting Story Without Hollywood Glitz Or Big Stars
sddavis6316 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have to admit that I'm surprised by the poor reviews and rating this movie gets. Yes, it lacks the glitziness and big budget and stunning sets of a major Hollywood production. It's a low budget, made for TV Canadian production. In that sense, I suppose it pales in comparison to its most obvious "relation" - "A Perfect Storm." The basic story is the same as that Hollywood blockbuster, except that this movie has a fishing vessel encountering a massive storm in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska. I liked the lack of Hollywood glitz. I thought it gave this movie a more "raw" feel. The shipboard sets seemed quite realistic, and I thought the performances - which some criticize - were fine. Where I thought the production fell down a bit was in the off-ship scenes, which essentially are the opening and closing parts of the movie. The opening (as Tommy looks for work on a fishing vessel) did come across as a bit wooden, and the closing (as Tommy and Stubbs share a beer and reflect on their adventure, they being the only survivors of the disaster) was a bit preachy and seemed to try too hard to be philosophical. Personally, though, I thought the account of the crew's struggle with the storm was very well done and very exciting, and more than made up for those opening and closing problems. If you need Hollywood glitz and big name stars to make a movie work, then don't bother with this. Just watch "A Perfect Storm." But if you want an exciting and realistic adventure, this works quite well. 8/10
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed