zif ofoz
Bad acting, bad script, bad bad bad everything.No - I couldn't make it to the end of this over two hour painful sh*t of a movie.After the first 30 to 40 minutes nothing could save it; nothing can save it. I cannot recall just where I stopped watching. But take my advice, please, skip this movie!You must be a desperate hard core sci-fi needy addict to make it through this - - story?Honestly just writing these words is boring me to tears - just like this movie did!
lmetts
Overall, while not a perfect submarine movie like I would consider The Hunt for Red October, I was impressed with the film. This isn't the type of movie that a group of drunk friends would be in the mood for or comprehend. So, it's kind of like The Bachelor. My wife gets The Bachelor, and mulls in it, but I don't. I found it more entertaining than Das Boot, and had CGI effects as good as Hunt for Red October. The film has an R Rating due to language. It's not over the top with profanity, but I would have preferred none, or at least less of it because the story is good enough to survive without it. There appear to be breaks in continuity or plot. I say appear, because if you watch it end to end, the movie is a brain teaser. There are clues all along the way that show what is going on, and a bigger picture is revealed to the heroes at the end. Another big plus is that it was shot on a real submarine, not on a sound stage. Just to see the interior of a real submarine was a pleasure. To see actors and crew pulling off a project like this in a submarine is just as much a pleasure. The film didn't explain how it achieved time travel, so it breaks with unwritten law that some purists want to see. But the film Halloween also broke the rules of horror films when the bad guy couldn't be killed. I applaud the author Georgia Hilton for being willing to break some rules. The film is engaging film, but it isn't a quick action thriller. The hero starts as a somber, brooding alcoholic professor (so not immediately lovable). People die, so a "tragedy" in some ways, which adds some downer element. Some actors that are total "unknowns" that had relatively little screen time (examples are Peter Barry, Mike Beckingham and Naomi Brockwell) looked and acted wonderfully, so I wanted to see more of them. Hopefully they will appear in a sequel, and explain the issues of time travel and fill in the plot gaps that the viewer is yearning to learn. The actors with the most screen time were pretty good. As the drunken professor, Tim Abell made you dislike his character at times, but in the process made you forget you were watching a film. He acted like a functional drunk would act. Competent, yet distracted by something haunting him. A real underdog. But he's such a good looking person that its hard to remember he's the under dog. Nice career problem to have. Tom Stedham appeared totally comfortable in the role, as though he was portraying himself and not even acting. As the ex-wife, Aleshia Force convincingly displayed a huge range of emotions including confidence, jealousy, anger, fear, relief, excitement, and even a sweet side. Military types will see this film two ways. It was shot on a real WWII submarine. So some historians and veterans will see things they love. Others will say, they aren't in spit and polished uniform, they aren't all in the same uniform of the day, and some have items like belts that aren't regulation. But in war, on a sub, or on work detail, not everyone is spit and polish, nor pressed. There are scenes where the camera angle or zoom would be better if different, or the acting of all isn't perfect for everyone in the scene. The movies Facebook page shows the inside story of the making of the film, and that the acting was without days of rehearsals, no set acting coaches, no months of immersing into a character, no practicing lighting or camera angles with stand ins prior to shooting... so all things considered, I was impressed. When I first watched on my TV, I was a bit disappointed. So I started re-watching it close-up on my external 20 inch computer monitor, and it was better (saw detail where before I had just a black screen, and picture wasn't cropped). This would be a great film to watch on a laptop while flying cross country.
tastyradio-84980
Having seen some of the reviews on IMDb for this film i felt compelled to redress the balance. I have followed the trials and tribulations of this movie over the course of the last 12 months through Facebook and have learnt an appreciation for the art of film making. Is Subconscious going to win an Oscar? No but when comparing it to the current crop of films that make up the current box office charts this little movie had a lot going for it. The score is brilliant and the performances of the cast leave little doubt about the dedication to the cause that they all had. Is there a De Niro in Raging Bull performance here? Of course not but that doesn't mean that the performances in Subconscious aren't heartfelt and believable. The story is both interesting and easy to follow which in the genre of time travel is not an easy thing to pull off. The camera work is great especially given the confined space in which most of the film is shot and the finished project is attestament to the drive, energy and unfaltering passion that writer/director Georgia Hilton has for this project.In a world of crappy Hollywood tripe such as 50 Shades we should all be alluding the hard work of those with a story to tell and the wherewithal to get their vision out into the world. Give Subconscious a go, you never know you might just enjoy it 😊
harrisanthonypaul
SPOILER ALERT I like films about submarines, I like films about time travel, so I should have enjoyed this, sadly not.The holes in the script were as wide as the sea itself and the plot must have been written by a child because it just does not work.A Professor gets 'hung-up' about the mysteries surrounding a locked submarine after the disappearance of his Grandfather in 1943.He gets to board it in 2014 and WHAM! It goes on a mission (the submarine) without a crew or any visible means of navigation and 'pops up' in 1943, no explanation - the Government knows something but....After a few adventures and losing a few things they are rescued in 2014 when it apparently all on it's own just goes back there.Apparently the Government know all about everything because a modern day computer was found back in 1943.They used it to win the war! The modern computer still took years to develop and this 'transgression in time' did not change time that much really (YEAHH RIGHT)The submarine - in pretty battered shape was recovered in 2014.Where was it when the intrepid time travellers got on it a few days earlier? They obviously got on it under the sea, not at the dockside at all??LAME! A waste of 2 hours.
