Subconscious (2015) Poster

(I) (2015)

User Reviews

Review this title
17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Very Tedious C-Movie Shipwreck
hopeseekr9 March 2015
This was a very tedious movie. I checked it out because it had a 5.8 out of 10 rating, with just 16 people voting. I figured even if it were a 4 out of 10, it'd be OK for my purposes.

Alas! After the first 30 minutes, it dove off a cliff in terms of entertainment value and acting charisma. I have seen fantastically better performances from high school drama teams. Frankly, the soundtrack was a 4 out of 10, and I enjoyed it a lot better when the people weren't talking. The dialog *really* sinks the movie with the sub.

I cannot recommend this movie, however, I hope at least the actors and actresses got a semi-decent paycheck for their part. At least that'd be something good to come out of this shipwreck (pun intended).
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Save yourself the time and expense.
sakelley-211 March 2015
I had to stop watching this because of imminent nausea. This may not be the worst movie I've ever seen. But I'm hard-pressed to think of anything in the last few years to top it in that category. I wanted to feel embarrassment for anyone in the cast. Those whose performance was diluted by bad acting around them but, alas, they all were miserable actors. Some were just a little more miserable than others.

I was never a submariner. But I am a retired navy chief. This film is chuck-full of blunders. Bad writing and bad acting make it even less watchable. I could only watch 40 minutes of its two hours. One has to wonder why a film as dreary as this can be produced let alone released.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Mental Health WARNING
kmichaelpm10 March 2015
I really am at the point of despair with regard to the American movie industry. It seems to have decided that anything can now be considered a movie. I fear that unless something changes soon, that it will no longer be a world leader in the movie industry. There is no danger of writing a spoiler for this so called movie, as to do so I would have to force my brain to re-live it, and I am not that brave. No story, no script, no acting, no continuity, no effort to even attempt to honour the laws of physics. If this movie was a medicine, it would be banned in every country of the world. PLEASE...PLEASE...do not waste your time and money on what is without question the worst movie in recent memory.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
plot made no sense at all dialog written by 10 year old
the way it ends makes no sense and they don't even try to offer up an explanation since there is possible way that a sub stuck in 1943 and on the bottom with no batteries in 200ft of water could possibly magically end up back in 2014 and above water where some guy opens their hatch and climbs down into the sub and then gives back a tablet computer which still powers up after 40 years when my tablet won't power up after three years on same battery. He then claims that the info on this tablet allowed them to win WW2 which as I remember we already won when we dropped the bomb in japan twice... and the laptop had no mention of atomic bomb or physics or whatever. I mean most time travel movies stretch the suspension of disbelief but they all follow simple time travel do's and don't which this movie's writer apparently never took note of... and the characters in this movie were all never developed or even established at all, not to mention the poor dialog which as I already mentioned could have been written by a 10 year old for a one night homework assignment to be generously rewarded with a C- if the teacher was in a generous mood or perhaps an illiterate. I gave this movie 1 star because I couldn't give it a half star or a quarter star which is what it deserves. Don't waste your time with this movie unless you need lessons on how not to write a screenplay or what not to do when making a movie about time travel. It doesn't even deserve this lengthy write-up which is far more entertaining than the movie itself if I do say so myself.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Film making at its most honest
tastyradio-8498013 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen some of the reviews on IMDb for this film i felt compelled to redress the balance.

I have followed the trials and tribulations of this movie over the course of the last 12 months through Facebook and have learnt an appreciation for the art of film making.

Is Subconscious going to win an Oscar? No but when comparing it to the current crop of films that make up the current box office charts this little movie had a lot going for it.

The score is brilliant and the performances of the cast leave little doubt about the dedication to the cause that they all had. Is there a De Niro in Raging Bull performance here? Of course not but that doesn't mean that the performances in Subconscious aren't heartfelt and believable.

The story is both interesting and easy to follow which in the genre of time travel is not an easy thing to pull off. The camera work is great especially given the confined space in which most of the film is shot and the finished project is attestament to the drive, energy and unfaltering passion that writer/director Georgia Hilton has for this project.

In a world of crappy Hollywood tripe such as 50 Shades we should all be alluding the hard work of those with a story to tell and the wherewithal to get their vision out into the world.

Give Subconscious a go, you never know you might just enjoy it 😊
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
good fun popcorn flick in a real WWII sub
ghilton-113 March 2015
I enjoyed the flick as a fun popcorn movie. And for a low budget flick I found it fun and had some good scenes. I enjoyed the crew actually loading the torpedo and the CGI for a low budget film was decent. The story does meander a bit but of you pay attention it all comes together.

Also.. if you watch the credits there are a HUGE number of personal dedications to members of the US, UK, Aussie armed forces and the lions share of the films proceeds are going to support Veteran suicide prevention via Gallant Few Org and to the USS Massachusetts memorial, so i'm happy to have watched the film just for that alone.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
bad,, really bad acting
wendi-172279 June 2015
Did not enjoy it ,probably down to bad acting Not much I can really add Obliged to write 10 lines at least Was looking forward to a good story line ,, ,disapointment Actual filming was quality Jack Daniels well advertised, , me personally it gives me a stinking hangover Heard the F word plenty of times Was impressed by the actors white teeth , was impressed by some of the locations, Im glad I never actually paid money to watch it, I would have been demanding it back I cant believe I have to write so many lines for it to be submitted, ,, , absolutely hate waffling on , feel so sorry for the people that have to read all of this,looking back the actual movie was professionally made, looked good but just so amazed at the totally bad acting
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Overall not too bad
martintallon-62-39880512 March 2015
Don't watch this expecting a factual WWII war movie because its not. While it may have a small budget and mostly unknown actors it does have an interesting story line, mixing past and present with an unexpected twist. It's one of those movies you need to watch to the end and it all falls together. My only questions were how did the captain get back into the sub after it was sealed up during the war 80 years earlier? And how were the batteries still charged after 80 years? Its a relatively good Action/Thriller in the style of "The Final Countdown" or "The Philadelphia Experiment". Like I've always said "I've never seen a bad Sci-Fi movie" well maybe with the exception of "Christmas on Mars".
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Tedious - Horrible Plot - Non-Existent Script
harrisanthonypaul10 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER ALERT I like films about submarines, I like films about time travel, so I should have enjoyed this, sadly not.

The holes in the script were as wide as the sea itself and the plot must have been written by a child because it just does not work.

A Professor gets 'hung-up' about the mysteries surrounding a locked submarine after the disappearance of his Grandfather in 1943.

He gets to board it in 2014 and WHAM! It goes on a mission (the submarine) without a crew or any visible means of navigation and 'pops up' in 1943, no explanation - the Government knows something but....

After a few adventures and losing a few things they are rescued in 2014 when it apparently all on it's own just goes back there.

Apparently the Government know all about everything because a modern day computer was found back in 1943.

They used it to win the war! The modern computer still took years to develop and this 'transgression in time' did not change time that much really (YEAHH RIGHT)

The submarine - in pretty battered shape was recovered in 2014.

Where was it when the intrepid time travellers got on it a few days earlier? They obviously got on it under the sea, not at the dockside at all??

LAME! A waste of 2 hours.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
WOW! Its a Sci Fi Movie in a REAL SUB
YankeeDivision16 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I saw this movie and thought, hey, Not too bad. Reading some of the previous reviews I thought this movie was going to suck. But it didn't. as a matter of fact I had several Coworkers come to my house and watch and they agreed it was a pretty kewl movie. Now Clearly as a Sci fi action movie it's going to have a few things that might not be completely explainable so one would have to use ones imagination because it's a SCI FI MOVIE! I was impressed with the fact that it was a REAL WWII Submarine. I've been in one, it's a tight squeeze! And these people shot a full length movie in one. I like authenticity in the era of WWII and as far as uniforms, equipment goes it was pretty darn good. Yes there was a scene or two with some modern items in it but most of the stuff you saw was original to WWII. I have not seen that in many modern WWII type movies. U571 was close to authentic as was Below but here it was spot on. I felt the acting was pretty good for these new comers. C'mon, you ever see Costner's 1st film??? Very BAD acting. But he improved.

Listen Bottom line, for a SCI FI Action Movie, it was pretty good! YES a thumbs up! Sci fi fans will like this movie, WWII History fans will like the stuff they see in the movie. It's worth the watch.

Better than most Movies you would see on the Sci fi Channel.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Excruciating
dtdenver-987-92554617 December 2018
I'm not a big fan of movies about drunks who bring on their own troubles because wahwahwah. Along with the really inane premise and bad acting, the drunk "hero" was very irritating. If I heard the silly chatter at the beginning correctly, they had 24 hours to examine the submarine. The "hero" arrives and the first thing he does is slug back a shot. Way to get the painstaking analysis started! Then for the next several hours (it went from day to night, supposedly), all of them sat at a dining table getting hammered. The excellent reviews for this movie? Must be the cast's mothers.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Submarine Film to Watch on a Laptop While Flying
lmetts16 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Overall, while not a perfect submarine movie like I would consider The Hunt for Red October, I was impressed with the film. This isn't the type of movie that a group of drunk friends would be in the mood for or comprehend. So, it's kind of like The Bachelor. My wife gets The Bachelor, and mulls in it, but I don't. I found it more entertaining than Das Boot, and had CGI effects as good as Hunt for Red October. The film has an R Rating due to language. It's not over the top with profanity, but I would have preferred none, or at least less of it because the story is good enough to survive without it. There appear to be breaks in continuity or plot. I say appear, because if you watch it end to end, the movie is a brain teaser. There are clues all along the way that show what is going on, and a bigger picture is revealed to the heroes at the end. Another big plus is that it was shot on a real submarine, not on a sound stage. Just to see the interior of a real submarine was a pleasure. To see actors and crew pulling off a project like this in a submarine is just as much a pleasure. The film didn't explain how it achieved time travel, so it breaks with unwritten law that some purists want to see. But the film Halloween also broke the rules of horror films when the bad guy couldn't be killed. I applaud the author Georgia Hilton for being willing to break some rules. The film is engaging film, but it isn't a quick action thriller. The hero starts as a somber, brooding alcoholic professor (so not immediately lovable). People die, so a "tragedy" in some ways, which adds some downer element. Some actors that are total "unknowns" that had relatively little screen time (examples are Peter Barry, Mike Beckingham and Naomi Brockwell) looked and acted wonderfully, so I wanted to see more of them. Hopefully they will appear in a sequel, and explain the issues of time travel and fill in the plot gaps that the viewer is yearning to learn. The actors with the most screen time were pretty good. As the drunken professor, Tim Abell made you dislike his character at times, but in the process made you forget you were watching a film. He acted like a functional drunk would act. Competent, yet distracted by something haunting him. A real underdog. But he's such a good looking person that its hard to remember he's the under dog. Nice career problem to have. Tom Stedham appeared totally comfortable in the role, as though he was portraying himself and not even acting. As the ex-wife, Aleshia Force convincingly displayed a huge range of emotions including confidence, jealousy, anger, fear, relief, excitement, and even a sweet side. Military types will see this film two ways. It was shot on a real WWII submarine. So some historians and veterans will see things they love. Others will say, they aren't in spit and polished uniform, they aren't all in the same uniform of the day, and some have items like belts that aren't regulation. But in war, on a sub, or on work detail, not everyone is spit and polish, nor pressed. There are scenes where the camera angle or zoom would be better if different, or the acting of all isn't perfect for everyone in the scene. The movies Facebook page shows the inside story of the making of the film, and that the acting was without days of rehearsals, no set acting coaches, no months of immersing into a character, no practicing lighting or camera angles with stand ins prior to shooting... so all things considered, I was impressed. When I first watched on my TV, I was a bit disappointed. So I started re-watching it close-up on my external 20 inch computer monitor, and it was better (saw detail where before I had just a black screen, and picture wasn't cropped). This would be a great film to watch on a laptop while flying cross country.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just sad
cekadah19 April 2015
Bad acting, bad script, bad bad bad everything.

No - I couldn't make it to the end of this over two hour painful sh*t of a movie.

After the first 30 to 40 minutes nothing could save it; nothing can save it. I cannot recall just where I stopped watching. But take my advice, please, skip this movie!

You must be a desperate hard core sci-fi needy addict to make it through this - - story?

Honestly just writing these words is boring me to tears - just like this movie did!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A SyFy wannabe?
twidgetbubblehead18 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Being a former submarine sailor, I was intrigued by the title and cover. So, on a whim, it entered my shopping cart. After watching this garbage last night, I wish I had left it on the shelf at the store.

They portray Lionfish as being locked up and sealed, yet there are features one would find on active museum ships that allow tourists below decks to keep them from doing touristy things.

This film reeks of SyFy imagined theatrics. Poorly lit, even considering that it was filmed inside Lionfish, it shows people who, with two possible exceptions, are completely unfamiliar with submarine operations.

Give this one a very wide berth. After watching this film, U-571 is actually believable!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor: No sympathetic characters.
hedeweg8 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Just poor.

Some redeeming features were that the underwater CGI wasn't too bad. That said, they weren't very good either. Rapid cuts from the depth charge explosions were evidence of the lack of budget.

This and other cuts could be forgiven if the storyline was compelling. Sadly, it wasn't.

**Possible spoilers** The worst aspect of the movie, however, was the characterisation and acting. There wasn't a single sympathetic actor in the movie, certainly no one I'd want to identify with. The closest was the Navy officer and the German uBoat enemies, who at least looked and sounded convincing. The "hero" and ex-wife were particularly off-putting.

After over two hours! I really didn't care if they lived or died. Not a good sign.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
pretty atrocious
newmarketguy11 January 2016
Actually, the acting wasn't entirely as bad as many on here are portraying. The lead actor and the woman who played his wife actually did alright. The big problem with this movie - other than the glaring historical accuracies, like; why was it docked in a Boston harbour during WWII when they were fighting in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese? Why would the torpedoes still be armed? How could the batteries still be charged? etc., - the problem was the script. And I don't even mean the military aspects of it either. It was laughingly atrocious, full of cheesy lines, juvenile at best. It seemed to steal lines from every bad war movie ever made, like the line where the guards at the gate to the Naval base roll their eyes and say "civilians", or when they quote the 'there's only two kinds of ships" saying, that can be found on any submarine gift-shop t-shirt. If the script had been better, this movie may have had a chance to rise above it's almost unwatchable level.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Waiting for the punchline
snakedoctor-mb25 June 2015
The acting and dialogue in this movie are quite startling, for even in these days of "Sharknado" it is rare to see such appallingly inept actors read such poor lines.

Wooden acting, clumsy timing and passionless delivery.

I was reminded of corporate team-building days where colleagues have to perform impromptu makeshift plays to increase fellow-feeling and bring out confidence. The actors just seem uncomfortable all the way through.

I managed 20 minutes before I fast forwarded. It was physically painful for me to watch , and I was squirming with embarrassment.

A truly dreadful movie that is not even funny enough to be entertaining in an ironic way.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed