Review of Below

Below (2002)
5/10
War thriller - 10/10. Horror - 0/10. Average: 5/10. The dumbest most unuseful and unnecessary use of a ghost in the history of cinema...
18 October 2012
Well, to be honest, I was going to qualify this film as a combination of U-571 and Ghost Ship. Then I saw the cover picture bearing a review stating "U-571 meets Poltergeist" and realized that wouldn't be too original...

It's WWII, and the US Sub is lively and excited due to 3 survivors picked up for a shipwreck, one of whom is a female British doctor. Some of the crew is thrilled and edgy about seeing a woman for the first time in weeks, maybe months. Others are aware of sea folklore and believe a woman on a boat is bad luck.

The story was absolutely brilliant in my opinion, the thrill and suspense were of the highest level, and the twist was surprising and well presented. The acting was persuasive and honest, and during the entire film I found myself at the edge of my seat, fearing for the lives of the Sub's crew as mechanical problems stacked up.

And then they had to destroy what might have been a great film by forcibly, bluntly and stupidly shoving a ghost into it. I mean... why? Honestly, why? In order for DVD libraries to be able to tag this film as horror? What was so important about that?! This could have been an excellent war/psychological thriller film, with an excellent story, a surprising twist, and good acting. Adding the whole ghost part was like taking that kids' puzzle with the shapes, putting the square peg in the triangle hole, and hammering it till the entire thing broke. That simply ruined the film for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

In summary - an excellent war thriller. Forcing it into the horror genre ruined it. I'd still recommend it, if you could be forgiving. I wouldn't blame you if you weren't.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed