"It's better down where it's wetter."
Added 10/16/2009
What is it about undersea thrillers and sci-fi movies? From the classic "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" to the early 1960s TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" to James Cameron's "The Abyss" to "Sphere," where even Michael Crichton got into the act with a movie based on his novel, movies of marine mayhem seem to be here to stay. And one of the Star Wars sequels (can't recall which, at this point, but it might have been "Attack of the Clones") had an underwater city sequence. Even Disney had a go at it with "The Little Mermaid" (although technically not sci-fi).
Coming on the heels of the original "Alien," this movie is almost completely derivative except for the underwater setting--complete with the crew hunting the creature with flame throwers through the corridors of the undersea mining station and habitat. Even the sea floor habitat is a mining station, just like the Nostomo mining ship in "Alien." LOL.
Still, the movie has its moments, and with a more than competent cast, which includes Meg Foster, Ernie Hudson, Richard Crenna, Peter Weller, and Hector Elizondo, a serviceable script, a convincingly creepy sea monster, and a spectacular underwater mining habitat, it's not a bad movie. Still, there's probably very little here that wasn't done already in the original "Alien." But if you didn't get your fix in that movie and want more, this movie might provide you with some more chills and thrills at the bottom of the sea.
By the way, just a side note here. This is one of two undersea thrillers Richard Crenna has starred in. He also played the professor in the 1996 remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And while not nearly in the same class as the original movie, Crenna is always good in whatever he does.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Bigger Budget, But Less Thrills Than "Deep Star Six"
Added 7/27/2009
What was it about 1989 and undersea movies? It seems like we got hit with a plethora of undersea action/horror flicks that year, "Deep Star Six", "Leviathan" and "The Abyss" among a handful of others.
"Deep Star Six" was the B-movie of the bunch, with low budget special effects and b-list actors like "BJ and the Bear" star Greg Evigan and pop music one-hit wonder Nia Peebles thrown in for eye candy. The great thing about "Deep Star Six" was that despite it's minimal budget, it packed a ton of action and suspense into it's 90 minute running time.
"Leviathan" was it's big studio counerpart. The film had a bigger budget, a better cast led by "Robocop" star Peter Weller and Richard Crenna fresh off the set from the latest "Rambo" flick. The effects are handled by Academy Award winner Stan Winston. Basically all of the pieces are in place for a fun action/horror flick. But for some reason it just doesn't come together as well as it should.
The basic premise behind "Leviathan" is that a deep sea mining operation discovers a sunken Russian ship. After reviewing the Russain captain's video log to try and decipher what happened, strange things being to happen in the mining crew's underwater habitat. Could the same thing which caused the death of the Russian crew be happening to the miners?
I'm not sure why "Leviathan" fails where "Deep Star Six" succeeds? Maybe it's because, while the cast is good, they really aren't given much to work with here. You get the same basic stereotypes found in almost every horror film, and it feels like a retread of "Alien". To top it off, the "monster" just isn't very frightening. The molten collection of body parts just doesn't seem terribly mobile. The turgid creature does little to inspire fear, and you get the feeling that if the characters used any intelligence at all, they would simply walk quickly away from the beastie, and close the door behind them to eliminate a majority of the threat. No matter what the cause, "Leviathan" while enjoyable, seems like a pale imitation of "Deep Star Six", when it clearly should have been the other way round.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Why mother said you shouldn't pick at it
Added 7/4/2009
I remember a long time ago seeing a commercial for this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel. It declared it to be "the greatest 'Alien' ripoff ever made." After seeing it, I have to admit that seems to be an unfair statement. Yes, there are many similarities between the two films, but if anything this film resembles Carpenter's "The Thing" more than "Alien." To be even more fair, "Alien" was hardly the first movie ever made involving characters plagued by a monster inside a close environment (sci-fi writer AE Van Vogt sued the makers of "Alien" for its similarities with his 1950's novel "Voyage of the Space Beagle").
The plot involves a group of underwater miners encountering a sunken Russian vessel. After indulging in the preserved contents within, one of the crew begins to become sick, and soon his body takes on a series of strange symptoms, most notably his skin becoming loose and fish-like. After another crew member with similar symptoms kills herself, the two bodies morph together and suddenly latch out at those nearby. Eventually it is realized that the crew has discovered a genetic mutation created by the Soviet government, one that acts like a leech, growing from inside its victim and morphing into a fish-like creature that not only retains some of the looks of its former host, but its intelligence as well.
The concept of the monster is well realized, and the idea of a monster that absorbs the intelligence and knowledge of its victim is interesting as well. The characters are not aggressively dumb like so many sci-fi characters are, and that allows the film to feel more enjoyable. The creature itself is rarely seen until the very end of the film - up until then it is either only seen in shadows or various parts of it (tentacles, arms, etc) pop out from the wall or ground. It's very well done, and keeps some level of horror and suspense up to the very end. I have to also add the music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is outstanding, and helps the film stand out.
"Leviathan" is not entirely perfect, but neither is it incredibly bad. Even if it's not a classic, it's worth a one-time viewing for some sci-fi/horror fun. If you like weird creatures and decent suspense, give it a try.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
this movie is so bad its good.....
Added 5/10/2009
My friend Christian and I were sitting down and were thrilled to find Peter Weller, and crew underwater waiting to entertain us and boy did they.
"This movie bears the halmarks of every cliche for a good bad sci fiction movie" Christian Mikkelson
This brings to mind a couple of things you need to have before viewing this film.
1. Tasty adult beverages in plenty.
(hide the car keys honey were staying in tonite.)
2. Triscuits ( we pefer garden herb)
3. "Sandy Ducan"
4. Lets just say cult film material all the way ( WE Are thinking about a convention for this one.)
now onto reveiw Mission to Mars on cocktails.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I loved the movie, I would recommend, this movie to all to see. It has Drama, keeps you on the edge, keep popcorn, & drinks handy.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
"It's better down where it's wetter."
Added 10/16/2009
What is it about undersea thrillers and sci-fi movies? From the classic "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" to the early 1960s TV series "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" to James Cameron's "The Abyss" to "Sphere," where even Michael Crichton got into the act with a movie based on his novel, movies of marine mayhem seem to be here to stay. And one of the Star Wars sequels (can't recall which, at this point, but it might have been "Attack of the Clones") had an underwater city sequence. Even Disney had a go at it with "The Little Mermaid" (although technically not sci-fi).
Coming on the heels of the original "Alien," this movie is almost completely derivative except for the underwater setting--complete with the crew hunting the creature with flame throwers through the corridors of the undersea mining station and habitat. Even the sea floor habitat is a mining station, just like the Nostomo mining ship in "Alien." LOL.
Still, the movie has its moments, and with a more than competent cast, which includes Meg Foster, Ernie Hudson, Richard Crenna, Peter Weller, and Hector Elizondo, a serviceable script, a convincingly creepy sea monster, and a spectacular underwater mining habitat, it's not a bad movie. Still, there's probably very little here that wasn't done already in the original "Alien." But if you didn't get your fix in that movie and want more, this movie might provide you with some more chills and thrills at the bottom of the sea.
By the way, just a side note here. This is one of two undersea thrillers Richard Crenna has starred in. He also played the professor in the 1996 remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And while not nearly in the same class as the original movie, Crenna is always good in whatever he does.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Bigger Budget, But Less Thrills Than "Deep Star Six"
Added 7/27/2009
What was it about 1989 and undersea movies? It seems like we got hit with a plethora of undersea action/horror flicks that year, "Deep Star Six", "Leviathan" and "The Abyss" among a handful of others.
"Deep Star Six" was the B-movie of the bunch, with low budget special effects and b-list actors like "BJ and the Bear" star Greg Evigan and pop music one-hit wonder Nia Peebles thrown in for eye candy. The great thing about "Deep Star Six" was that despite it's minimal budget, it packed a ton of action and suspense into it's 90 minute running time.
"Leviathan" was it's big studio counerpart. The film had a bigger budget, a better cast led by "Robocop" star Peter Weller and Richard Crenna fresh off the set from the latest "Rambo" flick. The effects are handled by Academy Award winner Stan Winston. Basically all of the pieces are in place for a fun action/horror flick. But for some reason it just doesn't come together as well as it should.
The basic premise behind "Leviathan" is that a deep sea mining operation discovers a sunken Russian ship. After reviewing the Russain captain's video log to try and decipher what happened, strange things being to happen in the mining crew's underwater habitat. Could the same thing which caused the death of the Russian crew be happening to the miners?
I'm not sure why "Leviathan" fails where "Deep Star Six" succeeds? Maybe it's because, while the cast is good, they really aren't given much to work with here. You get the same basic stereotypes found in almost every horror film, and it feels like a retread of "Alien". To top it off, the "monster" just isn't very frightening. The molten collection of body parts just doesn't seem terribly mobile. The turgid creature does little to inspire fear, and you get the feeling that if the characters used any intelligence at all, they would simply walk quickly away from the beastie, and close the door behind them to eliminate a majority of the threat. No matter what the cause, "Leviathan" while enjoyable, seems like a pale imitation of "Deep Star Six", when it clearly should have been the other way round.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Why mother said you shouldn't pick at it
Added 7/4/2009
I remember a long time ago seeing a commercial for this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel. It declared it to be "the greatest 'Alien' ripoff ever made." After seeing it, I have to admit that seems to be an unfair statement. Yes, there are many similarities between the two films, but if anything this film resembles Carpenter's "The Thing" more than "Alien." To be even more fair, "Alien" was hardly the first movie ever made involving characters plagued by a monster inside a close environment (sci-fi writer AE Van Vogt sued the makers of "Alien" for its similarities with his 1950's novel "Voyage of the Space Beagle").
The plot involves a group of underwater miners encountering a sunken Russian vessel. After indulging in the preserved contents within, one of the crew begins to become sick, and soon his body takes on a series of strange symptoms, most notably his skin becoming loose and fish-like. After another crew member with similar symptoms kills herself, the two bodies morph together and suddenly latch out at those nearby. Eventually it is realized that the crew has discovered a genetic mutation created by the Soviet government, one that acts like a leech, growing from inside its victim and morphing into a fish-like creature that not only retains some of the looks of its former host, but its intelligence as well.
The concept of the monster is well realized, and the idea of a monster that absorbs the intelligence and knowledge of its victim is interesting as well. The characters are not aggressively dumb like so many sci-fi characters are, and that allows the film to feel more enjoyable. The creature itself is rarely seen until the very end of the film - up until then it is either only seen in shadows or various parts of it (tentacles, arms, etc) pop out from the wall or ground. It's very well done, and keeps some level of horror and suspense up to the very end. I have to also add the music, done by Jerry Goldsmith, is outstanding, and helps the film stand out.
"Leviathan" is not entirely perfect, but neither is it incredibly bad. Even if it's not a classic, it's worth a one-time viewing for some sci-fi/horror fun. If you like weird creatures and decent suspense, give it a try.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
