MovieChat Forums > Deep Rising (1998) Discussion > Why does this have a low rating/bad revi...

Why does this have a low rating/bad reviews?


Is it because it's so awesome people can't handle it?

I don't mind that much, it's kind of fun having an amazing movie "to yourself" that the a lot of the world doesn't know about but ....

still totally sucks to see 30% or whatever on Rotten Tomatoes.

reply

I'm also pretty surprised by the low scores. The critics I get, because they're pretentious assholes, but I'd think the audience score would be higher.

I just got done watching the movie for the first time and enjoyed it. It's a fun humans-take-on-crazy-creatures movie and has a great cast as well.

Apparently the film also performed quite poorly at the box office but has since gained a cult following. I had never even heard of the movie until someone else referenced it in a discussion about Stephen Sommers.

reply

The critics I get, because they're pretentious assholes, but I'd think the audience score would be higher."


Maybe in this case, the audience got led into believing that it must be bad cause of critical reviews, and therefore they went into the movie with prejudice. Sad.

I personally thought this movie was so fun, I think it's sad when people can't enjoy something like this just cause someone else told them not to... The way the mercenaries/thieves all talked to each other was hilarious. And Treat Williams was an awesome leader of the survivors... plus the music was great, from the late Jerry Goldsmith.

Apparently the film also performed quite poorly at the box office but has since gained a cult following.


Yes, it came out right on the heels of Titanic which obviously is another boat-based movie... just came out at the wrong time.

reply

It's an entertaining film for sure. I have some nitpicks, but overall I thought it was a cool sci-fi actioner/creature feature. I'm pretty surprised I had never heard of it before. I asked a friend and he had never heard of it either. It makes me wonder how much effort they put into marketing the film when it was released, because I was a regular moviegoer in 1998.

It's funny, I've seen a lot of things where Stephen Sommers has been called a bad director. For instance, this:

https://www.joblo.com/movie-news/movie-jail-this-weeks-defendant-isstephen-sommers-288

And this:

https://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/poll-michael-bay-stephen-sommers/

But I have enjoyed most of his movies. I haven't seen Huck Finn since it was released, but I remember enjoying it as a kid. Deep Rising and Van Helsing are fun, and The Mummy is legit one of the greatest adventure movies ever made and just an all-around awesome fucking time. GI Joe was at least a watchable popcorn film as well. The only movie of his that I've seen that I was really disappointed by was The Mummy Returns.

I wish he worked more often. Not sure if he's not offered more gigs or if he just likes only working occasionally, but his output has been pretty sparse post-2000 and he hasn't released a film now in 8 years.

reply

Not sure why.

It's a typical Sommers fun romp. A likeable hero and a beautiful Woman who tags along, a bumbling comedic sidekick, action and humor aplenty.

reply

I just looked it up on IMDb and was actually surprised the rating is as high as it is. 6.1 is pretty decent for this kind of movie. Personally I wasn't a fan and gave it a 4/10, though I don't remember it well enough to offer specific critiques.

reply