Before watching this, I actually thought it was going to be derivative of "Aliens", but I was wrong: it's derivative of "The Abyss" (the aliens are a benign, superior, more civilized race). Anyway, the special effects are pretty bad, the performances mediocre and the whole thing is rather lifeless. Too short (75 minutes) to be painful, though. (*1/2)
24 Reviews
Deep-sea replica from the Lord of the rip-offs
Chase_Witherspoon30 September 2012
It's the quickest cash-in on a popular sub-genre you'll ever see, appearing less than a year following "Leviathan", "The Abyss" and "Deepstar Six", starring the once-attractive Priscilla Barnes as a scientist aboard a deep-sea station who discovers a sinister plot to overcome the occupants of the expedition by a superior alien race via mind control.
Bradford Dillman plays the mothership's long-suffering skipper on his last voyage before a well-earned retirement, and among the otherwise undistinguished cast is John Lafayette as the commander of a satellite shuttle before his career accelerated culminating in back-to-back Tom Clancy inspired films ("Patriot Games" and "Clear and Present Danger").
Imagine "Alien" meets "The Abyss" while channelling "The Thing" on a tenth of the budget, and in half the time and you're somewhere in the vicinity of "Lords of the Deep". Claustrophobic with clunky cardboard sets (the eponymous creatures are truly absurd), limited (though sometimes gory) special effects (some of which is also blatant plagiarism) and astonishingly overwrought acting, it's tremendously bad, but if you're a fan of these types of C-grade rip-offs, and especially those conceived by the great Roger Corman, then it should nevertheless be enjoyable.
Bradford Dillman plays the mothership's long-suffering skipper on his last voyage before a well-earned retirement, and among the otherwise undistinguished cast is John Lafayette as the commander of a satellite shuttle before his career accelerated culminating in back-to-back Tom Clancy inspired films ("Patriot Games" and "Clear and Present Danger").
Imagine "Alien" meets "The Abyss" while channelling "The Thing" on a tenth of the budget, and in half the time and you're somewhere in the vicinity of "Lords of the Deep". Claustrophobic with clunky cardboard sets (the eponymous creatures are truly absurd), limited (though sometimes gory) special effects (some of which is also blatant plagiarism) and astonishingly overwrought acting, it's tremendously bad, but if you're a fan of these types of C-grade rip-offs, and especially those conceived by the great Roger Corman, then it should nevertheless be enjoyable.
Something Is Deep Alright!
BaronBl00d10 June 2006
Pathetically poor production from Roger Corman and directed by Mary Ann Fisher about sometime in the future when more habitable living space is needed - so a company is trying to mine the depths of the oceans as a future home for mankind. We get to look in on the daily lives of a small group of scientists led by Bradford Dillman as they find another living form hitherto unknown to man. The plot pretext doesn't sound all that bad, but you are in store for a real "treat" as we get nowhere fast with the plot, some inane dialog, some incredibly poor special effects, a pace that would make the tortoise bored, and acting from a paper bag by Dillman and even worse pretty Priscella Barnes trying to convince the audience and the camera that she can act dramatically. There are a couple scenes, where Priscella has just witnessed a killing or heard of one, and she still looks like she smiles throughout the whole proceedings. But worst of all - this film is just plain boring. Nothing of any real note happens, and it has some ludicrous end to try and wrap it all up.
A wonderfully bad movie, enjoyable to watch
GlennBeckFan8 July 2005
I have a great story about the movie. In 1989, I was going to David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. Near Lipscomb is 100 Oaks Mall, which at the time had a 99 cent movie theater in one of its strip centers next to the mall.
One Friday night I was hanging with a bunch of friends and we decided to go see a cheap movie. I forget the other show but in theater 1 was Lords of the Deep. It was billed as having the same sfx director as Aliens so we thought it might be good. There were roughly 30 people in the auditorium, including 8 in my group.
Within minutes we realized that we were in for a real gem of a movie. As each minute passed the storyline got more and more ridiculous and the actors looked like they were sleepwalking through the lines fully cognizant that they'd just made a massive career blunder. Within 10 mins. there were the first subdued chuckles from some of the more ridiculous lines and then came snickers, snorts, chortles, and lastly, pure laughter for a supposedly serious Sci-Fi thriller.
After it was over we pledged to try and see the movie again Saturday night. We drove back to campus and told all of our friends. Saturday there were 60 people in the crowd. At the Sunday 9pm showing there were probably 100 people. Monday, the last time I saw it the show was nearly sold out.
If you want a true, blue, so-bad-it-is-good film check out this cinematic calamity at your nearest Blockbuster.
One Friday night I was hanging with a bunch of friends and we decided to go see a cheap movie. I forget the other show but in theater 1 was Lords of the Deep. It was billed as having the same sfx director as Aliens so we thought it might be good. There were roughly 30 people in the auditorium, including 8 in my group.
Within minutes we realized that we were in for a real gem of a movie. As each minute passed the storyline got more and more ridiculous and the actors looked like they were sleepwalking through the lines fully cognizant that they'd just made a massive career blunder. Within 10 mins. there were the first subdued chuckles from some of the more ridiculous lines and then came snickers, snorts, chortles, and lastly, pure laughter for a supposedly serious Sci-Fi thriller.
After it was over we pledged to try and see the movie again Saturday night. We drove back to campus and told all of our friends. Saturday there were 60 people in the crowd. At the Sunday 9pm showing there were probably 100 people. Monday, the last time I saw it the show was nearly sold out.
If you want a true, blue, so-bad-it-is-good film check out this cinematic calamity at your nearest Blockbuster.
My brother is gonna pay for this!
Zorin-210 August 2000
I gave my brother 5 bucks to go buy me a used movie because I was unable to go. He came home with "Lords of the Deep". He said he picked it out because I like underwater movies such as "The Abyss", "Leviathan", "Deep Star Six", and "Sphere". I knew I was in trouble when I looked on the credits and found that Roger Corman was the producer. "Lords of the Deep" ended up being so bad that I donated it to the library. What a horrible viewing experience!
Good Lord! (of the deep)
litefantastic25 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Curiously, the experience that led me to this movie is almost exactly the same as that of another reviewer, Zorin-2, who sent his brother to buy a used copy from the video store. I did exactly the same thing (although I went to the video store myself) and even payed the same about ($5). However, I fully admit to walking into the trap of my own free will.
Let me explain.
The video store in my home town has been in business since the early 1980s (and even had Betamax tapes for awhile). Their VHS selection is comprised largely of arcane films that I had never heard of and, when I looked the titles up, found to be out of print. These were the films whose box cover art had been bleached down to blue and gray by a quarter century of sun exposure. They had "Solarbabies," "Dracula 3000" and "Warbus." And so, on that fateful day I found they were selling their videotapes, I knew it was time to move. And I picked up "Lords of the Deep."
They'd already sold "Warbus."
This movie is bad. This movie is so bad I'm honestly surprised it never got turned into an episode of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000." I mean, come on. When the aliens tell Claire that they've fled a dead planet only to end up on another world on the same condition, was anyone else thinking, "Sucks for you!" It all but writes itself! To call the acting here 'limited' would be an injustice to the actors, because they HAVE range, but have no control over it. Watch the deranged Commander Dobler shift from authoritarian puppetmaster to squawking manager to comforting paternal figure to obsequious lackey and then back to puppetmaster again! Watch Claire neglect lab protocol and then ignore her own personal safety! Watch everyone rock back and forth during the "earthquakes"! Oh, and let's not forget to credit the set and props people. The alien creatures look NOTHING AT ALL like they were carved out of Styrofoam, and the "weapons" that seem to shoot sparks or something would be excellent for lighting barbecues. Special credit to whoever designed the Martel jumpsuits all the characters wear. Never in a million years would I have thought to sew large flannel patches onto my shoulders to spice my clothing up.
So, yeah. This was a bad movie. It did indeed enter the zone of being so bad it's good, but it's not so awful it's hilarious. The film doesn't really leave much room for a sequel, but I think a prequel set five or six months earlier, in deep sea team training, would be interesting. They could call it "Everybody Loves Dobler."
Let me explain.
The video store in my home town has been in business since the early 1980s (and even had Betamax tapes for awhile). Their VHS selection is comprised largely of arcane films that I had never heard of and, when I looked the titles up, found to be out of print. These were the films whose box cover art had been bleached down to blue and gray by a quarter century of sun exposure. They had "Solarbabies," "Dracula 3000" and "Warbus." And so, on that fateful day I found they were selling their videotapes, I knew it was time to move. And I picked up "Lords of the Deep."
They'd already sold "Warbus."
This movie is bad. This movie is so bad I'm honestly surprised it never got turned into an episode of "Mystery Science Theatre 3000." I mean, come on. When the aliens tell Claire that they've fled a dead planet only to end up on another world on the same condition, was anyone else thinking, "Sucks for you!" It all but writes itself! To call the acting here 'limited' would be an injustice to the actors, because they HAVE range, but have no control over it. Watch the deranged Commander Dobler shift from authoritarian puppetmaster to squawking manager to comforting paternal figure to obsequious lackey and then back to puppetmaster again! Watch Claire neglect lab protocol and then ignore her own personal safety! Watch everyone rock back and forth during the "earthquakes"! Oh, and let's not forget to credit the set and props people. The alien creatures look NOTHING AT ALL like they were carved out of Styrofoam, and the "weapons" that seem to shoot sparks or something would be excellent for lighting barbecues. Special credit to whoever designed the Martel jumpsuits all the characters wear. Never in a million years would I have thought to sew large flannel patches onto my shoulders to spice my clothing up.
So, yeah. This was a bad movie. It did indeed enter the zone of being so bad it's good, but it's not so awful it's hilarious. The film doesn't really leave much room for a sequel, but I think a prequel set five or six months earlier, in deep sea team training, would be interesting. They could call it "Everybody Loves Dobler."
In the Realm of low grade cheapies, this one's alright!
AceTheMovieCritic8 September 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I'm surprised to see so many 1 star reviews on here. As someone who enjoys a large range of films, I sometimes find myself in the mood for some easy lazy afternoon cinema, and that to me describes much of the Roger Corman output that was released during the Concorde era of his films. Many of them were cheaply made cash in films, eithering following along with a popular genre trend, or attempting to rip off a current hit and pick up some of those loose coins left in its' wake.
This film falls into the latter group, and joins the ranks of several other undersea cash in films, such as Leviathan, Deepstar Six, and The Rift, all of which came out near the release of The Abyss. I've not seen Deepstar Six, but of the other two, I'd say I like this film the best. This is a Corman flick produced near his direct to video era, so this was never going to be great, or perhaps even good. But I do think it finds its way to being enjoyable for most of it, even if it begins to feel labored in the climax. I think at 78 minutes, the movie barely holds it's runtime. So that tells you something right there. But I'm always partial to an undersea setting, and I think a lot of the alien elements work okay, although at times it does play as unintentionally comedic. As a big fan of 2001: A Space Odyssy, I enjoyed the bizarre way this film displays its influence by it. It also uses this element to get across a somewhat preachy global warming message, but in its a way, I find it kind of charming. I think the alien set that we see later in the movie also has this charming quality.
The actors are no great shake, and the story is a jumble of recycled elements we've seen many times before, but I was going with it enough to not mind the clear influences. Again, this is a Corman picture made in 1989, I wasn't expecting art. I will say, Corman's cameo put a smile on my face, so perhaps that shows some bias of me being predisposed to his work, which is true. But if you find yourself in the mood to watch some cheap Charles Band, or Corman style junk, you can do a heck of a lot worse than Lords of the Deep. And who knows, maybe you'll even find yourself enjoying it.
This film falls into the latter group, and joins the ranks of several other undersea cash in films, such as Leviathan, Deepstar Six, and The Rift, all of which came out near the release of The Abyss. I've not seen Deepstar Six, but of the other two, I'd say I like this film the best. This is a Corman flick produced near his direct to video era, so this was never going to be great, or perhaps even good. But I do think it finds its way to being enjoyable for most of it, even if it begins to feel labored in the climax. I think at 78 minutes, the movie barely holds it's runtime. So that tells you something right there. But I'm always partial to an undersea setting, and I think a lot of the alien elements work okay, although at times it does play as unintentionally comedic. As a big fan of 2001: A Space Odyssy, I enjoyed the bizarre way this film displays its influence by it. It also uses this element to get across a somewhat preachy global warming message, but in its a way, I find it kind of charming. I think the alien set that we see later in the movie also has this charming quality.
The actors are no great shake, and the story is a jumble of recycled elements we've seen many times before, but I was going with it enough to not mind the clear influences. Again, this is a Corman picture made in 1989, I wasn't expecting art. I will say, Corman's cameo put a smile on my face, so perhaps that shows some bias of me being predisposed to his work, which is true. But if you find yourself in the mood to watch some cheap Charles Band, or Corman style junk, you can do a heck of a lot worse than Lords of the Deep. And who knows, maybe you'll even find yourself enjoying it.
cheap ABYSS rip-off
silentgpaleo6 July 2000
In the future, the government has established colonies on the bottom of the ocean to contend with the threats of global warming. Priscilla Barnes plays a scientist who becomes dazzled by what discoveries she makes living underwater.
This is dull, dull, dull. There is no action, no violence or nudity, and Roger Corman has a cameo. The special effects are passable, but some of this stuff is lifted from past Corman flicks, which ads to the cheapness. Mostly, the characters just talk a lot, and argue.
This is no way to spend 79 minutes, unless you like looking in at fake aquariums.
This is dull, dull, dull. There is no action, no violence or nudity, and Roger Corman has a cameo. The special effects are passable, but some of this stuff is lifted from past Corman flicks, which ads to the cheapness. Mostly, the characters just talk a lot, and argue.
This is no way to spend 79 minutes, unless you like looking in at fake aquariums.
This one hurt
BandSAboutMovies22 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A Roger Corman produced ripoff of The Abyss? I'm not sure that there's anything that sounds worse. How bad is it? Two-time Academy Award winner Janusz Kaminski (those Oscars are for Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan) worked on the movie for a few weeks before being removed because the stuff he filmed looked too good.
In the near future which is probably today, an undersea lab is trying to figure out new places to live, as the ozone layer is completely gone. Claire (Priscilla Barnes from TV's Three's Company) has found an unknown life form that gives her psychic visions. Nothing strange there. Nope. Not at all.
Then there are all these manta ray creatures that keep wiping out the crew and their subs. One of them even gets transformed into a jelly man. Or a gelatinous mass, but I like the phrase jelly man.
Commander Dobler (Bradford Dillman, who also shows up in Piranha and The Swarm, so obviously he is an enemy of nature) quarantines the ship and refuses to allow anyone to study the jellified crewman. This happens several times, as Claire undergoes several psychic visions. Can she and her boyfriend (played by Daryl Haney, who wrote Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood) save the day? Will Roger Corman show up in a cameo? Will the ending completely rip off The Abyss?
Probably the only interesting thing I can tell you about this movie is that the crew members are all named for New York Mets players.
In the near future which is probably today, an undersea lab is trying to figure out new places to live, as the ozone layer is completely gone. Claire (Priscilla Barnes from TV's Three's Company) has found an unknown life form that gives her psychic visions. Nothing strange there. Nope. Not at all.
Then there are all these manta ray creatures that keep wiping out the crew and their subs. One of them even gets transformed into a jelly man. Or a gelatinous mass, but I like the phrase jelly man.
Commander Dobler (Bradford Dillman, who also shows up in Piranha and The Swarm, so obviously he is an enemy of nature) quarantines the ship and refuses to allow anyone to study the jellified crewman. This happens several times, as Claire undergoes several psychic visions. Can she and her boyfriend (played by Daryl Haney, who wrote Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood) save the day? Will Roger Corman show up in a cameo? Will the ending completely rip off The Abyss?
Probably the only interesting thing I can tell you about this movie is that the crew members are all named for New York Mets players.
Not so good
dajones-430 May 2021
I had read many of the reviews before deciding to watch this anyway. So, I was not expecting much going in.
Many of the reviewers belch out their complaint that it is an "Abyss" ripoff. I guess it is simpler to condemn something and not research anything. In fact, though, Abyss was released over 2 months AFTER Lords of the Deep. So, if their was any "copying" going on, it looks to me that Abyss was copying Lords.
Abyss had 70 million dollars to stick in to the production, whereas Lords of the Deep doesn't even list their budget. Obviously, it was vastly less than 70 million dollars. And it showed.
That is about it for me defending this movie. It was not very good at all. I'm no director, so I cannot say just what I would have done differently, but the "acting" was more "reciting" than acting.
It is set over 30 years in the future, after humans have obliterated earth's resources, so they have moved under sea. I guess. There must be something still going on "up top" because they are continually referencing a replacement crew.
Most bad movies, for me anyway, have something I can grasp onto and hope for more. This thing never gave me a thing. Nevertheless, I was still prepared to give it a 4 star rate. That is, until the final 2 minute sermon. Honestly, if it had had a British accent, I would have been certain it was Greta Thunberg.
Generally, I can give an "if this" or "if that," then watch it. There is really no reason to watch it. Unless you are like me, and just want to see what all the bellyaching is about. I won't ask for my time back, but if it ever gets to the point that this is the ONLY movie left on the planet...I think I will just read a book instead.
Many of the reviewers belch out their complaint that it is an "Abyss" ripoff. I guess it is simpler to condemn something and not research anything. In fact, though, Abyss was released over 2 months AFTER Lords of the Deep. So, if their was any "copying" going on, it looks to me that Abyss was copying Lords.
Abyss had 70 million dollars to stick in to the production, whereas Lords of the Deep doesn't even list their budget. Obviously, it was vastly less than 70 million dollars. And it showed.
That is about it for me defending this movie. It was not very good at all. I'm no director, so I cannot say just what I would have done differently, but the "acting" was more "reciting" than acting.
It is set over 30 years in the future, after humans have obliterated earth's resources, so they have moved under sea. I guess. There must be something still going on "up top" because they are continually referencing a replacement crew.
Most bad movies, for me anyway, have something I can grasp onto and hope for more. This thing never gave me a thing. Nevertheless, I was still prepared to give it a 4 star rate. That is, until the final 2 minute sermon. Honestly, if it had had a British accent, I would have been certain it was Greta Thunberg.
Generally, I can give an "if this" or "if that," then watch it. There is really no reason to watch it. Unless you are like me, and just want to see what all the bellyaching is about. I won't ask for my time back, but if it ever gets to the point that this is the ONLY movie left on the planet...I think I will just read a book instead.
High School Film Class Attempt Sinks to New Depths!
testology20 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Abyss-mal in any sense! High school film company attempt fails, sinks to new lows. I like any kind of underwater movies but almost anyone has done one, better than this! I agree with other reviewers, it is so bad it isn't even fun that it's bad. Beneath Rotten Tomatoes! It lifts every single plot element from other movies. It surprises me that it was made in 1989, almost every aspect of film making had progressed exponentially, so this looks dated, anachronistic and even worse. It looks like the kind of old black and white film serials produced in the 30's, then shown Saturday morning on TV. Bataray creatures from Abyss, psychotic from Abyss/other movies; earthquake, from Abyss; submarines from model kits or toys; Envirowacko gloom, from virtually everything Hollywood has done for the last twenty years; incoherent background whispering and silly "special effects" designed (but failing) to emulate slitscan "trips" from 2001; worst soundtrack and dialogue ever seen, no budget for music, so instead there are excerpts from everything, so it is as incoherent and cheesy and dumb as the rest of the flick! Bradford Dillman as yet another of his psychotic roles, affected twitch and all. Dillman must have done this as a personal favor to Corman, who should be ashamed of this dumb piece of video garbage. But, as we all know Corman has no shame, he's gotten wealthy by churning out cheesy B flicks like this one and cheating audiences worldwide, for many years. He's still doing it now on SyFy, churning out their cheesy junk. What has to be the cheesiest, cheapest sets and props every assembled in one place, looking like rejects (rejects!!) from old Irwin Allen movies (even he did underwater better than this!) complete with inane, stupid dialogue and hopelessly bad acting, and a totally inept, senseless ending with... well, no ending. How did the director ever get this thing funded? I threw this one into our "donate" pile right after I watched it. Eeyikes.
What a BAD movie. Honestly, don't waste 79 minutes of your life on this piece of crap, it isn't even worth the time.
What a BAD movie. Honestly, don't waste 79 minutes of your life on this piece of crap, it isn't even worth the time.
This movie is fantastic!
jenthewriter-128 January 2019
Firstly, I will admit the only way I have seen this movie is through a Mystery Science Theater 3000: the gauntlet spoof.
If you have ever seen any of The Asylum knock off movies on the SyFy channel - this is exactly that. Only made in the 80s. If you haven't seen any of their movies imagine storylines ripped from other movies (popular at the time) with a cast of actors who were most likely found down at the local off-off-off broadway playhouse. Some are good, some are okay, and some are ... well, not great. Then mix in some cheesy dialogue and you have Lords of the Deep.
However, under the capable hands of MSTK: 3000, what would have been a death by boredom movie is now an experience that will have you coming back for more!
Give it a try! It's on Netflix.
If you have ever seen any of The Asylum knock off movies on the SyFy channel - this is exactly that. Only made in the 80s. If you haven't seen any of their movies imagine storylines ripped from other movies (popular at the time) with a cast of actors who were most likely found down at the local off-off-off broadway playhouse. Some are good, some are okay, and some are ... well, not great. Then mix in some cheesy dialogue and you have Lords of the Deep.
However, under the capable hands of MSTK: 3000, what would have been a death by boredom movie is now an experience that will have you coming back for more!
Give it a try! It's on Netflix.
I really don't understand why this is regarded so poorly.
I_Ailurophile9 December 2022
I appreciate so much that this 1989 Roger Corman production in no small part demonstrates film-making sensibilities and production values of no later than the 1960s. Imagine if 'SeaQuest DSV' was a contemporary of the original 'Star Trek,' and you start to get a good sense of what's going on here. Despite obvious poor reception to the picture, I don't actually think it's half as bad as everyone makes it out to be: there's a distinct difference between a low-budget, low-grade feature with which people apparently refuse to engage on its chosen level, and a feature that's so poorly written or made as to demand abject vilification. 'Lords of the deep,' I believe, falls neatly into the former category, and not the latter. Yes, of course it's far from a major blockbuster, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun in its own right!
Recognizing the nature of this little flick, I think it's reasonably well made for what it is. I think the crew put in good work all around - production design, art direction, effects (including the creatures), and even the sometimes excitable editing and over the top cinematography. Mary Ann Fisher's direction seems perfectly competent to me in realizing Howard R. Cohen and Daryl Haney's screenplay, which of anything here is the sticking point for me. The story is fine in the broad strokes, even as it plays in some familiar territory. The scene writing is a little more thorny, I think, especially in those moments of '2001'-style "far-out" tripping. Such moments are overindulgent, and moreover require "spaced-out" acting and direction that I think constitute the weakest parts of the picture. Elsewhere, such as leading into the second half, scenes as written manifest some slothfulness in the pacing that bogs down the experience in some measure. And more than anything else, I think 'Lords of the deep' quite struggles to find just the right tone at any point, oscillating between "it's inspiring!" and "it's horrifying!" and back again, or sometimes just failing to carry much of a mood at all. If Fisher's contribution is to be condemned for anything, then maybe that's it - the writing fails to deliver a major spark, but so does her direction.
With all this in mind, the cast make what they can of what they are given. None of the acting makes any special impression; if anything, like the lacking immediacy of the film overall, the performances are just kind of flat. Again, however: this isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable. It's flawed, but modestly interesting and entertaining even such as it is. All the right ideas were here as far as I'm concerned - imagination, and intent, and skill - only, the result is less than vibrant, at best equal to the sum of its parts but not greater, and possibly lesser. When all is said and done I can honestly say that I like 'Lords of the deep,' and I'm not entirely sure why it's been the subject of such denigration over the past 30 years. In my mind the worst that can really be said is that it fails to evoke earnest thrills or otherwise active responses, but seeing as how the same is true of many more robustly financed genre flicks, well, I can't specifically blame this title. All told there's maybe no need to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across it, I think 'Lords of the deep' is a fairly good time, and worth checking out.
Recognizing the nature of this little flick, I think it's reasonably well made for what it is. I think the crew put in good work all around - production design, art direction, effects (including the creatures), and even the sometimes excitable editing and over the top cinematography. Mary Ann Fisher's direction seems perfectly competent to me in realizing Howard R. Cohen and Daryl Haney's screenplay, which of anything here is the sticking point for me. The story is fine in the broad strokes, even as it plays in some familiar territory. The scene writing is a little more thorny, I think, especially in those moments of '2001'-style "far-out" tripping. Such moments are overindulgent, and moreover require "spaced-out" acting and direction that I think constitute the weakest parts of the picture. Elsewhere, such as leading into the second half, scenes as written manifest some slothfulness in the pacing that bogs down the experience in some measure. And more than anything else, I think 'Lords of the deep' quite struggles to find just the right tone at any point, oscillating between "it's inspiring!" and "it's horrifying!" and back again, or sometimes just failing to carry much of a mood at all. If Fisher's contribution is to be condemned for anything, then maybe that's it - the writing fails to deliver a major spark, but so does her direction.
With all this in mind, the cast make what they can of what they are given. None of the acting makes any special impression; if anything, like the lacking immediacy of the film overall, the performances are just kind of flat. Again, however: this isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable. It's flawed, but modestly interesting and entertaining even such as it is. All the right ideas were here as far as I'm concerned - imagination, and intent, and skill - only, the result is less than vibrant, at best equal to the sum of its parts but not greater, and possibly lesser. When all is said and done I can honestly say that I like 'Lords of the deep,' and I'm not entirely sure why it's been the subject of such denigration over the past 30 years. In my mind the worst that can really be said is that it fails to evoke earnest thrills or otherwise active responses, but seeing as how the same is true of many more robustly financed genre flicks, well, I can't specifically blame this title. All told there's maybe no need to go out of your way for this, but if you happen to come across it, I think 'Lords of the deep' is a fairly good time, and worth checking out.
I want one of the jumpsuits!
zoewood-4246021 March 2021
The main thing I took from this movie was that I want the horrible jumpsuit that they all wear, it's so 80s yet also timeless.
The movie was bizarre yet somehow boring. The energy from the cast was as if they were all acting in different movies. The commander was in a Shakespeare play for some reason and all the other men looked exactly the same and I was lost honestly. The only way I could get around this was by giving them all stargate character names since the one guy is called jack O'Neill.
It's a good film to make fun of
Rubbish from the Abyss
Coventry2 February 2007
Here's a strong contender for the questionable award of most redundant & time-wasting B-movie ever made! I wonder
does Roger Corman even know where his producing funds go? Or does he simply put his signature under the contracts without even reading the synopsis of these lousy Sci-Fi and horror duds? He must have read a little bit about "Lords of the Deep", since the King of the B's plays a minor role as the chief executive of a multinational mining corporation in the year 2020. Around this fine day & age, mankind is exploring the darkest depths of the oceans to create new living environments, because of course we careless humans nearly destroyed the earth. The expedition crew led by Captain Dobler made some real progress developing an undersea laboratory, but then they encounter the unknown rulers of the deep blue ocean: large, red-eyed creatures with the ability to influence human thoughts. Or at least something like that, I wasn't following closely. Despite just being 75 minutes long, "Lord of the Deep" manages to be incredibly boring and pointless. The inane dialogs and lame attempts at intrigues between the crew members make this film look like an amateur spoof of claustrophobic Sci-Fi thriller like "The Abyss" and "Alien" but, sadly, all the players take their roles too seriously. The special effects are too miserable for words. The sea-monsters look like fluffy teddy bears instead of menacing creatures and the hypnotizing light-flashes, indicating the monster search contact with the human mind, are headache inducing. Mary Ann Fisher's directing is uninspired and wildly uneven and the majority of the cast has nothing else to do than staring stupidly into the camera. What a totally inept film, avoid at all costs.
Can I give it no stars? 🤔
dkkane394 March 2020
This movie came out in June of 1989I was born in July of 1989. So luckily I wasn't alive to witness this. If a middle schooler got a couple of bucks from his parents and had the neighborhood act in the movie, that's kind of what you get with Lords of the Deep. The title is throwaway because it's never mentioned of alluded to. There's like 10 people who work in the underwater lab but everyone has name tags.With first and last names. The aliens look like they were made in an elementary school art class by first graders. The MST3K episode of this trash is awesome, so I would highly recommend watching it. But don't watch this movie alone, your sanity may depend on it.
So Bad I Walked Out
scottelly-113 September 2019
I have never walked out of any other movie. In about ten minutes I just couldn't stand watching this anymore, so I walked out. I was really surprised it was even in a movie theater. I have never wasted my time watching it on video. In all the years since that time (about 30 years), I have never seen a movie in a movie theater that made me want to walk out like that one did. I've come close, but never walked out of any other movie . . . and though I've turned off quite a lot of movies on video (either movies on TV, tapes I rented from Blockbuster or Video Avenue or movies on Netfix or Amazon Prime), I don't remember any of those being as bad as this garbage titled Lords of the Deep. It's hard to believe this movie could be SO bad. It's actually comical how bad it is. In fact, I think I'm going to get it and send it to the friend who got me to go and watch this (or at least try to watch it) at the movie theater that night way back in the 1980's. We're still friends, after all this time, so it should be pretty funny to hear about his reaction.
horrible... absolutely abysmal
mckracken15 February 2007
This soggy underwater "epic" just doesn't fall flat, it reaches new lows of horror movie depths and keeps submerging itself into its own murky abyss. Originally, it was made to compete with DeepStar Six and Leviathan, and even those movies were quickly forgotten after James Cameron's The Abyss. But ouch... this movie is REALLY REALLY bad.
This movie has ZERO redeeming qualities. Just a wet mess with some actors nobody cares about, a rubber suit that substitutes for a monster and FX so bad, they were outlawed in the 70s. The acting is atrocious, the directing is a joke, the editing is a mess. Actually this movie looks a lot like something from the 1950-60's rather than updated FX from 1989. It is indeed deserving of the classic "Direct-to-video" moniker that describes many sci/fi movies as flat Velveeta cheese.
This movie has ZERO redeeming qualities. Just a wet mess with some actors nobody cares about, a rubber suit that substitutes for a monster and FX so bad, they were outlawed in the 70s. The acting is atrocious, the directing is a joke, the editing is a mess. Actually this movie looks a lot like something from the 1950-60's rather than updated FX from 1989. It is indeed deserving of the classic "Direct-to-video" moniker that describes many sci/fi movies as flat Velveeta cheese.
Horrendous garbage
benchrsen29 April 2023
Good lord! This is one of the worst things ever to have been produced. It's as bad as that other garbage movie Future War that everyone craps on. This filthy movie is full of insinuations about feminine insticts, then the main actress who is the focus of those feminine instincts is the most horrendous actress I've seen ever I think, makes terrible faces all throughout the film, her reactions are not in tune with what is happening around her, it's contrived and fake, God is blasphemed way more often than in the Exorcist, the monster is a good feminine kind of monster that for no reason saves these pretentious clowns, the monster looks like a $5.oo Halloween costume from Target, the script is horrendous, there is no logic to anything going on at all at any time, the audio is out of tune and sometimes the actors are WAY too loud and sometimes WAY too quiet, of course the set looks like from a middle school art or science project, the uniforms are also something that was grabbed accidentally off the shelves of a Target in 1989, this horror story ends with everyone living in a PINK UTERUS OF SOME TARGET RUBBER MONSTER THAT EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T HAVE FEET JUST WALKS AROUND IN DRY ROOMS AND CAN PENETRATE WALLS, BUT FIRST BURSTS THROUGH A GLASS TANK. WTF DID I JUST WATCH?! I DON'T LIKE ADMITTING IT, BUT NOT EVERYTHING PRODUCED IN THE NARLY 80'S WAS ACTUALLY NARLY, SOME OF IT WAS TOTAL TRASH LIKE THIS SIN.
One star because zero apparently isn't an option.
dsullery12 July 2023
Review: Lords of the Deep.
Caught this on Tubi. This was one of several underwater creature movies released in 1989, along with The Abyss, The Rift, Leviathan and Deepstar Six. It went into production after The Abyss, but because it's a Roger Corman produced quickie, it was released first.
The premise is that, in the future, humans have wrecked the surface of Earth, so they've set up research stations underwater to see if man can live in the oceans. One station encounters a strange species that seems to attack them but eventually turn out to be benign aliens. Turns out the company that owns the station wants the aliens and the scientist who figured them out dead. The commander of the station is in on it.
This movie sucks. The acting sucks, the writing sucks, the production design sucks, the special effects suck, the direction sucks and even as a Corman powered rip off of The Abyss, the story sucks. Priscilla Barnes and Bradford Dillman show up and it says something I found myself embarrassed for and by both of them throughout this film..My guess is they saw the script, realized what an absolute trainwreck they were in, needed the cash and decided to just show up and do whatever the hell they felt like with their performances. At least I hope that's what happened. If someone actually directed them into the performances they deliver here, that person should be banned from the industry.
The entire movie is boring and joyless. The pacing is leaden and nothing really happens until the end and even then the explanation of what's going on with the aliens isn't worth the effort. This isn't " so bad it's good" b movie trash. It's just bad. It's not fun. It ends with a half baked ecological warning punctuated by crappy visuals. Every copy of this movie in existence could be erased and not only would no one really notice, the human experience might actually be noticably improved as a consequence.
Apparently, Mystery Science Theater 3000 tackled it. If so, I can practically guarantee that episode represents the only time this utter disaster was even remotely watchable.
Zero out of ***** stars. I didn't even pay to watch this and I still want everyone involved to pay me the price of a streaming rental to compensate for the 77 minutes that got flushed down the commode watching this mess.
Caught this on Tubi. This was one of several underwater creature movies released in 1989, along with The Abyss, The Rift, Leviathan and Deepstar Six. It went into production after The Abyss, but because it's a Roger Corman produced quickie, it was released first.
The premise is that, in the future, humans have wrecked the surface of Earth, so they've set up research stations underwater to see if man can live in the oceans. One station encounters a strange species that seems to attack them but eventually turn out to be benign aliens. Turns out the company that owns the station wants the aliens and the scientist who figured them out dead. The commander of the station is in on it.
This movie sucks. The acting sucks, the writing sucks, the production design sucks, the special effects suck, the direction sucks and even as a Corman powered rip off of The Abyss, the story sucks. Priscilla Barnes and Bradford Dillman show up and it says something I found myself embarrassed for and by both of them throughout this film..My guess is they saw the script, realized what an absolute trainwreck they were in, needed the cash and decided to just show up and do whatever the hell they felt like with their performances. At least I hope that's what happened. If someone actually directed them into the performances they deliver here, that person should be banned from the industry.
The entire movie is boring and joyless. The pacing is leaden and nothing really happens until the end and even then the explanation of what's going on with the aliens isn't worth the effort. This isn't " so bad it's good" b movie trash. It's just bad. It's not fun. It ends with a half baked ecological warning punctuated by crappy visuals. Every copy of this movie in existence could be erased and not only would no one really notice, the human experience might actually be noticably improved as a consequence.
Apparently, Mystery Science Theater 3000 tackled it. If so, I can practically guarantee that episode represents the only time this utter disaster was even remotely watchable.
Zero out of ***** stars. I didn't even pay to watch this and I still want everyone involved to pay me the price of a streaming rental to compensate for the 77 minutes that got flushed down the commode watching this mess.
Coventry is Right-This Film is SO Wrong
arthur_tafero22 November 2020
Lords of the Deep is a misnomer. It should be titled Lord of the Creeps. The D actors? in this home movie are terrible. A PHD scientist from Colorado State University sticks her hand in vat of chemicals and falls in love with fish monster. Really, you can't make this stuff up. Except for her teeth, she is creepy; everyone in the film is creepy. Even the fish are creepy. This is The Abyss on crack.
Abyss look-alike or something...
danixdefcon526 August 2007
Back in '89, I was 8 yrs. old and living in a small town with no decent theaters, and *no* cable TV service. This left me with home video rentals as my only option ... and most of these were cheesy B-movies. But this one I do respect.
It is an Abyss look-alike (which curiously, I watched BEFORE Abyss) and back then I liked it a lot. In fact, so much that I taped it and still preserve the movie up to this day. Of course, watching it about 18 years later kind of made me look how bad it was, but it is still enjoyable. It feels kind of some weird mix of Abyss (underwater aliens), 2001 (killer computer), Aliens (megacorps and hidden interests) though looking like it was filmed with a budget on par with Turkish movies a-la "Dunyayi Kurtaran Adam".
Kind of good to watch, but only if you have lots of time to waste and really really like underwater movies.
It is an Abyss look-alike (which curiously, I watched BEFORE Abyss) and back then I liked it a lot. In fact, so much that I taped it and still preserve the movie up to this day. Of course, watching it about 18 years later kind of made me look how bad it was, but it is still enjoyable. It feels kind of some weird mix of Abyss (underwater aliens), 2001 (killer computer), Aliens (megacorps and hidden interests) though looking like it was filmed with a budget on par with Turkish movies a-la "Dunyayi Kurtaran Adam".
Kind of good to watch, but only if you have lots of time to waste and really really like underwater movies.
Better than The Abyss
TCurtis919224 December 2023
I maintain that the films in the preemptive strike against The Abyss's freshness are all more entertaining than James Cameron's odiously idealistic and cliché-ridden special effects bonanza of the same year. I can't stress enough, however, that Michael Biehn's performance as Coffi is the best performance out of the many films of this nature released that year.
LORDS OF THE DEEP is no exception despite the hindrances of its low production value. Unlike the other fairly rushed efforts it deals with peaceful aliens, much like THE ABYSS, and the problems come from its villain, played very well by Bradford Dillman. It deals with environmental issues and doesn't do it with the same nasty insubordinate tone of James Cameron's disgustingly evil ideas in the propaganda that is THE ABYSS.
The aliens themselves are a treat when you see them and they're quite cool to look at.
The plot itself, especially the actions of Dillman's villain, is absolutely serviceable, as is the music.
I wouldn't rate it as good as LEVIATHAN, DEEPSTAR SIX, or even THE RIFT, because it doesn't have much re-watchability, owing to the lack of special effects, but it's fine for chilling out to.
LORDS OF THE DEEP is no exception despite the hindrances of its low production value. Unlike the other fairly rushed efforts it deals with peaceful aliens, much like THE ABYSS, and the problems come from its villain, played very well by Bradford Dillman. It deals with environmental issues and doesn't do it with the same nasty insubordinate tone of James Cameron's disgustingly evil ideas in the propaganda that is THE ABYSS.
The aliens themselves are a treat when you see them and they're quite cool to look at.
The plot itself, especially the actions of Dillman's villain, is absolutely serviceable, as is the music.
I wouldn't rate it as good as LEVIATHAN, DEEPSTAR SIX, or even THE RIFT, because it doesn't have much re-watchability, owing to the lack of special effects, but it's fine for chilling out to.
It just couldn't be any worse, or dull!
londonpaul7 October 2023
The only reason I watched this movie was because it was listed as one of the 1980s water creature movies along with Leviathan, DeepStar 6, and The Abyss.
As the movie had such good company, I thought I was in for a good movie too. Unfortunately I was not. There couldn't be anything more dull and more contrived and just plain rotten acting demonstrated right in front of you than this movie.
Luckily the producers, or whoever is responsible for the font on the opening credits, didn't notice that the font made the words almost impossible to read, and this was probably welcomed by anyone listed in those credits, so that no one would know they were involved with this movie.
Take my advice, give this movie a wide berth. Even DeepStar 6 was actes better.
As the movie had such good company, I thought I was in for a good movie too. Unfortunately I was not. There couldn't be anything more dull and more contrived and just plain rotten acting demonstrated right in front of you than this movie.
Luckily the producers, or whoever is responsible for the font on the opening credits, didn't notice that the font made the words almost impossible to read, and this was probably welcomed by anyone listed in those credits, so that no one would know they were involved with this movie.
Take my advice, give this movie a wide berth. Even DeepStar 6 was actes better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
