Skip to main content

Terrors of the Deep


On Wikipedia’s page for Underwater, the interesting fact is noted that this is the last film released under Twentieth Century Fox, prior to its name change a couple days ago to Twentieth Century Studios (making it much harder for film writers to use shorthand for the studio now that ‘Fox’ no longer exists). It’s fitting though, given how much this movie has in common with another famous …er… ‘Twentieth Century’ title, Alien.
Director William Eubank doesn’t do much to hide that fact, or if he does he’s not very good at it. From the small team isolated in a dark abyss being picked off one by one to the mysterious nature of their inhuman adversary, kept in shadows, to even the contradictory natures of the two women in the group, one primarily headstrong, resourceful, and commanding, and the other anxious and seemingly timid, there’s not much plausible deniability for where this movie is deriving most of its influence, both narratively and aesthetically. There’s even an infant creature with a design so akin to the chestburster of the horror classic, one could make a decent argument for outright plagiarism.
But as much as the film is on a structural level simply “Alien: Under the Sea”, it works to distinguish itself in a handful of areas, making much more use for instance of its environment. The film is rather tritely set underneath the Bermuda Triangle, but in the way it characterizes the depths of that ocean, it may owe more to Gravity, given its frequent emphasis that in addition to these monsters terrorizing its characters, the bottom of the ocean is a harsh, harsh place to be marooned. The pitch darkness, intense atmospheric pressure, and tectonic shifts are as formidable an obstacle for the surviving crew of this breached drill as the hostile humanoid creatures they also have to contend with. And Eubank does a great job maintaining the claustrophobia of such a situation in addition to the harrowing atmosphere –this movie could easily have been just as serviceable a disaster flick without the fantastical elements.
But that would likely not allow for the cautionary tale the script by Brian Duffield and Adam Cozad strives to get across –the implication being extremely Lovecraftian in that these monsters were awoken from the bowels of the earth by this drill digging too deep, with even heftier gravity by the climax. An underpinning theme of the film is the lack of oversight, and evidence of secretive conspiracies of the company running this operation (another thing it shares with Alien). But the movie doesn’t say anything new in this regard, or even has the time –the most damning commentary concerning corporate greed only coming in the end credits, as though the writers are convinced there’s consequences worth exploring in a separate movie that will almost certainly never happen (and that they had to know).
As to the monsters themselves, they haven’t any real menace until late in the film. Where Alien withheld the reveal of its creature due to the intricacies and complete uniqueness of H.R. Giger’s nightmarish design, Underwater seems to do so out of pure obligation –because that’s what these kind of horror movies are supposed to do. In appearance, these humanoids have an imposing scale, but aren’t much scarier than the average Doctor Who monster, with features that might vaguely resemble Lovecrafts’ Cthulu, but only one originally horrifying kill. They’re made a more interesting and greater threat in the last act, but aren’t very memorable otherwise.
Yet, Eubank keeps the momentum up and the visuals interesting through a few invigorating stylistic touches. Right from the start, the movie throws your expectations by opening with a voiceover monologue about the psychological toll of living in a deep sea environment, which it returns to a couple times at momentous points, establishing a centred point of view and focus on character it never quite lives up to. But then in a few key action scenes, Eubank employs visceral slow-motion edits immediately preceding or at the peak of their impact, so as to give these scenes of chaos a moment of clarity. They’re incongruous in light of the careful suspense and gritty terror all around them, but their anomalous and heightened nature makes them that much more fascinating until their purpose comes together at the end.
The focal point of each of these sequences and the rock that keeps you engaged throughout is Kristen Stewart. She has a backstory that you care nothing about and exists mainly to inform her actions late in the film, but her presence and performance is so committed, arduous, and enigmatic that it draws you in effortlessly and makes you care about her in a way the script alone could never replicate. She carries the movie in spite of its’ other heavyweight Vincent Cassel, her dedication to him and his researching investing you in his character more than Cassel’s own performance does. Of the rest of the cast, which includes John Gallagher Jr., Mamoudou Athie, and a predictably insufferable T.J. Miller, Jessica Henwick is the only other one to really stand out, playing a larger role ultimately than otherwise expected. It factors into the ending which in full knowledge of this films’ Alien cliches, is rather subversive and a little bit bold, and certainly the right choice, one that does actually manage to stick with you after the film has ended.
For its’ derivative material and lesser aspects, there’s craft to Underwater. It might be one of the better examples in recent memory of a director making the most of an otherwise insubstantial script. It’s not great, but it is thrilling enough, visually compelling, and rooted in a strong lead performance to make for some solid entertainment while waiting for the last of the 2019 holdovers to make their wide debuts.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch/ 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...