The Thing Below (Video 2004) Poster

(2004 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
53 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Wretched from start to finish
jack_thursby28 June 2005
This movie is one sorry mess and its hard to believe it was ever made. There had to be some kind of tax shelter deal that enabled the birth of this monstrosity, because I fail to see how any rational person would ever willingly invest money into a script like this.

The plot involves a government-owned oil rig conducting secretive drilling operations deep underground. Something goes wrong and the crew from a tugboat delivering supplies to the rig investigates. Of course, there are government agents involved and higher-level military officers trying to keep the oil rig experiments a secret from the outside world.

This could have been a decent horror/thriller but the filmmakers obviously didn't care. Some scenes were so blatantly stupid that one would have thought of them as parodies of horror film clichés, but no, they were actual attempts at generating suspense and drama. Usually scenes are included in movies to move the story forward and to develop the characters, but the makers of "Sea Ghost" decided it would better to include scenes that made absolutely no sense in the context of the movie. To top it all off, the CGI was pathetic, I'm sure an eight year old using a Mac could have developed better effects, and would have saved the producers some money to boot. At least the no-name actors tried, although some seemed to be playing it as a comedy and others as a serious horror.
49 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please let me die!
fadedirony13 May 2006
There are no words to describe the absolute misery that this movie will subject you to. Before its end, you too would gladly welcome death.

The plot is awful. The CGI looks like it was hand-drawn onto the frames in production. The beginning credits attempt to be creative but butcher the intro. The same footage is shown over and over again, and most of it looks like it came from a 1980's 8bit video game.

What's worse is the insulting attempt to cover up how awful this film is by including a few busty women. If that's all you want from a movie, then you'll find it here. Just don't expect to be entertained.

If you're considering watching this movie, please don't throw away your life like that. Your time will be much better spent by watching that horrible Ewok movie that Lucas put out in '84. You deserve better than this.
35 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
worst use of CGI that I ever witnessed
movieman_kev8 September 2005
a drilling platform off the Gulf of Mexico raises the worst, most incompetent CGI sea creature that you're likely ever to see from deep under the ground. It breaks free of the containment that it's being held in and goes on a rampage. Apparently it can change people's perception of reality to (I have no clue either). The government is trying to keep this particular oil rig secret, if only the Producers of Jim Wynorski's latest in a LONG series of awful movies dating back to 1990 (when he made his last enjoyable film) opted to do the same thus sparing us 94 minutes of our lives that will never be returned. Avoid this incompetent trash like Paula Poundstone and you were an orphan. The thing is if it wasn't for the CGI it wouldn't be THAT bad. Don't get me wrong it would still suck, just not as much.

Eye Candy: Glori-Anne Gilbert dances topless for no reason whatsoever

My Grade: D-
26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst movie I've ever seen
Zoifea25 August 2005
Brought this movie home from the video store since it seemed pretty good. I mean there was a whole wall of this movie and almost all were taken so we decided to give it a shot. I looked it up here before I watched the movie and all I can say is that I totally agree with what others had to say. This movie is horrible....It's probably the WORST movie I've ever seen. The CGI is awful....doesn't even look real. Actually the whole time I was watching this I was laughing at how lame it was. The story could have been really good but it seems they just didn't care. If you see this at the video store....skip it....it's not worth wasting 94 minutes of your life.
26 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nothing below
Dr. Gore4 October 2005
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

"The Thing Below" is a completely unnecessary movie. I didn't need to see it and no one needed to spend two seconds making it. In fact, I would dare say that no one should have even thought about making it. I rented it expecting a cheap "Deep Rising" rip-off. It's a sad day when your movie watching hopes are dashed because they weren't low enough. I thought mine couldn't possibly get any lower. A "Deep Rising" rip-off was asking too much? Yes. Yes it was.

"The Thing Below" starts off with the usual B-movie scientists doing stupid things in an isolated setting. This time they're on an oil rig and let loose The Thing Below. A cargo ship arrives to check out the situation. Then the movie spins off into oblivion as the monster is not a beast with fangs, tentacles and other cool monster appendages but some sorry telepathic creature that can read your mind and exploit your fears, hopes, dreams etc. This leads to a scene where the monster turns into Glori-Anne Gilbert so it can do a strip tease for one of the crew members and another scene where there's an Old West style shootout (?!). I'm sure once the filmmakers saw the quality of their monster special effects, (terrible, awful, etc), they decided to take the telepathic creature route. It didn't really matter which monster they chose because there's no suspense, no thrills and pretty much nothing below. Well, nothing worth getting excited about that's for sure. Any way you look at it, this movie needs to be tossed away and forgotten.
18 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
is this some sick Hollywood joke
courtjes28 May 2006
I have seen better acting in sixth grade plays. And better sets. And better productions. You get the idea. Its the lamest movie I have ever watched. Fortunately I didn't pay for it at a rental, came across it on TV and only watched it because at first I thought it was Saturday Night Live or something making fun of the movies. The people who are part of this movie should be blacklisted and not allowed to be part of any movie ever again! I feel like calling my cable company and demanding a pro rata share of my monthly bill back for them putting such garbage on TV. If you see this movie on, unplug your TV! That being said, I think some "B" movies make fun of themselves or the genre. Or some, like Shawn of the Dead, are really funny. The problem with The Thing Below is more serious, everyone seems to think they are making a real movie of interest and entertainment. Sometimes I wonder what the old guys, like Alfred Hitchcock and Rod Serling (Twilight Zone), who are masters of suspense, would have done if they had the technology and special effects to add to their craft.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
pure crap
adriennemdavid19 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
**Spoilers ahead** This movie is retarded, the actors, director, and whoever did the special effects should be sent to a desert island forever. They throw in a nude scene with a porn star throwing her gigantic breasts around and pouring oil on herself in a room full of fire. This is probably where all the budget for the special effects went. The awful acting, pathetic CGI and the stupid storyline make this the worst waste of 94 minutes ever.

But the movie is a lot of fun if you like to make fun of movies mystery science theater style.

Anyone who gave this movie more than 1 star is too generous. Run and hide.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible sci-fi horror crap.
poolandrews17 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The Thing Below starts aboard a US Naval ship called the Semenza which is transporting a top secret alien specimen to Maryland during a tropical storm which causes an accident & the alien organism to escape & cause a catastrophic explosion & sinking the Semenza. The top brass & the president back in Washington start crapping themselves as another alien specimen still remains on the Sea Ghosy, a top secret Government oil-rig that has been used for deep sea drilling in search of a new energy source. Sensing the potential danger a team of sailors come hard as nails mercenaries lead by Captain Jack Griffith (Billy Warlock) are dispatched to the oil-rig to assess the situation & clean up as necessary, joining them is scientist Anna Davis (Catherine Lough Haggquist) & slimy back stabbing Government man Dean Rieser (Peter Graham-Gaudreau). Once on the rig they find the alien creature loose & it has a taste for human flesh...

This straight to video piece of crap Canadian produced sci-fi horror film had the working title It Waits Below, was shown on cable TV as Sea Ghost, was bizarrely pitched as a sequel to Ghost Rig (2003) here in the UK & was retitled & released on DVD as Ghost Rig 2: The Legend of the Sea Ghost & was released on video in the US as The Thing Below which was executive produced under the name Noble Henry & directed by Jim Wynorski under one of his other many alternate names Jay Andrews & to be quite frank is utterly awful both conceptually & technically. The whole film feels so lame & just randomly cobbles together all sorts of plot points from other much better sci-fi horror films such as The Intruder Within (1981), The Thing (1982) & Aliens (1986) & is so bad that out of the three people it took to write this god-awful crap one went uncredited & the other two hide under pseudonym's like Wynorski did. There are so many plot holes it's just not funny, I mean this alien creature is known to emit radiation so strong that it could kill 100 men yet the greatest scientific minds the US Government can conjure up decide to put it in a glass tube so weak it breaks when dropped on the floor, why does this alien creature spend so much time & effort creating elaborate hallucination's for it's victims when it could quite easily just kill them straight away which it eventually does anyway, why can the creature seemingly change size & shape at will, why does the US Government insist on sending in a team that know nothing of what's going on, wouldn't it help if they did know at least a little bit about what was going on & what they might end up having to face? Also before I run out of space there's loads of clichés like the unearthed alien, a bunch of character's trapped with it on a remote location, Government cover-ups & conspiracies are thrown in here & the makers even have the nerve to set-up a sequel with an awful twist ending (that comes after the awful ending in which the alien takes human form, speaks perfect English & explains itself & it's origins to the survivors for some reason) that left me worried that one might actually emerge one day. The Thing Below is simply awful, it's overlong at over 90 minutes, the film suddenly switches genre from sci-fi monster film to low rent porn to cheap western to so bad it's laughable drama to an action war film set in Iraq(!) that destroys any sort of flow the film might have built up.

So the script, pacing, narrative, logic & flow of The Thing Below is awful but the pain doesn't stop there as besides conceptually The Thing Below is also technically abysmal too. For a start there are scenes from other films edited into The Thing Below, & badly edited too as they don't match the footage shot for the film itself anyway. The most recognisable footage is stolen from Virus (1999), not that it matches as the footage used is of the boat tugging a barge along which disappears between certain shots. Footage from Deep Evil (2004) is also badly edited into the film. Ther also seems to be lots of annoying stock footage of US army ships & helicopters taking off used as well. I suppose I should mention the CGI computer effects which are notable only because they are some of the worst ever committed to celluloid, they really are that awful. The alien has no discernible shape or size & the best I can figure out looks like a blob with tentacles. There's not much gore here, there's a shot of a tentacle going into someone's stomach & exiting through their mouth & someone is shot through the head & that's it. There's an impromptu strip scene which comes of nowhere.

The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $1,500,000, well I don't believe that for a second as I just cannot see where that money would have went & since the CGI effects are amongst the worst I have ever seen & there's plenty of footage stolen from other sources edited in here I just don't see The Thing Below having anything like that sort of money spent on it. Filmed in British Columbie in Canada the production value are poor, it's not scary & did anyone else notice how Rieser just stands in exactly the same spot on that boat for the first fort odd minutes? The acting sucks & the fact ex-Baywatch (1989-2001) bloke Billy Warlock is the star says everything.

The Thing Below or under whatever title you see it is simply terrible, it's OK for a laugh or two but is that really worth sitting though one of the worst written sci-fi monster films ever made? I'd say no. Simple really, don't bother.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't waste your time.
bugaboo-727 August 2005
This film's plot is a rehash of Alien. Only here the evil critter is not found in outer space but fifteen miles under the Earth. Of course the US Government wants this thing, and wants to keep it hush hush, God knows why. Of course it gets loose on the oil platform where it was pulled out of the ground from and mayhem ensues.

One of the many problems is, the group of characters boarding the oil rig is straight out of the movie cliché handbook. The haunted leader, the bald black man, the inexplicable hot blonde chick, and the eccentric guy, who in this case thinks he's Butch Cassidy (including hat and six shooter).

Another is, this was made in Canada and many of the actors portraying Americans speak with a Doug and Bob MacKenzie accent, kinda weird eh? On the plus side, there is a far too long strip tease sequence performed by what looked to be an up and coming porn star (this accounts for my second star).

They obviously had some money to spend but the lousy acting, hokey cartoon alien and woeful, annoying "on the nose" dialogue drag this thing deeper than the underwater tomb their monster allegedly came from.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad, Bad movie
dhreid29 May 2006
I am writing this review to warm others about this film. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Do not waste your time. As a friend of IMDb and my fellow movie commentators, I am sure that if this ever made it to the cinema, it flopped and the makers got rich from the 'bad movie' insurance because the box office receipts could not have exceeded fifty bucks. I am surprised the makers weren't picketed. The CG was just plain awful. There are scarier monsters in Super Mario from Nintendo. Don't even try to put this junk in the league with Leviathon, Deep Star Six, Deep Rising etc. which I would rate as pretty good 'B' films. It just may be worse than 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'. If I mentioned any details, I may be accused of adding a spoiler, but I won't even waste my and your time 'cause this flick is not spoiled, it is rotten to the core. The concept, even though played so many times and to a much higher level of sophistication, may have been OK with much improved CG, dropping the nudie scene, and a script re-write.

Don't even waste your time unless you just want to take a peek for curiosity sake. If you do more than peek and hang to the end, I hate to say it, but you gotta get out more.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So bad they named it twice...
pstancer4 September 2005
I had the misfortune to catch this movie on Cinemax in Asia, where it had been renamed "Sea Ghost" for reasons that are now obvious.

The film brought back memories - unfortunately not pleasant ones - of science fiction past: the shaky sets; the cinematic clichés; the blatant plot inconsistencies; and best of all, the very shaky special effects, which appear to have been produced on one of the production assistant's kid brother's home computer.

Yes, it sucks big time. Only watch it if it the last movie on earth, and it's a quiet night in oblivion.

PS Sometimes it hard to compose a 10 line comment for a movie this bad!
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This movie certainly delivered
danny_friel29 July 2013
Now, call me strange, but I like to watch the occasional gash movie and I have to say, this movie tops it.

Yes, the script was so cheesy mice were asking where party was, the cgi looked like they were done on a ZX Spectrum, the acting was appalling but it was great. For gash, it was the gashest. Had to watch it over three nights just to fully appreciate how delightfully bad this movie was.

You have to wonder who read the script and said "This is good.", as every rotten line in creation was stuffed into it. And the actors were obviously giving it their all, which just made it funny.

Worth a watch if you want a laugh, but definitely not worth taking seriously, and definitely not worth getting annoyed about. Good grief, even the synopsis of the movie was telling you it was gash.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rent something else. Change the channel.
chriscarado2 January 2006
This movie and its twin Deep Evil (2004) (TV) are painful to watch.

I won't go into too much detail or reiterate what others have written. I did watch the whole thing but my excuse is that I was watching this in the background while on the computer.

I kept on having deja vu while this played and I just could not put my finger on it - cheesy CGI, less than enthusiastic acting, and some other details.

The overall idea, some of the effects, scenery, bio-hazard outfits, black eyeballs, and "lumpy" skin all looked too familiar - I looked up the cast and crew for this movie and Ah ha! I had seen Deep Evil (2004) recently. They share so much: plot, effects, and one of the writers. Who knows maybe some of the footage got mixed up on the cutting room floor? Don't bother with the movie. Watch paint dry. (Or watch both movies and compare, for fun!)
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Thing Below
Scarecrow-881 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A creature, found inside a meteor that was buried deep near the earth's core as an oil rig was digging for a new energy source, escapes from a canister housing it. It's tentacles spring forth to enter the victim's body erasing their identity and taking control. The thing can also telepathically read your thoughts if an individual gets too close causing hallucinations as a means of drawing victims near. It's up to Capt. Jack Griffin(soap opera vet Billy Warlock)and his minor ship crew to find out if anyone on the oil rig is still alive and can inform them on how to stop the alien force before it consumes everyone.

Clichéd flick is your basic rip-off of John Carpenter's THE THING and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. This perhaps could've been more fun if Jim Wynorski had found a good make-up effects designer instead of opting to go with the horrible, putrid computer effects instead(they are so cartoonish they elicit laughter instead of terror). As a creature feature this film flunks because it doesn't have an original bone in it's body or a creative leg to stand on. Warlock is fun as the hero, but the other characters are rather boring. Destined to find it's true home on the Sci-fi Channel where these kind of dreadful flicks, with terrible cheap effects, can live and breathe.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awful
sharontriplet9 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I picked it because of Billy warlock. Like him on Day of our Lives, so I thought it couldn't be too bad. Boy was I wrong!!! It was awful. Watched it cause the trailer on my cable PPV looked like it might be a good scare. NOT!! Could have done so much more, could have been so much better. There is absolutely no redeeming qualities for this movie. The whole plot was giving away in the first 10 minutes. The "Things" ability to change form should have been kept a secret longer. Don't waste your time. I wish I had come to this site and read the reviews prior to viewing...I would have saved myself some time (95 minutes) and money.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why?
pensivepoetbabblingbard12 February 2006
One of the most horrible movies I've ever seen, if not the single most horrible. I have no idea why it was made.

The plot, possibly the best part of the film, was awful. It switched on and off between two extremes: either it was bizarre and confusing, or it was dull and predictable.

The acting would have made William Shatner sick to his stomach. The dialogue was written trite and cliché, and the delivery certainly didn't help. It was all strained, and in the rare case where there was emotion in a line, it was fake-sounding, and sometimes even the wrong emotion. It seemed like they were reading lines off the script for the first time. And the directing was just as bad. None of the motions that anybody made were natural-looking. Just a tip for the 'actors' in this film: if the camera is moving to try to (poorly) replicate the feel of a tossing boat, it's best not to just stand still, but to actually be tossed around. Especially if there's one actor who's moving around (albeit awkwardly) as if he's being tossed by the boat in the same room with you, at the same time that you're standing still! And the CGI was horrible. 'Nuff said there.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Craptacular Ineptapalooza!
jet6620 September 2012
I can not recommend this movie less. It is so stunningly beneath awful that it drops through the floor of the universe and comes out on top. If that makes sense. Which this movie does not.

In a nutshell, the story is a composite of Alien, Event Horizon, Leviathan, and Ghost Ship, with a knock-off crew from The Abyss and Armaggeddon. Seriously, you have seen this story many, many times before. And why is there always one guy with a cowboy hat?

Stilll, if you have a Roku box and time not spent on something more productive like porn, this movie offers so many unintentional laughs that it's really worth watching. It truly earns the Academy award for the very antithesis of good dialogue. And the casting? Ah, tres merdefique! The casting director's couch is still sweating Astroglide and incompetence. Personal favorite is the hottie "professor" that might be old enough to vote 5 years from now.

In the end though, it's the horrendous CGI that truly lowers the bar for all. Rendered at some resolution so low it must be measured in Kelvin, the creature is a testimonial to any 12-year-old with a dream, and a pirated copy of After Effects.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just Plain Lousy
pershing200628 September 2005
Thank God it was only a rental. First off the acting was just horrible. The plot is the overused "alien in a meteor wants to kill everybody" story that just makes me think that no one put any real effort into making a halfway decent movie. The obligatory nudity comes in the form of a 5 minute strip act. This was probably added to take the viewers mind off what they were watching for a few minutes. But I would have rather have the movie be that much shorter.

But the worst part is (as always) the monster itself. The current trend of movies being filled with CGI is a good thing if it's done right. Here it's done very wrong. The Monster CGI is atrocious. Simply put: Nintendo games have more convincing monsters. There's a scene near the end where a tentacle come out of a person's mouth to strangle another victim. The animation was not even lined up with the film properly.

Do yourself a favor and don't even bother with this movie.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Pretty much a basic rehashing of 1981's Intruder Within, but not as good
jukingeo11 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
When I saw the previews for this movie, I thought it was going to be something very similar to Deep Rising. It actually turned out to be more similar to 1981's made for TV movie, "The Intruder Within" crossed with "Event Horizon". While the movie had the potential to be good and the storyline could have been embellished upon to give this movie a decent plot and more care could have been taken to give the movie more believability...it just wasn't done right.

First the creature in this movie is CGI...but not your ordinary high end CGI like that used in higher budget films, but rather the cartoonish like CGI that you see in video games. You can easily tell it is "fake" and it destroys the credibility of the film. This is true of certain scenes as well such as far away shots of the oil rig and other items.

Another thing I was set back by was that several scenes from this film were literally lifted right from the movie Virus.

***Plot Spoiler Ahead*** (skip below to **** if you do not want to read what follows) There is a large 3 dish antenna research vessel which is the same ship used in Virus. While the far away shot was not clear, you could make out that the ship had three words to it's name. The movie has the ship with a single word name. The ship gets blown up about 15mins or so into the movie...those scenes too were lifted from Virus. Next is the boat that was used buy the cast to get to the oil rig. It is none other than the very "Sea Star" from Virus as well. In the movie you can clearly see that much of the boat is laid out the same way as it was in Virus. Also the the boat also 'conveniently' happens to be towing a barge of supplies through a hurricane. The barge gets flooded and has to be cut free. Again many scenes were lifted from Virus.

Once the actors from the boat reach the oil rig, there is a scene where they walk from outside to inside. It looks very fake and artificial as the oil rig is made from the same cartoonish GGI as the monster is in the movie.

Once inside the rig, one by one the crew of the Sea Star notices that the rig appears to be abandoned. In their search for the truth at what went on...one by one the crew experiences the creature. The creature, which is basically a CGI Octopus at best, has telepathic powers and can make people hallucinate ala "Event Horizon". Naturally it separates and lures people away from the main group and it shows them what they want. Once close enough, it goes for the kill. The kill strike is laughable at times. But some of the cut scenes to the crews "inner thoughts" are laughable and in many cases shouldn't belong. Such as the first scene where the creature uses it's telepathy to lure one individual by showing him a very 'chesty' woman that strips for him. It just didn't belong.

The whole premise of the oil rig drillers originally finding the creature was pretty much lifted from "The Intruder Within". A highly radio active specimen is found, brought to the surface in a containment envelope. The container is damaged and the creature escapes to do it's thing. It is just something seen too often.

**** (Ok it is safe now).

While the movie did have a good premise and plot, I just felt it was executed so poorly it just had me asking why was the time wasted to make it in the first place.

If you are seriously into a monster chasing people in a confined space, check out "Deep Rising" instead. It is vastly superior. Next take a look at "The Intruder Within". While not a very good film in itself...it too ranks one up on this film.

If you would still like to see this film, do not make the mistake I did and rent it or get it on PPV, rather wait until it comes to Sci-Fi channel or regular TV.

The movie is somewhat viewer friendly as there are very few bloody or gory scenes. However, there are sexually explicit scenes and nudity, so it definitely not a family oriented film. But more then likely if the film reaches regular cable or broadcast TV, these offending parts will be hacked out.

I give the film a 2 because some of the acting was OK and the story, while clichéd, could have amounted to something really good if the film created really applied themselves (or had a bigger budget). But it is for that same reason,why the movie never really delivers and it's fake looking CGI which pretty much puts it on the bottom of the barrel for me. As I said before...this is one of those films that leaves you wondering why it was made in the first place.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bad movie!
rlgross0613 October 2005
Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but in the top 10. Acting was not very believable and character development left me wondering "who cares"? To many cliché stereotypes...evil government men, unemotional doctor, some sort of sibling rivalry (I think), etc. I actually fast-forwarded thru several scenes just to get on with it. The sets and props were low budget and I think in one scene, the camera actually showed an adjoining set as it panned to view the actors. I think the producers threw in some 'sexual content' just because they needed a hook or kill some movie time. The plot could have been interesting, but the way the story line developed with the uninteresting characters, watching it was like slogging knee-deep thru a swamp.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Amazing movie if looking for a drunk bad movie night
monteorlins31 July 2022
Don't get me wrong, this movie is absolutely terrible. However, if you attach a drinking game to this film, it's an absolute gem. It has everything, terrible cgi, takes itself too seriously, incredibly cliché, absolutely nonsensical logic decisions and explanations, a surprisingly explicit nonsensical sex scene that comes out of absolutely nowhere. Honestly I think this movie was made by some armatures, scrapped the project, sold the footage to Hellfire Productions and then they edited and reshot it into this amazing train wreck. If you love watching bad movies with your friends with a bottle of hard liquor next to you, this is the movie for you. We followed just these rules, and I had to get multiple refills: bad monster cgi, explosions, one liners, unnecessary sex scene, nonsensical explanation, and weird music choice. Again, really terrible movie, but really fun to rip apart while drunk with friends.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
wow bad bad film
rc_whipps23 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Hi well how to start this review 1st of all this film is called Ghost Rig 2 here in the UK and has different box art work. Now for the Reviw which contains spoilers but not many. This film was bad and I mean real bad the CGI if you can call it that was the lowest of the low below play station 1 level. I think that they must have given the computer to there dog to do the work for them because there was no effort put in at all to make the effects look real. A lot of the film is made up of stock footage from other movies (virus take a bow) and a lot of stock footage of aircraft-carriers and ships but strangely they could not shoot any footage of an oil rig or find any stock footage so we have sum more very bad CGI ( you would think that a film called ghost rig would actuality have a real oil rig in it wouldn't you. Anyway the film is about sum nasty men in black types and scientists bringing up a old life form from the bottom of the sea (not seen) and guess what it gets free and kills every one. All your stock characters are here black man goes of on his own dead, Man shows every one a picture of his wife and kids back home dead, bad man in black type double crosses every one dead and so on. And less that is said about the cowboy and how he gets it the better. yes I know a cowboy in a monster on the loose on a oil rig movie. So what more can be said other than billy warlock should really get A new agent the CGI guys need to be fired the Director should stop wasting money making movies this bad. So please only watch this movie if you like very badly made films that have no good ideas of there own and steal from much better film PS don't watch this 1 star.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
God awful
DormentDragon2 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
That was by far the worst movie I have ever seen. The movie was like watching one of the super old sci-fi movies. The "special" effects sucked....Come on we're in the 21st century; get a grip on technology and stop being a cheap @** ! Plus the ending??? I mean what the hell, why would she turn into the gov't guy. Why is he so important. Honestly, I've heard of irony, but she had no reason to turn into him.. and if she/he was the creature why didn't it kill the brothers! They had the disk (to which nothing was revealed of importance) and they blew the damn thing up. Writers today NEED TO CONSIDER COLLEGE!!!!! Then with all the military action to make sure it was destroyed you never actually seen anything being done by the marines..Totally counter acts the beginning of the film.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It's bad but watchable
cryptkeeper66623 September 2020
The CG is bad, the acting is below par, story is all over the place. I watched it all to see how it would end
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Pearl in Reverse
PeterGriffinLives28 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie (well, most of it) after actually making the mistake of PAYING for it at the rental store. To explain my summary, a pearl is formed when something irritating (a grain of sand, for instance) gets into an oyster's shell, and the oyster lays down more and more layers of mother of pearl onto the particle, transforming it into the beautiful object we can wear as jewelry. This movie went the other way: a beautiful grain of an idea slowly covered with layer after layer of crap.

SPOILERS AHEAD The idea: The Sea Ghost is an oil rig drilling into the ocean floor. It's top-secret mission: attempting to reach a new source of energy at the planet's core. Drilling all the way to the core doesn't exactly make sense, but since geothermal power is a real concept this is an acceptable mistake. At 15 miles down (about halfway through the crust) they hit a cave, a cave with something living in it. This is great, because if you know your science, this tiny nugget of information has all kinds of frightening implications. If an organism were living 15 miles down (WAY deeper than any known cave systems) it most likely has been isolated for hundreds of millions of years. It may even have self-generated on its own, completely independent of life above. This organism would be as alien as any extraterrestrial, and none of our knowledge of life as we know it would apply to the new creature. While no known creature can get inside your head and make you see things, it has already been established that this thing is NOT any "known creature." This could have been scary, and I mean HP Lovecraft scary!

Unfortunately, it isn't. SPOILERS END HERE

"The Thing Below" suffers from bad directing, questionable acting, shots stolen right out of "Virus" and the worst special effects I have ever seen. The CGI is so bad that when I got my only glimpse of the creature, I COULDN'T TELL WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT! Shots of the boat and the Sea Ghost from the outside were so bad I winced every time I saw them. Visual effects should never cause physical pain.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed