Open Water (2003)
Drifting into theaters this summer.
Starring: Blanchard Ryan, Daniel Travis, Saul Stein, Estelle Lau, Michael E. Williamson, Christina Zenaro, John Charles
Director: Chris Kentis
Running Time: 80 minutes
US MPAA rating: RUK BBFC rating: 15
Horror, Thriller
Workaholic yuppie couple Susan (Blanchard Ryan) and Daniel (Daniel Travis) go on a last-minute tropical diving trip together, hoping to rescue their stress-filled marriage and discover one another again - but what they find instead is abandonment, vulnerability and terror after a crowded tour boat mistakenly leaves them behind, floating in open water miles from anywhere. The couple must endure stinging jellyfish, cold, exhaustion, dehydration, hunger, sea sickness, cramps, as well as their own bickering, with only their inflatable vests and each other for support - and worst of all, more and more sharks are closing in, their initial curiosity turning to an instinct that is far more life-threateningly primal.
Although 'Open Water' is loosely based on a true story, the action has been transferred from Australia's Great Barrier Reef to an anonymous Carribean locale, and writer/director Chris Kentis has changed his characters' names and stripped their backstory to its bare bones before plunging them into the deep. The dialogue may be hokey ("This is supposed to be a vacation...and boy do we need one", etc.), but the film compensates for such cliché with a narrative economy that takes Susan and Daniel from their connected-up life of cellphones and e-mail to the most extreme isolation imaginable in remarkably few steps, so that viewers are quickly reeled into identifying with their plight.
The filmstock lacks the widescreen crispness that a bigger budget would have afforded, but the cheap, holiday-video look only adds to the sense of verité, without diminishing the powerful effect of seeing two lone figures engulfed by vast open waters and literally swimming with sharks - an evocative image, if ever there was one, of human desolation, so that the poetry of despair resonates deep beneath the film's rippling surface right up to the final credits.
'Open Water' is also very suspenseful, with enough tension to have you gnawing furiously at your own extremities, and nodding in uncomfortable agreement with Susan as she says "I don't know what's worse, seeing them or not seeing them". There are sharks everywhere in this film - viewed murkily underwater through Daniel's goggles, unexpectedly breaching the surface mere feet away from the hapless pair, snapping at seagulls, or, in an unforgettably horrifying image, filmed from above circling in a pack beneath Susan while she sleeps. Yet even when the sharks are not visible, the knowledge of their presence fills the film with indescribable dread - an effect taken to its very limit in a night sequence shot in total darkness occasionally punctuated by lightning that reveals hysterical humans and the odd flash of shark. The film lacked the budget to employ cheesey
It's Got: Vast expanses of open water that still seem somehow claustrophobic, four dangling legs and a large number of sharks.
It Needs: Better dialogue, and widescreen cinemascope.
Alternatives: Jaws, 'Deep Blue Sea'
Summary: Tense, strangely poetic drama which will change forever the way you think about holiday snaps.
Review Date: 25th July 2004
External Links
Official Web Site
Open Water at the IMDB
Comments187 Comments |
| I thought it was a great movie... the ending was shocking. |
| Comment by:- Cathy Kramer | | 07 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This was the worst movie I have ever seen. The photography and camera control stinked. The movie looks like it was shot on $.99 store film. Do not waste your money. |
| Comment by:- Chris | | 08 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This low-budget thriller is the best movie I've seen all year. The cinematography is outstanding, especially when you realize that it was shot with hand-held digital cameras. Even more amazing, no special effects were used. All of the sharks are real. It's absolutely awesome. Go see it today -- if you're lucky enough to live near a theater that's showing it. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 10 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I haven't seen this movie yet..but Cathy and anonymous makes me wanna REALLY see it..i just might go watch it when it comes out...(it hasn't come out where i live yet)... |
| Comment by:- Lillian | | 10 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Appauling film. No charater development, no story. Nothing. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 10 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Superb. This kept me on the edge of my seat and was not at all predictable. Very few scary movies out there but this one did it. |
| Comment by:- Cherie | | 12 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It seems that more people like this film than dom not like this film. Judging from what I've read here, the people who don't like this film are complaining about some very simplistic thinghs, like the fact that the movie was low budget, and not commercial. Well if you want commercial go see SDpiderman II. What is unique about this movie is that because they did not have alot of money to make the film they used "REAL" sharks! |
| Comment by:- SharkFilmer | | 13 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie is great! Low budget or not, it gives you the feeling of dread as you wonder what would happen if you were in the given situation. |
| Comment by:- Mike | | 14 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| it's beyond me that anyone could actually find this movie interesting. when the credits rolled, everyone in the theater was laughing in disbelief that we actually had to pay for such crap. believe me. |
| Comment by:- jp | | 14 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| In the packed theater I was in, out of about 300 people there was maybe 2 people clapping at the end of the movie. This was a very disappointing movie. This is a great movie to ruin a date. Wake me when the movie is over ... z z z z z z z z |
| Comment by:- Jack | | 15 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw this movie tonight and was taken back by the ending and trying to imagine what was going through her mind, and the reason for the decision she took. Recently I heard an interview on NPR radio with a deep sea photographer/marine biologist (?) who was stranded for 2 days by herself in the open sea and also was being stalked by sharks. Did anyone hear this interview? If so, do you know her name or the name of her book. |
| Comment by:- Phyllis | | 16 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| sucked |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 18 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Please, please, please... if you have to see one movie this summer... avoid this one at all cost! It's been a long time since I heard "boo's" from an audience in a movie theater. Check at "The Block" in Orange County, CA and ask them how many Re-Admit Passes they had to give out last weekend due to this movie. When about 20 of us caravan'd to the guest services counter, the theater manager said "Let me guess... Open Water?" If I didn't have a life... I'd picket outside theaters against people waisting their hard earned cash to see this movie! Being on the edge of my seat about half a dozen times to have nothing happen is like being brought to the edge of orgasm and have nothing happen! |
| Comment by:- Glen Romero | | 18 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought it was a great film, my only question being that if it is based on a real story? who was left to tell the tale? |
| Comment by:- buba | | 18 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Those wo boo never been swiming in open water , and know what the experience of something so powerful as the sea can be. fascinating yet misterious. I think they did a great job given the budget they had. Waiting for hollywood to do a realistic shark movie? not happening again sorry.. There is hope in Indie cinema! |
| Comment by:- starkistuna | | 18 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Not having seen the movie, I will say that I am an advanced diver and have shared the water with a variety of different sharks, including eight to twelve foot six gill sharks in the Pacific Northwest. The concept of the movie intrigues while worries me given the hype and mis truths spread about sharks. Still, if I do not see this in the theatre, I will definitely see it on video. |
| Comment by:- Jack | www.nwdivemaster.com | 19 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I think the movie was unbelievably awesome. I have never in my 19 yrs of living been scared of a movie, and i have to say this one did it for me. Ive always loved diving, but i had an experience like that before, i was left in the water just sitting there crying for about 10 minutes before my diving buddy(my brother) came up and found me, the group was still under water and i couldnt see the boat cuz the waves were so high and i had lost the group under water cuz i was playing with the fish, let me tell you it was a very scary experience. So if i was terrified and it wasnt even that bad, i can just imagine what those poor ppl went through. When i saw the film i got so into the movie, cuz the way it was filmed made me feel like i was really in the water with them, and i just put myself in there place, i just got so scared, and i even almost started crying. It was amazing, a movie has never made me get like that. This movie is by far the best movie EVER! GO SEE IT, and if u try and get into it even if u dont like these types of movies, if u just try, ull see how realistic this movie feels, and how sad ull feel for the couple, and to know that this movie is based on true events, thats just CRAZY! |
| Comment by:- Natasha | | 19 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| i didnt think it was scary at all. it was interesting and had a surprise ending but there were parts when i was definetly very bored. i did like the touch of humor and suspense... but it was lacking. |
| Comment by:- sam | | 19 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| this was by far the worst movie i have ever seen. How can people even compare it to jaws, let alone say it was better. shame on the director and the media for hyping up the trailer to make it look like this was a scary, thriller of a movie. Throughout the whole 80 minutes, you only see a clip of a shark for five seconds. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY LIKE I DID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Comment by:- george tsirogiannis | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| absolute garbage. If you like this movie, you probably believe OJ is not guilty. Wake up you morons. |
| Comment by:- the great | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Saw this movie last night with about 70 other divers.The theater was dead silent as the credits rolled and then everyone started talking at once.The way in which it was shot gives you a definite sense of actually being in the water with the actors.As usual the sharks get a bad reputation.But definitly something to think about as you slip beneath the surface next time. |
| Comment by:- openwaterdiver | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was the ****....literally I havent seen it yet but I'm a big skeptic and if the younger generation doesnt like it then I probably wont either. It seems like only divers and old people found it interesting. |
| Comment by:- Joe Blow | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| comon joe what the hell if you arent interested in diving or water then why would u go see it. grow up please. |
| Comment by:- joe moe | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie should not be rated "R ' it should be pg 13 |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It's short, 79 minutes. Strange--haunting--mundane dialogue--enough to be real, real enough to be scary, but I really don't know how I feel about it yet. What works for it is its unsensational effects and its sort of man vs. aquatic boogie man theme. (Yes, a little like Blair Witch, which I happened to think was damn good, but not everyone agrees with me on that one). The film's subtexts typify modern marriage, couple-interaction and problems, monied youth looking for relief and pleasures in exotic settings, post-adolescent delusions of invincibility. Yet both the featured couple and the audience simultaneously realize Humanity's smallness, its complete vulnerability. It juxtaposes humans' complete dependency on each other with their complete self-absorbsion. It is sort of like a short story on film--a "Most Dangerous Game," or something kind of O'Henry-ish. Maybe I am reaching a bit, but as I begin to dissect it, I guess it worked for me. |
| Comment by:- barb | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Booooooooooo. FRIGGIN BOO. Nobody wants to think in movies anymore. make a crowd pleaser. Throw us a bone. anything. this movie was absolutely terrible. wow. |
| Comment by:- john | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I'm a seasoned divemaster with many years of scuba diving. Although it provokes fear, you should skip this movie. Let some poor sap rent it when it comes out and watch it then. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Crappy at best. |
| Comment by:- Divemaster Chief | www.crappy movie.com | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Excellent movie. Scary, really scary. I don't care about special effects. This movie gave me the chills, I had my eyes closed or partly closed during certain shark scenes. Wow how can anyone with any intelligence call this a boring movie. Bravo well done I applaud the directors and actors especially the main female actress. This movie will be a classic and proves you do not need a hollywood budget to make a awesome movie. I didn't care for the ending but the movie held true to form and I admire that. Great movie! |
| Comment by:- James | | 20 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Ok, so someone said that anyone that hated this movie hasn't been in open water before.... I just lived in South Caicos (Turks and Caicos Islands) for a month and have swam with the black tips like the ones in the movie.... They are really scary! But these two directors were able to somehow remove every aspect of fear from the film. This is not a scary movie...especially if you have swam with sharks before. Oh, and the acting sucks too. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| please, please, please, please!!! do not see this movie!!! this movie was the worst movie i've ever seen. bad acting, bad filming and its boring as hell. It kept me on the edge of my seat only cuz i was bored and uncomfortable and wanted to leave. Not only did it SUCK but its short as hell. So they bore you to death with a story of two people just stuck in water with almost nothing happening but before you think your halfway through the movie the credits roll. Not to mention the screwed up ending. Anyone that likes this film needs to be shot for being a complete idiot. I've never heard a crowd actually boo a film to death. Please dont see it and if your a friend, you wont let others see it. |
| Comment by:- Will Sherman | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Bubba, don't you have any imagination regarding the found camera? I loved this movie. I'm age 55. All my muscles were still tensed up an hr. after the movie ended!! |
| Comment by:- Susan | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Poop |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I really enjoyed this movie cause i was stranded out in the middle of the ocean before for like 4 days and was stalked by sharks! |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| not scary enough, just horribly boring |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Hey it's a movie. I've worked in television for over 25 years and have a clue about production values. In this movie they were not good..but...that's all part of the art of film making. What about the content of the move? I didn't like it as I left the theatre. The more I thought and discussed it, the better it got. Scary? Yes! Good dialog? Only after they get stranded. Would I recommend it? If you are all about effects and glitter no. If you like a realistic story and is terrifying. See it on the big screen. |
| Comment by:- Joel | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| THIS SUCKED! I have the utmost hate for this movie, it had no conflict, no character progression, a simple 400k movie, the shots were horrible, and were probbably made in a swimming pool!! And to top it all off I remind myself that I actually PAID to go see this movie, anyone who says Open Water, a story with an unimaginary ending and plot, containing only !3! actors, is crazy! People save ur money!!! |
| Comment by:- What's wrong with this Movie!? | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie surpassed "The Pledge" as the worst movie that I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I love a good film, but this didn't come close to resembling a good film. Everyone in the theater just sat for a few seconds when the credits rolled becuase we couldn't believe that we had just been duped into PAYING to see that. |
| Comment by:- Josh | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie "Killed Me" from start to finish. Out of 79 min you watch a couple sit in the water for probably 65 minutes, with a glimpse of a shark only about 3-4 times, with no dialog hardly, VERY BORING. The only reason it is rated R is because of the F-bomb that came out of couples mouths every 2 seconds while they where stranded in the water. This movie is supposed to be based on a true story right? Thats crap! who knows what happend to this couple, with neither one surviving how could we really know what happened? As for as we know they could have been picked-up by someone and held hostage. Could of happened right? Maybe they should rewrite it with a hostage plot. That's all this movie based on is ASSUMPTION! theres know real facts. If you are smart and you really want to see it anyway then I highly encourage you to wait and rent it from BB and save yourselves some money. Sorry for being negitive, but it was terrible. |
| Comment by:- Marty | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I was pleased with the movie. The way it was filmed was to put you in the water with the actors. Just think about what would happen if you and your mate were stranded in the middle of the ocean. I bet your day would seem boring to others too until the sharks began to rub on you. This film was the director's creation and was based loosely on true events. It is not a re-enactment. If you are looking for an unrealistic, fantasy, computer generated, hollywood movie, I suggest you skip this and rent the Matrix trilogy. (They should have stopped after the first film.) Otherwise, check this film out and really put yourself in the movie. Don't cheat yourself by being so critical. This is a classic portrayal of man vs nature. |
| Comment by:- Justin C | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| H.P. Lovecraft once wrote that "The oldest and strongest emotion known to mankind is fear.And the oldest and strongest fear is the fear of the unknown."I believe it was this simple precept that made the Blair witch project so effective.This too can be said of open water.I find the complaints of not seeing the sharks enough indicative of a society that needs constant overt stimuli to maintain they're fragile capacity to concentrate.It is precisely those moments that we don't see the sharks that are the most filled with dread.Jaws went over an hour without showing the shark.The tense atmosphere was thus created. pete |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| this will be a classic. no special effects get in this movies way to brilliance, this is a keeper. prepared to have the hell scared out of you. |
| Comment by:- ben blankenship | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought the Village was bad. Well now we have Open Waters. This movie has the potential for being interesting but several factors get in the way. The main couple has no chemistry at all. Next we have the director taking us from the "fearful open waters" to the festive music and sights of the paradise island that they are on. So that any insensity that is building gets washed way unlike our main actors. I was praying for sharks to just make a meal of this couple so that I could do something more exciting.. like sleeping!!! |
| Comment by:- Omar | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This is what I have to say about the movie ....I WANT MY HARD EARNED MONEY BACK!!!!! It was boring. I would rather visit the dentist than see this movie again. Should be rated worst movie of the year. |
| Comment by:- Theresa | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just got back from watching this movie. I wish that I would have looked at this site before I went. I would have decided on something else. It is a shame because this movie had the potential to be very interesting. However, that characters were weak. I can see better acting at my daughters school play. The story was underdeveloped and very boring. |
| Comment by:- Chris | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| If you enjoy watching a dysfunctional married couple maybe this film has something for you. I'm glad the movie was so short. The range of emotions the couple experienced was realistic and somewhat convincing, but the camera work was choppy and ameturish. The ending was interesting and realistic. |
| Comment by:- Wayne | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Just because a movie is made with a home video camera and lousy audio doesn't make it a good film. For some strange reason, people who think because we want to be entertained, we can't possibly be intelligent enough to decide what is good or bad. Listen, this movie was flat awful. Why? Because it had none of the things that make a movie good. Poor acting, poor script, poor audio, poor cinematography, etc. Not to mention that it wasn't all that scary, tons of foul language, full frontal nudity and was 79 minutes short. People in our cinema laughed out loud when the movie was over. |
| Comment by:- Mike | | 21 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The WORST movie I've seen in a long time. Why would someone want to make a movie based on a true story like this. Simply watching people suffer for 79 minutes and enjoying it is a bit sick, I'd say. No redeeming qualities in this movie at all. Don't waste your money. |
| Comment by:- Steve | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| SHort??? TOOO ****ING LONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i just saw this BULL**** movie. people in the theatre were laughing. its not a funny movie. its ****. the people who are saying its good are ****in retards. Im a sunday school teacher. i dont even cuss. thats how ****ed off i am i spent twenty ****ing dollars for me and my boyfriend to see this CRAP. NO PLOT. i am begging you. dont see it. i dont know how many ways i can say... bad. and i do think its a good date movie. you can both **** TALK the AwFUL terrible disgusting repelling make-you-want-to-yell-for-your-money-back so called thriller. BOOOOO. ZZZZ. all that ****. you like seeing people bob up and down for two gosh damn hours in the water. go ahead asshole. i should never have gone. YUCKKKKKKKKK |
| Comment by:- LAURA | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Well said! **** this movie!!! We thought it was horrible too! |
| Comment by:- kiley | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie is just plain ****ed up. If you're one of those sickos that enjoys 'Faces of Death 1-50' you might like this ****. You're basically watching two people suffer for 78 minutes and then they die. There. I ruined it for you. Don't waste your money...I'm doing you a favor. |
| Comment by:- Open Water Is Horrible | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| My boyfriend is a scuba instructor, so, naturally....there was a draw to this movie. We were actually looking forward to seeing it. We stumbled through the beginning of the movie....the "blair witch" type filming, and poor quality cinematography..and even WORSE dialog...only to be bitterly disappointed for the next hour, watching some distant camera shots of sharks, no character development, crappy dialog, ridiculous ending, etc. etc.....should i go on? 16 bucks to see this movie would have been better spent watching 3 stooges reruns. This is a classic case of movie hype with absolutely no substance. I was embarassed to be seen walking out at the end.......who in the world would think this is entertainment? |
| Comment by:- dissappointed in Hawaii | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The DV Film SUCKED, but you got to hand it to them though. They got our money didn't they. I'm sure they'll turn the 400K it took to make it into millions. Only in America. |
| Comment by:- MB | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Hey there, i think that this movie is good depending on wot type of person you are, if you are scared of water and not seeing land for around u, then this will fry ur nerves, but if ur not scared or frightened by a lot, this film will do nuthing for you!! mike |
| Comment by:- Michael Goodwin | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This film was better than any high-budget bull**** by leaps and bounds. It's very simple- that's its appeal. Unfortunately it is being hyped as "horror" when it's not. Those of you out there who "get it" though- wow. Everything about it was very "real". Even though we don't know what truly happened to them and never will- this is an excellent interpretation. The couple is so identifiable. I enjoyed the soundtrack as well. A true "Hollywood" version would have been ridiculous- Ben Affleck and Ashley Judd out there against the sharks. My husband would have dropped the knife and fallen asleep too. |
| Comment by:- Melissa | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| O MY FRIGGEN GOD this movie sucked *** u see the shark for like.....5 seconds in the whole movie!!! it also gives sharks a bad name and spread untruthful things about them. I being a shark lover myself knew most of the things portrayed untrue. CRAPPY DIALOG low budget STUPID no story NOTHING!!!!!!! o my friggen god the divers/couple w/e well they had the most GAY stupid arguement...no its ur fault no its ur fault cuz ur job no its ur fault cuz i wanted 2 go skiing. O MY GOD also this movie is supposed to be "intensely terrifying" O WOW how could anyone think that? i wuz pretty much snoozing through the whole thing!! it wuz filmed like the blair witch project frum like a home video camera or sumthn and i hate that personally. also at the end when they opend the sand tiger shark and they found the camera that was almost the only sand tiger in the whole movie. also i know evryone wuz shocked at the ending and the ladyz decision but w.e i wuznt shocked i thought she wuz stupid! i mean come on oooo man my husband died now im gonna send him floating off into a shark feeding frenzy and then take all my gear off and go down into the frenzy RIGHT BEFORE the boats come! isnt that exciting?? i mean come on! DONT WASTE YOUR MONEY LIKE I DID!! IT RUINED MY DATE WITH MY BOYFRIEND!! now im mad so dont go see it!! PLEASE!! |
| Comment by:- disappointed shark lover | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie sucks. This movie has single-handedly redefined the levels of sucktitude. If the Mariana Trench were a black hole of suckiness, "Open Water" would be at the very bottom. If Mt. Everest were a tower of suckeriffic things, this movie would be at the very pinnacle, shining its suckderful existence upon the world. In fact, this should be a new and unusually cruel method of execution for international war criminals. Shortly before they are put to death, they should be forced to watch this movie, then immediately following, should have their eyes gouged out with a soup spoon, so that the last vision they ever had was the incredibly sucktastic horror that was "Open Water". It really, really sucked. |
| Comment by:- Jeremy | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I am aghast at the people who, as they say, 'get it'. Get what? A check from the government for being retarded? Is bouncing, Aunt Madge camcorder moves suppose to be artsy fartsy? I will say that this movie does stand a chance at becoming a classic. The dialogue and pointless scenes are THAT BAD. This should certainly be fodder for MST2000. Swim to the #@# boats you idiotic, lame brained, lazy morons!! And whats up with swimming towards the bouy and then just stopping halfway and not mentioning it again. The best scene may be the incredible amount of debris floating as hubby comes up out of the water. I thought Sheriff Brody had blowed up jaws again. Nope, sorry honey, I had an upset stomach. Ooohhh, I get it, this was a comedy. Man, I feel like such a fool. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| To start, in the movie they state (to paraphrase): "Can you belive we actually paid for these guys to bring us out here and drop us off in the middle of the ocean?" And with that like I immediatly thought 8 dollars plus 4 dollars for a soda, plus another 2 to bring in convenience store candy, so a total of 14 bux or so I paid to throw away 80 minues of my life plus 20 minutes in commercials and credits. Please dont get it wrong, I LOVE movies! and I have a strange sense of enjoyment with film in that I love bad and good movies alike. But for the first time I wonderred how in the heck this file got past the editors and still was put onto film. If you must go and see what the hype is about, pre-plan it out so another movie you might like to see starts about a half hour after this one does. If you dont like it a half hour in, you wont like it, because nothing else happens.....move to the other flick. I would never boycott a movie, but this one comes close, just plan ahead and decide for yourself. |
| Comment by:- MustangMatt | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Okay, I just got back from watching this movie and Without a Paddle back to back, I wish I would of snuck in instead of paying for it. This movie was the biggest waste of time i've ever had to deal with since going to see Blink 182 in concert. It only cost my girlfriend and I ten dollars to see the film but i'm still highly ****ed. The couple weren't round at all. The director seemed to lack the writing talents needed to write decent suspense flicks. Hell it was rated R and the only reason it got that was for the use of language and some pubic hair. He could have gotten so much more money if hey would have been smart, but now he'll barely break even. Too bad we can't sue and get our money back. I'm all for artistic films, in fact I love those the most. Quentin Tarantino is one of the greatest directors ever (in my opinion), but this movie isn't artistic, it's a sad attempt at making it's own niche. Sadly enough people were scared by this film. It had it's own potential to be scary, but in the end it didn't do it well enough or for a long enough period of time to make me jump, and I just saw the exorcist a few months ago and had nightmares for a week. I'm also ninteen. |
| Comment by:- Matt | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| OPEN SEA was one of the best movies I've seen this summer.......sure you got "these people" who didn't know how it was shot ala blair witch style----who hate because the way it looks, I on the other hand liked it but the ending was very BLAH, but all in all I liked it. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This was the most absultute WORST movie I have ever seen. No plot, no real acting, nothing thrilling !!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
| Comment by:- Jon Walker | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| can i post without putting in my email? |
| Comment by:- Jane Thompson | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Okay, here goes... It was realistic and I have no problem with the low budget aspects of the film, but doesn't anyone else out there feel ripped off that this movie is billed as "based on true events"? The moviefone review says this: "Based on actual events, this 'Blair Witch'-style thriller devoid of special effects tells the harrowing story of two scuba divers (Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis) abandoned by a tour boat and left afloat in shark-infested waters for over 24 hours." Doesn't that make it sound like someone had to live to tell the tale? |
| Comment by:- Jane Thompson | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was the worst I've seen EVER! I can't believe I wasted my money and more importantly my time. This movie isn't worth it if you have a free ticket. SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Comment by:- Mike | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The only highlight of the film was that we saw some nudity but she wasn't in the mood to do it! Other than that the moveie **** the bed! |
| Comment by:- Michele | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| To all these "cinema" experts who want us to use our imagination when we watch this movie... go **** yourself! If I want to use my imagination, I'll read a ****ing book, not pay $40.00 for my wife and I loose 70+ minutes of our lives we'll never get back. I saw this crap last week and we got comp tickets at amc because we complained to the manager. We just got back from seeing AVP... now that's "The sacriest movie of the summer"! Roger Ebert should lay off the fatty foods... and the Crack! Even If you wait to rent the DVD... you'll feel ripped off and wish you had'nt paid the $2.00 for it! |
| Comment by:- Glen Romero | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| just returned from 'Open Water' .. first time poster here, to tell you this movie is just about the most boring, un-scary, suspense film i've ever graced these old blues on ... lousy lousy flick, to say the least .. & i normally see the good in things |
| Comment by:- roustabout | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I was bored most of the movie as it just never seemed to get started for me nor ever really pulled me in. Then just when things got interesting the end just came out of nowhere....and it was a puzzling shocker. I left the theater thinking the movie was a waste of my time....but here is the thing...the next day the movie's end still haunted me. So I've come to the conclusion that the movie was effective at some level - probably not a scary one - but moreso a very disturbing and somewhat sad movie. |
| Comment by:- passthepopcorn | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The only thing that scared me about this movie was the thought that others would waste their money on it. I was pleased when the guy was eaten because he was so foolish and an a------. If you liked this movie you should engage in the exciting event of watching your lawn grow. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I thought this movie sucked. Everyone in my theater BOOed this movie. What i dont understand is how carless could the ship people be. You are missing tanks which im sure are worth some money so what the frige...really poor movie |
| Comment by:- Jonny | | 22 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| After the movie was over, instead of rolling the credits they should have simply put up this: " Got your money for nothing sucker, the jokes on you". This movie should have opened on April 1. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Stupid movie, wish I knew it was "loosely" based on a true story. My boyfriend is making this one up to me! Wait until it comes out on network tv. |
| Comment by:- Cathy | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Wow, I have not seen the movie, but I just read this string of reviews and it blows my mind that a majority of the people hated the film, begged people not to seen it, and the film apparently drove Sunday School teachers to cuss. Quite a few others loved it. Now I almost have to see it just to see who was right or wrong. I will wait for it to be on video though. |
| Comment by:- Steve | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The best scene for me was the Blanchard Ryan nude shot |
| Comment by:- Louie | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Next to "Castaway", "Open Water" is about as exciting as tipping my beercan in my lap while driving over a speed bump (that's too much credit). Once you get over the initial shock that half your beer is on your lap, you look for ways to recover the rest of your beer while ensuring that no one saw you grimace at your lost investment...there is no posibility of recovering anything at this movie except your ticket stub that says I raped you on the back side. To begin with, I have never been a fan of "jerky camera" shots in big screen movies. I spill my pop corn everytime the damn camera jerks. The artistic statement made by this is BS. There is no art in a cameraman that can't keep his camera still. Quit copying cable cop shows. Second...Build my hopes up and let me down? Give me revenge or give me hope. Either let one of the two live and let the survivor hunt down the boat crew and F&%$ their day up (use them for chum) or let the rescue squad find nothing and turn on the dive boat crew and use them for chum. Either way I get satisfaction along with the unknown victims of this supposed true story. Third, was dropping the dive knife supposed to be an omen that maybe a wounded person could be protected with a blade of about six inches? Are you kidding me? Okay.. stab shark..blood pours out...divers get caught in the middle of feeding frenzie...death. Even better...wave comes in, knocks diver into partner, stabs self and again...feeding frenzie...wait..I got it...divers tattoo sharks with names through use of knife, sharks go to town meeting and decide it is tattoo time in summertime diver land, sharks seek out couple and then, husband accidentally tattoos wife at which point he dyes his hair and says she was lost on a fishing trip.... Bottom line, drink and drive...more excitement in that and the six pack is only $5.49 compared to the movie popcorn and soda (rip off). Wait...now I get it...sharks rip of your leg...movie rips off an arm and a leg....dare I continue? |
| Comment by:- I have no movie passes for this | www.badblood.com | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The Best part of this movie was when Ryan Blanchard is Nude in the bed other than that LAME and how could this be based on a true story when there is nobody to tell what really happened SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Comment by:- Movie Pimp | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The videography sucked compared to what america is used to. Great first attempt however by the director! Use better hand control next time! The juggeling around made you dizzy! I still can't get over her dicision! She made me want to throw up! Why would she do taht to her husband??? Anyway, the directors on the right path, just next time stay steady! |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| save your money and time... |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| so i love the ocean, and i surf.. and ive been scuba diving before. So i figured this movie would be cool for a date and i. it was cool, maybe if you like indie films.. but eventually it just got boring.. the same **** kept happening 'or not happening' over and over and over again.. there maybe could have been more of a story line. i wish i had read these comments before i wasted 20 dollars. |
| Comment by:- mike sherman HOLLER. | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Everyone needs to keep in mind that this was not a big budget film.....with that said, the movie was good. The ending is not predictable whatsoever. |
| Comment by:- Marilyn | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I felt the videography and acting was like watching a porno on HBO...TERRIBLE. I know the budget was low, but if it was that low they shouldn't have even made the movie. also what i dont under stand is about a day and a half later almost two days later the captain of the ship that took them out realizes that there gone. Wouldn't you realize it when the spot where your tanks are sopposed to go are missing. |
| Comment by:- Keebla | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Can someone give me a detailed ending to this obvious piece of garbage? |
| Comment by:- Joe Black | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie SUCKED!!!!! I cant believe I wasted my money on this poop. I knew this movie was bad when she refused to make love to her husband on a weekend tropical getaway. Save ya green.... |
| Comment by:- S.V. | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Last five minutes of film... (Day break)She realizes her husband is dead from the apparent shark bite to his thigh the night before, and it must be breakfast time because they are surrounded by sharks. She pushes his body away (why? I don't know) and the sharks eat him (all you see is his body being jerked a couple of times, then he is pulled under... that's all). So now she's floating around and realizes she's next. So instead of waiting for the sharks to eat her while she's floating, she decides to end her life by taking off her floatation vest and goes underwater... that's the F***ing end! The camera stays on the shot for a minute so you can imagine the horror occurring under water. During the credits, they show you a three or four foot shark which has been caught. They are carving off the sharks fins and then go to gut it and see what's in it's stomach... is it a hand? a foot? part of their swimsuit?... No... it's their Mother F**king camera! the end P.S. Roger Ebert is on crack! He should take his "thumb up" for this film and thrust it up his fat corn hole! |
| Comment by:- Glen Romero | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Luckily I got my money back. I have seen plenty of bad movies before but this was the first time I felt so ripped off that I asked the theatre for a refund. I was so mad at them for passing off that amature home video as a real movie that was supposed to be scary. It tried so hard to be artsy that it became annoying. Worst of all the suprise ending was only a suprise because no one would guess that they would end the movie in such a lame and depressing way. If you must see it then find out about the theatres refund policy first. |
| Comment by:- Scuba Dan | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| that was the worst movie i've seen EVER. i wouldnt even pay for the bootleg of it, the best thing about the movie was the jokes people were sayin about it while it was on.... |
| Comment by:- DsB | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Can anyone on earth explain the toothbrushing scene? It must have gone on for 30 seconds, or so it seemed. What on earth would a movie include 2 people brushing their teeth without any kind of dialogue or meaning. This is the first time I have ever taken an action against a movie. I am posting my opinion everywhere I can. I urge others to do so. If someone is compelled to see this movie and make the director rich out of curiousity then so be it. Too many suckers in this country anyway. To those who haven't seen it, it is the worst movie you may ever see. If you derive twisted pleasure from watching bad acting, directing, dialogue, plots then go have fun. Better to go with the idea of making fun of it, then maybe you'll have a good time. I can really see this becoming a midnight movie classic. The audience could count along with the idiot boat man and other such fun. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I think this would make a great double feature with The Village. Are they ending movies or just running out of film and time. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| i felt completely ripped off at the end of this movie, but not because of the reasons people are posting here. i felt ripped off because i thought it was based on a TRUE story, not loosely based on actual events that maybe sort of happened to someone sometime but not specific people. so i have a problem with the marketing of the movie, but not the movie itself. the movie itself fails to please most people because it is not a slick fast-paced hollywood movie. no one under the age of 30 could stand the slow pace, the nature of the relationship, the dialogue, the tooth-brushing scene, etc. but i am haunted by how real it was. they were very real people, except that none of us are as good-looking as blanchard what's her face, but everything about their relationship was pretty believable. and the point is that we never expect that anything dangerous can happen to us. we get caught up in our busy important lives and fail to appreciate all that we have. what is so poignant about this movie is that once they are stripped of all that they take for granted, they would give anything just to be able to sit on a piece of land, even if they never had another material possession again. i hated this movie when it ended, but i'm really appreciating it a day later, and i keep thinking about it. |
| Comment by:- open water convert | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The person who compared "Open Water" to "The Pledge" was dead on. Both had potential and just ended with a fizzle, absolutely no closure. |
| Comment by:- Open Water Hater | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Ok. #1 this movie sucked. #2 this movie sucked. and ill tell you why... Not only was i sleeping after the main characters sat in the water for 20 minutes doing nothing, there was no plot really, horrible ending, totally obvious, too many unrealistic unlucky breaks for the main characters.. example. lets do a headcount 5 times, know we count wrong, do nothing be lazy not clean our boat till the next day, and ****in might as well have misscounted them again. i mean come on here. the thought of law suit never occurred to that one dude? i mean wow. ya ya it says based on actual events but its BASED so i bet the dude killed a fly in actuality sometime in his life so it was based on real life ... uh huh.. and if this actually happened. sucks for them dude. and im too lazy to do research, but i still dont buy it. new topic. too much stupid suspense. nothing ever happened during the music build up. and by the way the music person for the movie should be shot for picking that horrible horrible tribal chanting ****. getting "attacked" by jelly fish is statistically so fckin rare they shoulda left it out. Hey another thought popped into my head. they tried to make the movie rated "R"... considering the fact that nothing in the movie constituted anything over pg except the mindless swearing and completely random scene of nudity... my hypothesis? try to play off the "thriller/scary movie" genre by making it rated r even tho. hrmm . ITS ****ING PATHETIC. Character development you say? none. all we figure out is the chick is more manly than the dude... hrmm.. completely unrealistic emotions considering if any normal human being were alone in the ocean with sharks they wouldnt just sit there and be like "its cool dude, they are just curious" you would freak the **** out. unless you are just weird. KK ill wrap this up. Final thought? Watch a movie at sea world and you will not only have more fun, you will be scared more watching the stingray bury himself in the ****ing sand. dont pay 5.50 for a nap, take one at home and go buy a porn mag. |
| Comment by:- Matthewfina | | 23 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was good for being low budget. I thought a cool part was during the night-time thunderstorm. You could see the sharks black silhouette against the water when the sea would light up from lightning. It's extremely scary when you put yourself in the situation. This movie was over-hyped which obviously created some dissapointed movie viewers. It did not "suck." Also, whoever says it's the worst movie they have ever seen, then you haven't seen many movies. |
| Comment by:- Kelly | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| To say this movie is awesome is an understatement! To anyone who did NOT like the movie, I say sharpen your minds! Because the exercise in sheer mental terror the flick put us through more than makes up for it's lack of cheesy blood and gore. In fact, one could so identify with Susan's and Daniel's plight, that at times I actually felt sick to my stomach, and it wasn't because of sea sickness! It was because I was literally at the edge of my seat the entire time, anxiously awaiting what would happen next. The ending had me contemplating my own destiny and the powerful emotions I felt afterwards are still lingering with me, three days later. |
| Comment by:- Katrina Young | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I guess it all depoends on how easily you are scared. There was only one or two scenes where I felt very nervouse and tense, but before I knew it they were over. Nothing was fleshed out enough to be able to get into it. The ending was very sad. The couple this movie is based on is Tom and Elaine Lonergan. The only thing the movie takes from their lives is being lost at sea. They were never found, hence the majority of the movie is supposition on the part of the director/writer. It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it could've been ALOT better! |
| Comment by:- Sawthemovie | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The movie was okay. It had the potential for a great climax but it didn't capitalize on the terror. I was surprised with the ending though. Unfortunately, the audience of 20 (especially children) were bored to death with the lack of blood and guts etc. The mental fear of the movie was good - not knowing when a shark will attack - and how (will it bump - then bite etc.). And when it does attack expect larger and more dangerous sharks to be present. There was too much hype for the movie and I jumped more with Jaws (with the suspense and music). In our area it was rated as "G". |
| Comment by:- Sue | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Yes it was supposition, but so what? It makes no difference whatsoever. In fact I would venture to guess the director's supposition of what happened was much more terrorizing than what actually DID happen! Meaning... the couple probably *did* get eaten by sharks, and if that were in fact depicted in the movie, what we would have is lots of blood and gore, which would most definitely have taken away from the exercise in sheer mental terror the flick put us through. For those who didn't feel that terror, perhaps your empathizing abilities are lacking. Because anyone able to place themselves in Susan's and Daniel's perverbial shoes would have certainly felt that terror, and NOT found the movie boring. The movie is what I like to refer to as "intellectual" entertainment. Meaning one has to actually THINK and FEEL in order to appreciate the movie's true meaning. |
| Comment by:- Katrina | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| PLEASE TO ALL OF YOU WHO SAID THIS MOVIE SUCKED. GROW UP AND SHUT UP. IT WAS AN EXCITING SCARY MOVIE. IT'S TOO BAD THAT YOU GUYS CAN EVEN COMPARE THIS MOVIE TO A CRAP FILM LIKE JAWS!!!!! GO SEE IT FOR SURE. |
| Comment by:- ANONYMOUS | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I went to this movie with high expectations. I had seen trailors and it looked awesome. The actual movie doesn't even begin to live up to the ads. There is no character development, no story building, nothing. The story itself is very interesting, but the people who made this film really let their audiance down. The only highlight of the film is a quick shot of the female stars bush...nice. Don't waste your time or money seeing this movie. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Open Water OWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but the ending was sad... Open water was like.... 20 x better than Aliens vs Preds |
| Comment by:- Open water owns | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| When it goes from being pitch dark to a retard sitting up in bed swatting at flies and then bobing up and down for 2 hours with some type of voo-doo music, I think something went wrong somewhere!!"Open Water" Also know as "Don'y waste your money" |
| Comment by:- Jaws | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Hell, Atleast the poster made the movie look like worth seeing as I was walking up to the movie theatre, but that's all I can say good about it. That movie sucked big cock. I dunno if they could've pick any worse actors and also why in the hell did they feel the need to show the event of them brushing their teeth. I guees they had to put something in tho make the movie seem longer. Don't go see this please you'll waste your money |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I was surprised by the movie, I admit. I give it a lot of credit for not having a happy Hollywood ending. I don't know about the artsy use of digital camera and gritty sound though...especially since the trailers depict it as a big-budget production; I thought higher-tech camera work would have made the panoramic qualities of the sea stand out better. About the true story: PLEASE get it right before you rag on it. This was based ON TRUE EVENTS, as it said. It never said "this is a true story." The stories on which it's loosely based involved a sole woman who survived after being stranded, and a couple who were lost at sea and found (as sawthemovie said above). I do agree that it had slow moments. There are screenwriters who could have made it much more clever. (Though I don't understand why someone above brought Tarantino into this...this is not his type of film.) In any case, I enjoyed it enough, and hope the DVD will have some features on the making. |
| Comment by:- LTjg Moir | | 24 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I couldn't believe I sat through that movie. If you have to see it - wait until it comes out at the Dollar Movies and then remember "you have been told". This movie was worse then worse. I wasted a good Saturday night "Date Night" with my husband on this crappy movie. |
| Comment by:- J Pol | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| From reading these comments, it seems mostly women like this movie. Now, these women have probably never had an orgasm and don't know the definition of the word "climax"! Any guy who likes this movie probably likes it up the corn hole and never reaches climax anyway. So, if you're a woman who's never had an orgasm, or a man who likes it up the corn hole... go see this movie!!! It's like reading a book, you can use your imagination... Like when you imagine what an orgasm must feel like! ;) P.S. Roger Ebert is on crack! |
| Comment by:- Glen Romero | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I agree with everyone saying that it was not very good. The only thing that the audience has to go off of, is assumption. The only true events that occured, was the couple actually going on a vacation and going diving with a diving boat. Who knows if they even surfaced or not. Something could have happend to them under the water as well. I suppose the movie was okay as for it was BASED on true events that actually happend and that they never found the two. But mainly, it was horrible. You should really hold off until it comes out at Blockbuster. |
| Comment by:- Mirf | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It sounds like most of you hated it. It wasn't supposed to be Jaws or some terrifying shark movie. Just think if you were stranded out in the middle of the ocean. What the hell would you do? You are screwed. Then, some sharks move into your area. And you thought your day sucked when the boat left. For those who think it is a true story, it isn't. It is loosely based on true events. The only thing this movie has in common with the event in question is two people are left behind while scuba diving. That's it. Eventhough I did like this movie, the true story is more interesting because it is so mysterious. Were they accidentally left behind or did they want to be left behind. No bodies were every found. They did find some items of their's, but no sign of them being torn to shreads by sharks. A woman's wet suit fitting the description of the wife washed a shore however there were no signs the suit was forced off by a person or a shark. They both kept diaries and the husband wrote in his diary that he had done everything he has wanted to do in his life and no longer cared to live. He also wrote that his life will only get worse from this point on. She had written that her husband had a deathwish and that she was not going to leave him alone in case he did die. Well, he may have gotten them both killed. Or maybe they have new names and new identities. They both hated there jobs. When they went with the scuba group, the group was brought to 3 different locations. They were always the last one in the boat each time, but at the last spot they were forgotten. Or were they? How could the scuba company forget two people? Why did they wait two days before they reported them missing? How come the scuba company didn't find them when they returned to the same areas the next day with a new group? Also, they disappeared in Austrailia. Well a few years before this happened a man had tried to fake his own death by jumping off a car ferry. They found him at the bottom sucking on an oxygen tank. What's so strange about this whole thing is this man was from the same town as the couple and also attended the same church. Coincidence? Who knows what really happened to them. More than likely they did drown because the husband was borderline suicidal and his wife knew that but chose not to do anything about it. Or they may have started a new life as new people. Its all a mystery. Check them out. There names are Tom and Eileen Lonergan |
| Comment by:- Justin C | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Was there a plot here and nobody told me? Did anyone want these characters to live? How about, did anyone want these two characters to die about a half an hour earlier? Did anyone leave this movie to go see whatever else happened to be playing in this cinema? Did anyone feel that your 9.50 was a great investment? For those people who liked this film - well I feel sorry for you - I really do - perhaps some therapy would help... |
| Comment by:- Bill Ivanov | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just finished watching "Touching the Void". A true story (not "based on") where the two people in this story actually try to survive together and alone. This is what (in my opinion) people put in a "faced with death" situation would actually try and do... survive... swim to the F*cking buoy type of attitude. We know it's true because the two survivors are narrating the story. Stay at home and rent the DVD, the special features give an insight to the mental affects the ordeal left on the two "survivalist". Comparing Touching the Void with Open Water is like comparing JFK with Air Force One! Except replace Harrison Ford, Glen Close and Gary Oldman with a bunch of unknown "bad" actors and shake the camera alot! Quote of the day: "Whiny, scuba-diving yuppies, that don't have sex on vacation, should be left in the ocean to be eaten by sharks!" P.S. Roger Ebert is on Crack! |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 25 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| No reason to start slamming people just because they said they like the movie. Didn't your mama teach you any manors when you were humping her? |
| Comment by:- Roger E | | 26 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Absolute and total garbage - 8 bucks and 80 minutes you'll never get back. My jaw literally hung open at the end; I was unable to contain my disbelief at the sheer awfulness of this crap. The only merit to this utter waste of time is that bad movies often make for better post-viewing conversation than good ones, since there's SO MUCH to ridicule. So, in that way I can't complain much, because my date and I did get more than one good laugh out of this veritable cornucopia of ineptitude. |
| Comment by:- Sonnet | | 26 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie was an awesome testament to how much a human being can endure and how strong the will to survive is. It also shows how heartbreakingly desperate we can all eventuallly become when pushed to extremes. Anyone that doesn't like this movie probably is expecting more of a "Jaws" type of adventure. It isn't. It is more of a human drama. The sharks just happen to be the backdrop (albeit a spectacular one). As the movie progressed I could palpate the desperation these young people were feeling. The ending was heartbreaking and demonstrated that there is an eventual acceptance of one's fate-regardless of how unpleasant that may be. |
| Comment by:- MarySue | | 26 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| this is defanitely worth every buck spent to see. i don't care what other people say, the camera quality doesn't effect the film a bit...in fact, it adds character. very distrubing and very well put together, everything i could ask for in a movie. you won't find any sappiness here so if you can't take it, go see anaconda. |
| Comment by:- Garrett | | 27 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It amazes me the people who liked it. It matters little to me that the story isn't true, thats not the point. The point is bad acting(can this be denide?) Bad camera work. Horrible dialogue. Pointless scenes. I've got home movies with more direction. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 27 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| BTW, the movie poster shows this huge wave about to hit them. There was no such thing. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 27 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It amazes me that so many people take a bad film personally! Is a film, however bad, worth getting so upset about? I haven't seen open water yet because I get very seasick on boats and I am wondering if this film will make me ill because of the way it was shot. Anyone have any thoughts? I really want to see it - I just don't want to end up sick! |
| Comment by:- Jessica Walker | | 27 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| dis moovey rulz! Eye dont no y evreyone hear haytz dis moo-V. Dats wack y0! Piece y'all |
| Comment by:- Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| ok, this movie is good!! if you have any imagination, it's soo scary!!!! i am scared. for real. right now. i just peed. myself. all the people who are complaining about not seeing the sharks enough, you are ridiculous!! the best scary movies show less , not more! see it!!! |
| Comment by:- sam | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I JUST TOOK A DUMP IN MAH PANTs, UHM Yea. IS DIS A MOVIE PLAZE oR SUMTIN? heh STFU bout yo CORNHOL,e DATS NASSZTY. Heh heh heh. I thut EBert wus DED YO!?? AIGHT LATA, IMMA HIT MAH CRIZZACK PIPE )_!) |
| Comment by:- RAGGEDY ANN | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| holy crap. i cant beleive they're people who actually liked this movie!! and dont say it looked that way because it was low budget because the movie "clerks" was low budget and was so low budget the had to shoot it in black and white, but was still about 3,699 times better! those actors probably wont ever get a job in acting again and i think all the film tapes should be locked away! no one in their right mind would go see that movie twice! and if you want to you need to go see a siciatrist because YOU ARE INSANE! |
| Comment by:- K.E. | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Oooh classy Laura, very very classy. A Sunday school teacher you say? What's pathetic and boring is your classless sense of being. I just pray for all those children at Sunday school your teaching may a higher source help them. What are you teaching them? I would have to say how to be the tackiest person ever. Congratulatinos for being such trash. About the movie, yes, of course you would hate it. Any ignorant person who doesn't understand the point of the movie would hate it. Yes, this movie lacks facts but the point is two people were left to die by accident or no accident their dead, that's the point. |
| Comment by:- Miro | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I'll agree that the movie on the whole is not that good. The acting is not nearly as good as it could be and there are some unientially funny moments. I think that most of the people who love this movie are probably scared of the water or sharks themselves, and that's why they liked the movie because it truly frightened them. A fair movie but could have been alot better. I will say I'd love to put all the people who hate this movie out in the open ocean for a day and see what they come away from it. |
| Comment by:- Shannon | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Personal attacks aside (grow up), I have to say that the movie just wasn't very darned good. To sum it up: I would preferred to have saved a little money, had some people over, sat in my pool with my girlfriend while my friends stood around the pool and were bored out of their skulls. YES, I get that it's not a shark movie. Believe it or not, I'm not stupid. I usually rent independant films when I can find them. It wasn't the budget that made it bad. It wasn't the camera angles that made it bad (but it didn't improve it either... what's with the inverted shot of the ship's bow?). It wasn't the dialogue or acting that made it bad (though both were rudimentary at best). It was the lack of substance. Maybe I (like many Americans) am too inured to violence fear in movies. However, I'm terrified of the ocean and of sharks in particular. If this movie couldn't scare me, then I don't see how it scared anybody. Where's my empathy? There must be -pathos- to empathize. If the feeling's not there, you aren't going feel it. |
| Comment by:- Tim | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| (weird.... a few words were deleted from the original) |
| Comment by:- Tim | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| What is this nonsense that if you didn't like it it's because you can't think at a higher level? I guess there may be some nitwit afraid of Barney the Dinosaur but I doubt thats because they are an advanced life form. This movie reaked so bad that the I am sure the next time I see it, it will be on Mystery Science Theater. And I am pretty sure the ending was the result of boredom and confusion with everyone involved. I have read reviews in which it was said that everyone was silent when the movie ended. That was not, REPEAT, that was not because it was so spellbinding. It is because no one expected it. Not in a good way, like not expecting a flooded basement. What is surprising is that the movie ends in the middle of the movie. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I would like to say that if I ever need to make a movie called 'Unlikeable People' I will contact the director. Aside from the two mushheads I thought the guy who forgot his mask and tried to bum one was 70's gruesome. He was scarier than the sharks. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The most terrifying movie I have ever seen. I am still shaking two weeks later. The 70's Herb Tarlick jerk is spinetingling. Who hasn't been approached for a favor by such a cretin, very realistic. He is Jason and Freddy rolled up into one. Of course the guy who can't count to twenty, he is scary. Maybe the whole crew is haunted. It is frightening that so many stupid people could gather together. No wonder disasters such as this are possible. It just put me on the edge of my seat. But on the softer side, when she whispered 'I love you' without any feeling I just about cried. It was so realistic, said with such realism. That is so true to life. If you liked this movie you'll like the one of me sitting around in my underwear clicking the remote. It is so true to life and realistic. Its as if you are there, it could happen to anyone. |
| Comment by:- The Register | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I found this movie very intense and believable. The acting and dialogue were excellent and even included a touch of humor. I don't recommend it for everyone, because you must be willing to get pulled into the movie to enjoy it. If you go see it, do so with an open mind and you should end up with a thrilling experience. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I'f the people posting the messages that they hate this movie, Why are you doing so. So you saw a bad movie, Get over it. Everyone see's a bad movie they don't care for. I'm not saying it was great but it wasn't the worst. Sometimes I dont get people. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| That's why this is called a review board. We're posting about our thoughts on the movie. What dd you expect? Or are movie reviews limited only to people who like the movie...? For those who wonder why she drowned herself at th end... If I was stuck watching that boring ass movie for as long as she was in the water, I'd kill myself too. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Those who didn't like this movie probably thought Starsky and Hutch kicked butt. Or maybe you are from the new Star Wars era and need to have special effects to entertain you. Do you have any imagination at all? I bet your parents sat your lazy asses in front of the tv while you were growing up. I would like to see what you can do with a camera. Actually, no I wouldn't. The Tom and Pam video would be Oscar worthy compared to anything you can come up with. |
| Comment by:- Roger E | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Roger, are you the producers brother? What kind of logic is that. I guess I could make a full length movie with 2 hours of white screen, name it Lil Orphan Annies' Right Eye. Then I would browbeat everyone for not having an imagination. I think some people are just more easily amused. |
| Comment by:- Ching | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw the movie and didn't think it was that bad. I find it ridiculous that people actually complained to the theater managers and got a refund. Its a MOVIE people--you run the risk of not liking it. That doesn't mean you should whine to the managers and get your money back. Do you do that with every movie you don't like? Do you demand refunds from Blockbuster when you rent a movie you don't like. UNREAL! |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| The sun is bright and hot as you break surface. You squint to see the outline of a boat. After 40 minutes of scuba diving you feel disoriented. You paddle round to see whether the boat is behind you, but there is nothing: just calm, blue ocean, stretching to the horizon. Such is the scenario of Open Water, the surprise hit of this year's Sundance film festival, which has also met with rave reviews across the American movie press. Shot on handheld digital cameras with a shoestring budget, it depicts the disintegration of a happy American couple after they are abandoned in shark-infested seas off the Bahamas during a dive holiday. Tom and Eileen Lonergan The promotional material boasts that the film is "based on true events", but its makers are now parrying questions about exactly which true events are involved. Yet few doubt that the inspiration is the case of Tom and Eileen Lonergan, American tourists who disappeared off Australia's Great Barrier Reef on January 25, 1998. The couple had wound up in Australia after several years of travelling round the world. They had met and married at Louisiana State University, where Eileen had taken up scuba diving and persuaded Tom to join in her hobby. For two years they had taught for the Peace Corps in the Pacific island country of Tuvalu, before spending a further year in Fiji. They were planning to travel round the world before heading home, but first the couple were determined to visit the Barrier Reef. In Port Douglas, an upmarket diving and sailing town towards the end of the road north through Queensland, they decided to take a day trip on a 26-passenger boat, the Outer Edge. For A$160, the five crew would take them for three dives on the ribbon reefs, a stack of broad shoals that run along the seaward ramparts of the Barrier Reef, 40 miles offshore. On their third dive, round about 3pm, they headed off together and were last spotted swimming calmly 12m down. When they came to the surface after less than an hour underwater, the Outer Edge had gone. Being left behind on a dive is not an instant death sentence. Paul Lucas, a tourist from Leicester with less than 10 dives under his belt, survived for 40 hours in stormy seas in January 2000, after he was left behind by a dive boat in northern New South Wales. A diver is wearing an inflatable lifejacket and has the air to inflate it in a tank strapped to their back. The danger in the blazing heat of tropical Queensland is that, without fresh water, someone floating in the middle of the ocean may dehydrate long before help can arrive. The day after the incident the Outer Edge brought another tour party to the area, and one diver found six dive weights resting on the bottom. Oblivious to what had happened the previous day, a crew member described the find as a bonus. At that point Tom and Eileen might still have been alive just a few miles away, using the empty dive belt to bind themselves together. They certainly appear to have survived the night: several months later a fisherman 100 miles north of the site found a dive slate which records their thoughts as dawn broke that morning. In a wobbly scrawl faded by months in the water, Tom Lonergan had written: "[Mo]nday Jan 26; 1998 08am. To anyone [who] can help us: We have been abandoned on A[gin]court Reef by MV Outer Edge 25 Jan 98 3pm. Please help us [come] to rescue us before we die. Help!!!" Other clues offered tantalising glimpses of what might have happened. A wetsuit of Eileen's size washed up in north Queensland in early February; scientists measuring the speed of barnacle growth on its zip estimated that it was lost on January 26. Tears in the material around the buttocks and armpit had apparently been caused by coral. Inflatable dive jackets marked with Tom and Eileen's names were later washed ashore north of Port Douglas, along with their tanks - still buoyed up by a few remnants of air - and one of Eileen's fins. None showed any signs of the damage |
| Comment by:- The real story | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| This message is from the Daily Telegraph - April 26th 1998. Daily Telegraph - 26th April 1998 DETECTIVES are investigating reports that a young American couple, who disappeared on a scuba diving trip last January, may have staged their own deaths. Speculation about the disappearance of the couple, who were left behind by a dive boat after a day trip from Port Douglas, Queensland, to a remote coral reef, increased after reports that two unidentified Americans fitting their description had been spotted close to where they were last seen. There have been a number of other reported sightings of Tom Lonergan, 34, and his wife Eileen, 29, along the Queensland coast since they vanished on January 25. The couple, both experienced divers, were on holiday in Australia after working with the American Peace Corps in Fiji and Tuvalu. People who met the couple in Port Douglas, where they were staying, remember two "smiling young Americans" who had come to Australia specifically to dive on St Crispen reef. In fact they waited 10 days until the weather conditions were perfect for their dive. The couple did three dives in the area before being given permission to dive on their own. Other divers report them climbing back on board for the return trip, but then disappearing into the water again. The alarm was only raised when a crew member from the dive boat Outer Edge found their bags two days later. A sea and air search later recovered pieces of equipment, flippers and clothing, but no bodies. While the police seem to believe the couple probably drowned or were eaten by sharks, more elaborate theories continue to proliferate. Speculation that the couple may have planned their suicide started after notes were found by police in the Lonergans' hotel room which were said to have indicated there had been recent "personal trauma" indicating the couple were suicidal. But relatives have angrily discounted this theory. They have denied suggestions that the couple had marriage problems - or that Mr Lonergan was depressed about his job prospects. Mr Lonergan's mother Elizabeth said: "I will tell you what the story is: they were left behind. All this talk about them wanting to disappear is just a bunch of garbage - somebody left them in the water and they did not report it for two and a half days." The Queensland police are currently winding up their investigation and their findings will be aired at an inquest due to begin this week in the town of Mossman. Police say valuable time was wasted investigating possible links between this case and that of a fellow American, Milton Harris, who attempted to fake his own suicide by jumping off a car ferry in South Australia in 1985. When a rescuer dived in to save him, he found Harris, who had a $3 million life insurance policy, sitting on the seabed breathing from a concealed air bottle. Harris later disappeared off a New Zealand ferry. Detective Colin McCallum said that despite the fact that all three people came from Baton Rouge in Louisiana, there was nothing to link the two incidents and he dismissed the idea that the Lonergans had somehow faked their own suicide as "nonsense". But few people in Port Douglas - and certainly not those who know the Barrier Reef well - are happy with the official version of events surrounding the Lonergans' disappearance. While the authorities initially claimed that the couple had drowned or were eaten by tiger sharks, diving experts say that the couple could have easily swum to a well-frequented pontoon and waited to be picked up by rescuers. Grahame Connett, a local diver, said: "There was a Quicksilver dive site - a brightly lit permanent platform in the ocean used by divers - that is 2.7 nautical miles from the dive site. It was in the area, if they wanted to go there. There were three or four boats in the area and a dive platform, and they [the Lonergans] had five hours of light available. There is no doubt that they could< |
| Comment by:- Tom L | | 28 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just saw Open Water and thought it was OK. The whole movie was about them in the water and what they were doing the whole time in the water. What do we know except 2 divers got left from the dive boat and were unaccounted for. I have talked to a diver who has dove all around the world and she states this can eaisly happen. The boats are so crowded and they just do not keep up like they should on return trips. All divers should sign in when coming back onto the boat or they should have a roll call, which some people answer for others, I have been told. Why would the woman not leave her BC on and wait for help? We don't know what happened or why they took their clothes off if they say they were found. This dive compnay should pay for damages to the family and followed up sooner when they returned to shore. The boat should be looked over carefully and checked all gear left onboard. This should be a lesson to all divers and diveboat owners. |
| Comment by:- Donna J | | 29 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Exactly the point people are making! We -don't- know what happened. The entire movie is fiction except for the fact that two divers were left behind. That's like saying that Saving Private Ryan is "based on actual events" because World War II happened and we know that there were some soldiers that were behind enemy lines durig the invasion of Normandy. Discuss the situation as much as you like, but it doesn't make the director's clams any more truthful. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 29 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I was entertained but disappointed by the sudden and sad ending. On the bright side, the girl is beautiful, and fortunately there was a good look at her in bed. |
| Comment by:- John | | 29 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Great movie. Wonderful to see a movie that isn't corrupted by Hollywood voodoo special effects and nonsense. Worth every penny. Don't be disillusioned by other's comments about the camera shots etc... they just want special effects. Very tense movie. Raw emotion. I will buy this movie when it comes out on DVD and will scare my friends and family with it. Tense... |
| Comment by:- Trey Scudder | | 29 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I didn't want special effects. I wanted plot. I wanted dialogue. I wanted real acting. It's easy to be intense... Look at Keanu Reeves. It's not easy to be complex. The actors were not. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 29 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| this movie fukin sucks. cabin fever was better then this. on a scale of 1-10 ill give it a -50. DONT GO TO THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! if u do ur a fukin sucker |
| Comment by:- jroc | | 30 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| It doesnt matter if you like or dislike this movie... as evidenced on this page it all made you creat a powerful opinion one way or the other... How many Im just not sure comments do you see in here... exactly...Some people do not have the scope to be able to understand this type of film because they compare it to something they already know and understand... big screen movies... and this is not that... is this movie better than jaws... it doesnt matter... its not the same thing... its something new and different and its own... throw away all of your preconceptions about this movie and let it have its own powerful affect on you... whether thats positive or negative at least give it a shot...Dont let others decide and dont let your past movie experiences decide what you think about this film... |
| Comment by:- Adam | | 30 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| If I go to a new restaurant that is claiming to sell "the best burgers in town", and they taste like crap... I'm going to ask for my money back! I'm not going to use my imagination to make it taste any better! The cook may have tried his best... but if he doesn't know what he's doing, and the burger taste like crap... screw him... get the hell out of the kitchen! For those of you who don't understand what I meant, I was comparing "the best burger in town" to Open Waters claim to be "The scariest movie of the summer"... freak'n morons! If you like burgers that taste like crap… you obviously have lousy taste! Thank you |
| Comment by:- Glen Romero | | 30 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Ditto! Use my imagination? Why should I pay to do that? I am still amazed at the people who liked this high school art film. One word: Pseudo-intellectual |
| Comment by:- Ching | | 30 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I hate having to re-write this. |
| Comment by:- blah | | 31 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I went to see this movie last night and I was disappointed. I went to see this show because I heard the film was based on a true story....but the only thing truthful about it is that 2 people got left behind in the "Open Water"'s of the ocean. The movie is boring. The only thing that keeps you watching is the suspense of finding out what happens to these people.....but nothing happens and bingo the movie is over. I actually heard people yelling for their money back. The movie is a Blair Witch Project in the sense that it captivates the audience and dinks around with your imagination with no real story or ending. I should emphasize the word ending because there is none....The movie kept me entertained for 80 minutes, but it wasn't worth it because at the end of the show I was ****ed off that the movie had been jerking my chain for the entire period. The only thing remotely useful about this film is that it serves as a good warning for anyone who likes to dive. |
| Comment by:- Paul | | 31 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Worst movie i've ever seen- waste of money |
| Comment by:- ali | | 31 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Right. We don't "have the scope to understand" the film. Uh huh. The reason so many people didn't like it had nothing to do with the fact that it sucked. Look, I don't want to have to say this again, but I guess I must. I'm not stupid. I'm not narrow minded. I didn't expect a big budget film, and I didn't expect a shark movie. I am a member of the professional film group at ASU. I have helped create several independant films in several functions. I watch independant films all the time. This independant film was not good. It had nothing good that a film can have, independant or not. What it -did- have is the schlock that many independant films have to make snooty but ignorant people say "How artistic!" and ten turn their nose up at those who know better. Get the hell out of your little black turtlenecks and learn how to be truly discerning. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 31 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| Right. We don't "have the scope to understand" the film. Uh huh. The reason so many people didn't like it had nothing to do with the fact that it sucked. Look, I don't want to have to say this again, but I guess I must. I'm not stupid. I'm not narrow minded. I didn't expect a big budget film, and I didn't expect a shark movie. I am a member of the professional film group at ASU. I have helped create several independant films in several functions. I watch independant films all the time. This independant film was not good. It had nothing good that a film can have, independant or not. What it -did- have is the schlock that many independant films have to make snooty but ignorant people say "How artistic!" and ten turn their nose up at those who know better. Get the hell out of your little black turtlenecks and learn how to be truly discerning. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 31 August 2004 | ip: logged |
| I went to see this movie with my family, thinking it was a thriller, but it wasn't "thrilling." I'd describe it as haunting, but we weren't there to be haunted, only to be entertained, a desire that seems to've been thwarted in a lot of the people posting here. And instead of feeling excitement, I felt boredom, followed by a deepening, sick dread. My sixteen year-old brother was bored, my mom thought it sucked. It made me queasy. I have mixed feelings about the movie. I liked it as a concept, and I think it might've made a good short story. As a movie, it fell flat-- it was like an aquatic Waiting for Godot. I had hoped that at least the writer / director would take dramatic advantage of the grim situation to explore some of Daniel and Sue's underlying drama. What is Sue's job? Why is the couple attracted to each other? What secrets would they reveal, unburdening their consciences when faced with a prospect of death? This might've made the hour we spent watching them float around in the middle of the ocean worthwhile. There are lots of movies portraying certain or approaching doom-- the Blair Witch Project offers an easy comparison. But that movie had more drama and a metaphysical underpinning of reality / cinematography that held my attention, plus a gotcha ending (the camera in the shark's belly was a good one, but I was expecting an arm or a foot, for crying out loud. If John Carpenter had started the Thing at the end when Keith David and Kurt Russell are passing a bottle back and forth, waiting to freeze to death, I think people might have the same outraged reaction. Or imagine an English Patient where we just wait with Kristen Scott Thomas for Ralph Fiennes to show up. Not my idea of a good time. I hope no one is encouraged by this movie to make a film version of "To Build A Fire" or The Snows of Kilimanjaro. But reading all of these comments almost makes up for having watched the movie. It's like we all survived the same traumatic experience. |
| Comment by:- Bambi | | 01 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just finished seeing the movie. The only part that was really any good was seeing Blanchard Ryan's naked breasts and a little shot of her "muff", but it wasn't worth $7.00 US cash. |
| Comment by:- Biggie J | | 02 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| this was the worst movie i ever saw. i didnt like the way they filmed it because it looked liek a home movie and the dialogue was horrible. If the seats were more comfortable i would have taken the opportunity to sleep. This had a chance to be a really great movie but ended up being one of the worst i ever saw and i usually love all movies |
| Comment by:- Kristyn | | 02 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| This movie SUCKS. Worst movie I've seen this year, don't waste your money. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 03 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Oops-- there already is a movie version of The Snows of Kilimanjaro. But I'll bet the movie doesn't center around a man scratching his leg with a thorn, saying "Ow, my leg hurts!" [20 minutes later] "Wow, this REALLY hurts!" [20 minutes later] "Uh-oh, it's got blue streaks running across it!" [20 minutes more of watching him sit there gritting his teeth in pain] "I have to pee!" [Pees] "Aaah. I'm glad I don't have to pee anymore, but my leg still really hurts! And what's with all these insects? [Swats at insects] And so on. . . |
| Comment by:- Bambi | | 03 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| sad...sad...SAD movie. Shame on all the people who took part in making this 79min waste of tape. Whoever said it was a scary movie should get themselves checked. I was laughing mostly throughout the movie, thinking how the cinema ripped me off. So after it was done i sneaked in to watch Paparazzi - totally worth ur time. |
| Comment by:- R0-Blade | | 04 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Just saw it- great movie. Such a realness unlike everything else out there today! GREAT! |
| Comment by:- JJ | | 05 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I just read a post where one of the people called us morons if we liked the movie...ok, just state whether you liked it or not - you don't need to attack people for what they like/don't like. |
| Comment by:- nemo | | 05 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw this movie last week with my family and have to admit, despite being poorly made with absolutely no entertaining plot, it did give me a cheap thrill of nature's danger ala The Blair Witch Project. Just like this latter picture, I felt that Open Water was more of a documentary that is suitable for watching on the late late late movie on free TV. It definitely wasn't worth the price of a saturday evening prime time admission ticket at the local movie theater. |
| Comment by:- Bob | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| After my posting I took the liberty to read a lot of the other posters' comments about this film, and am not at all surprised by the mostly negative attitude that was displayed. I think a lot of it may have had to do with the fact that some of the dialogues that took place in the "open water" were totally unrealistic and made this film somewhat of a farce, despite the pros' claims that this film was great because it was "realistic". Consider this: Right after they discover that their tour boat took off without them, Dan refuses to swim towards one of the surrounding boats in the distance. Realistically, wouldn't you try to save yourself and go for whatever potential help was around and available? Susan becoming upset at Dan because she felt a sudden warmth near her, which was the result of Dan's urinating. Realistically, would somebody in this position really care whether that was happening at that moment? Susan getting angry at Dan because he always liked to play the bigshot and go off from the rest of the group on these types of excursions. Again, who cares at that point? The scene where Dan seems like he's in heaven because Susan found some pieces of Taffy in her wetsuit that he could enjoy. I mean, it's one thing to ravenously grab for them and eat them whole, being that you are starved at that moment and need to eat, but to enjoy them like you were just taking a neighborhood stroll back from the candystore? C'mon. The scene where Dan suddenly becomes totally irate and starts cursing out the touring company for their predicament, in much the same way that somebody would chew out a fast food restaurant manager because their burgers were overcooked. I mean, let's get real here. It's scenes like these that I feel provoked a lot of the negative comments from the posters above, more so than the "bad camera shots" or the "lack of special effects" or the "quick & uneventful ending", although, these factors certainly didn't help matters either. |
| Comment by:- Bob | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I would say the film is fairly "realistic" in that it manages to make the audience feel the same dread that the characters do. A couple of points drive that home: They can't swim for the boats on the horizon because those boats are *miles* away and the current is headed in the oposite direction. Not even that kid from the US olympic team with all the medals would be able to make it to those boats. Susan doesn't become angry at Dan for urinating, she just calls him gross. Later she lets go on him with the comment "at least we'll feel warm for a moment" Anyone who's been in a relationship also knows that sometimes when you get stressed out you start pointing the finger at your partner. Not because it's their fault or because they can fix it, but because it is human nature to try and derive a reason for a predicament. It is much more psychologically damaging when things happen for no reason. The boat just isn't there. Trying to reason why it's not there is just a way of coping with the problem. Aren't truly random acts of violence in a neighborhood more disturbing than if someone beat up another person that they had routinely feuded with? Reasons provide a small amount of comfort in an entirely uncorfortable situation. I also find it a bit hypocritical that a complaint could be made that the characters are acting hysterical for no reason, followed by a complaint that they aren't hysterical enough about the candy. When they eat the candy they aren't starving, they've only been in the water about 8 hours. Hungry, but definitely not starving. Besides, who eats taffy fast? It's a candy that's supposed to take a long time to eat, and since they have nothing else to munch on, why not take their time? When Dan starts yelling at the tour company, he's just letting out stress that's been building up all day. When people slam their fingers in the door, they commonly yell out exclamations (often profane). Does it make their fingers less injured? No. But it does allow a quick emotional release. While I wouldn't say that this was the most realistic movie I've ever seen, it was definitely very absorbing and had an eery ability to make me feel like I was floating in the water with the 2 divers. |
| Comment by:- j | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| You'll either love it or hate it - very few middle of the road folks on this one. It's Indie, so it's low budget with not-so-great dialogue and low quality film. That said, the story is a good one, but the ending is, um, very Indie - not Hollywood at all - and I think that's what's got everyone so miffed. Brief, gratuitous nudity (not at all necessary to the story, alas) and voluminous but slightly more appropriate cursing. Go in expecting something your Uncle Al taped on his tropical vacation and you should be pleasantly surprised. Oh, and just for the record, I liked it. |
| Comment by:- fish eater | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I didn't have a problem with the realism of the dialogue, just the fact that no pains were taken to make the drama interesting, beyond the basic situation itself. I give the filmmakers credit for creating a visceral sensation of fear in the audience. The part where Susan wakes up alone in the water and the shadow of a shark is seen slithering beneath her is a deliciously terrifying moment. Likewise the part where the sharks are jostling Daniel's body around gave me the creeps. For me, these moments weren't enough to make up for the rest of the movie. Many horrible fates that have actually happened to real people, no matter how gruesome, just wouldn't be interesting to watch for an hour--wandering through the desert, starvation, chinese water torture, radiation poisoning-- the list goes on. Making people sympathise with such a f**ked up situation would be the easy part. The harder part would be creating believable, well-rounded characters, good dialogue, and a gripping, well-paced, perhaps even thought-provoking story, all of which were missing here. I won't dis' the cinematography since they were on a budget, but I don't understand why Chris Kentis didn't feel that he needed to put any more thought into the story. |
| Comment by:- Bambi | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Again, all the comments by j make perfect sense in a normal everyday life setting, where people in a certain predicament have time to think about how they should act and feel and ways about how they should get out of their predicament, all without facing an impending doom that their lives are in immediate danger. With that said, J's comments make absolutely no sense within the context of explaining this movie. |
| Comment by:- Bob | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| As a follow-up, I would like to point out that how j was analyzing my comments is normal for anybody who has never been in a life and death situation such as Dan and Susan were, as they were stranded helplessly in the water with man eating ocean predators constantly passing by them. With that said, I do have to take a step back and realize that after all, this is a movie which was made to make money off of "entertaining" the general public. Therefore, certain unrealistic human behavioral attributes had to be exhibited in order to keep the audience somewhat interested. Although, judging by the comments made by the majority of the above posters, the movie greatly disappointed in that regard also. |
| Comment by:- Bob | | 07 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Bob...Are you a ****ing psychologist or something? The movie sucked ****..end of story. I did like that chicks boobs though...or in the words of Bob..."I think it would have been pleasant if Dan and Susan engaged in sexual intercourse". |
| Comment by:- Paul | | 11 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| No ****. Movie sucked. No questions asked. Artistic? ****. Get some garbage and throw it together. Better. Realistic dialogue? Yeah, that's hard. Realistic -AND- meaningful dialogue... Not this waste of cellulose. Suspense? Unless you're scared to -drive-, I've had more edge-of-my-seat action from a game of Trivial Pursuit. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 12 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| If you liked "Anacondas" or "Alien vs. Predator", chances are you're going to HATE this movie. On the other hand, if you liked "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" or "El Mariachi" or "Run, Lola, Run", then you may very well LOVE this movie. |
| Comment by:- fish eater | | 15 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I beg to differ. There was more plotline and better dialogue in all three movies (RHPS even!) than in Open Water. What really got people's danders up in this place seems to be the lack of content, not the presentation of the content. Lack of substance cannot be saved by a different presentation. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 16 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| I saw Open Water last night. After reading all the reviews here, I wonder if I saw the same movie everyone else saw. This movie wasn't about sharks or vacations or a jittery camera or making the most of a low budget. It was a metaphor a commited relationship. At least, that's how I saw it. If you love someone, put yourself and that person in the water in place of the two characters. How would you react? What would you do? It distilled a lifelong relationship with another person into an hour and half. Very thought provoking. |
| Comment by:- Shaggy | | 23 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| sorry guys. i couldnt even justify this film as a media studies student. its lack of character developement, shoddy camera work, and the fact that i was screwed out of £6 to see two people floating in the ocean does not make this halfway worth seeing. Better spend that £6 on a pizza or anything other then Open Water for that matter |
| Comment by:- Wez | | 26 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| Blanchard Ryan is incredibly hot. I cant stop thinking about her. |
| Comment by:- Craig | | 28 September 2004 | ip: logged |
| No character progression blah blah whine etc Not all storys have a happy ending, go watch bruce almighty or something. |
| Comment by:- Anonymous | | 04 Oct |