AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Petteri Seppala ... USA wins... How convenient ;) Once again a mad man threats United States with nuclear threat. There is only one man between the peace and ultimate chaos. What a classic starting positions for a Steven Seagal movie. Wait... This is not Steven Seagal movie. It sounds like Steven Seagal movie and it smells like Steven Seagal movie but it ain't Steven Seagal movie. In this movie Stevens traditional role as lone gunman is acted by Jason Gedrick. Plot thickens nicely towards the end. But then comes the only thing movie director should be afraid of... premature ejaculation... Afterwards this movie smokes quick cigarette and fells in deep sleep. Wacher can only say it was nice as long as it lasted. Anyways eight stars for the enjoyment as long as it lasted.

davidfurlotte In the movie "Under Siege" it was explained that Steven Segal was a former SEAL that now wanted nothing more than to be a cook, so it made sense when he was able to move around the ship and take out bad guys pretty easily. He was trained and we all knew it.In THIS movie we have a glorified medic who dropped out of high school and got into the navy when he was 25. (At least that is what his service record said according to the CIA.) So I've come up with a theory. I THINK that the 'doc' had recently watched "Under Siege" and in his spare time he practised all of Steven Segal's moves from the movie and he was just WAITING for the day somebody would take over 'his sub' so he could show his stuff. Either that or the Navy's Medical corps has evolved into some kind of Special Ops force that nobody knows about.Normally I don't like Eric Roberts in movies but his performance in this was excellent, it would have been nice if it was a film worthy of his performance, unfortunately this movie is NOT. His performance is the only reason I gave it 3 points.It would take a team of professional writers a minimum of two years to close up the plot holes in this movie. Like leaving a bad guy alive at the end or how two guys all by themselves are able to run all the systems on board a nuclear submarine. (Makes you have to wonder why all those other guys are on board the boat, doesn't it?) Oh, and you have to wonder where the bar is that all these former submariners hang out that can be recruited for piracy actions, etc.This movie has all the clichés of BAD action films.1. Bad guys can NEVER hit what they're aiming at. 2. IF the good guys are hit, "it's only a flesh wound." 3. We have the token Asian female who knows how to fight but loses to the good guy. 4. When you CATCH the good guy who has been causing all the trouble you ALWAYS allow him an opportunity to escape AND when you DO catch him, you NEVER bother to tie him up or cuff him or anything like that. 5. The set has to expand to allow the good guys sufficient space to run and hide when they have to.All in all, give it a pass unless you are capable of submerging your brain.

kersus This is a fun but unlikely little TV movie that borrows it's plot from "Under Siege" and "The Hunt for Red October" while throwing in a few unique elements of it's own (throwing around the word terrorist for one).While all the actors do a good job, the heroes are easily outdone by the villains in acting prowess and Eric Roberts actually steals the show. David Dayan Fisher stands out as well.The movie does have unlikely elements to the main story and how it shows the Whitehouse in action but really is worth the show and is at home as a TV movie.It may amaze you how close a genius and a psychotic are. Go Montana!

Pratik Jasani Similar to action movie themes such as the "Die Hard" Movies which starred Bruce Willis and "Under Siege," which starred Steven Segal. The difference is that this it involves a submarine and two men who try to regain the control of it.A American Nuclear Submarine is high jacked and the Government is threatened by Nuclear Missiles and the demand is that of firstly money and then the resignation of the President. But unknown to the demented captain of the submarine, two original members of the crew begin to ensure that his plans are distracted. The movie stars Jason Gedrick and Chris Warren Jnr and is directed by Terence O'Hara.As I have said in the summary, this could have been better and more-so, if you liked the "Die Hard" movies and "Under Siege." But never the less, the concept of this is good and is worth watching if you like to watch action movies.