rps-2 Forget for the moment that this is a simply terrible movie, ninety minutes of cardboard people shouting incomprehensibly while being splashed and soaked. It is yet another case of a movie subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer that is set in the United States. Is the purpose of tax subsidies just to create jobs in a branch plant Canadian film industry or is it also to develop films that tell Canadian stories? Yet time and time again our tax dollars go to pay for bad movies that tell American stories. We have three seacoasts in this country. There have been any number of adventures/tragedies/explorations/incidents/battles on each of them. Could the chicken livered flunkies who made this bad movie not have turned their mediocre talents to making a bad movie about the Franklin expedition, the Newfoundland seal hunt, the sinking of the Empress of Ireland etc. etc. etc. Canada has much in common with Australia. Yet Aussie film makers don't find it necessary to suck up to the American market in this demeaning manner. The irony is that the film, and others of its ilk, are so bad I doubt if a fifth ranked UHF station in Dubuque Iowa would want to schedule it even at 3am. Bah!!!

rgcustomer The film opens with "Based on a true story". Sure, that's nice. Of course, they never do tell you what story it was. They do mention a book I don't have. That doesn't help me.But the end of the film is where things get legal, and the truth comes out. "... any resemblance to persons living or dead is PURELY COINCIDENTAL" (my caps).You can't have it both ways. It's either "based on" or it's "purely coincidental". I call BS.But it doesn't matter anyway. With typically poor Canadian acting and cinematography, the movie is barely watchable. And for something supposedly happening in the open sea, those were not stormy ocean swells we were seeing. You'd have more dangerous waves at a water park wave pool. That said, I do feel badly for the actors who had to suffer through the wet to make this thing -- even if they did reuse some of their reaction shots to water hitting them, instead of hitting them multiple times with water.Some of the special effects were so bad I burst out laughing. Even the original Gojira movies had more believable effects. It was hard to remain interested in the story after that. Not that they made it easy. As the movie goes on, it gets harder and harder to figure out what people are saying, who is speaking, who is on screen, and whatever. I never did figure out the whole thing about sucking the water out of the hose, or who died at sea, or why. The IMDb plot says there was a rogue wave. Really? When did that happen? Was that the CG part? On the flip side, a lot of the dialogue was not stuff people would really say, but was instead put in there to tell the viewer stuff that should have been explained other ways. Like "how long can he survive out there?" Who would ask that, as their crew-mate is drifting away at sea? Is there something more important to do, besides saving him, like play a game of chess, or serve tea?The great Canadian writer-director James Cameron gave the world Titanic (not to mention Avatar). Scott and Young give us this. James must be so proud of what his work has inspired.

sddavis63 I have to admit that I'm surprised by the poor reviews and rating this movie gets. Yes, it lacks the glitziness and big budget and stunning sets of a major Hollywood production. It's a low budget, made for TV Canadian production. In that sense, I suppose it pales in comparison to its most obvious "relation" - "A Perfect Storm." The basic story is the same as that Hollywood blockbuster, except that this movie has a fishing vessel encountering a massive storm in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska. I liked the lack of Hollywood glitz. I thought it gave this movie a more "raw" feel. The shipboard sets seemed quite realistic, and I thought the performances - which some criticize - were fine. Where I thought the production fell down a bit was in the off-ship scenes, which essentially are the opening and closing parts of the movie. The opening (as Tommy looks for work on a fishing vessel) did come across as a bit wooden, and the closing (as Tommy and Stubbs share a beer and reflect on their adventure, they being the only survivors of the disaster) was a bit preachy and seemed to try too hard to be philosophical. Personally, though, I thought the account of the crew's struggle with the storm was very well done and very exciting, and more than made up for those opening and closing problems. If you need Hollywood glitz and big name stars to make a movie work, then don't bother with this. Just watch "A Perfect Storm." But if you want an exciting and realistic adventure, this works quite well. 8/10

lauragodfrey65 It is a hundred times more fascinating to hear a tragic tale straight from the mouth of a survivor than it is to see it re-created so badly. I was mad at myself for continuing to watch this movie. It could not have been made worse if Shelly Winters had shown up on deck. The characters were unlikeable and written so poorly, I felt sorry for the actors. The conversations they were having were pointless, especially while they were losing their lives in the water. It seemed less important to have a good script than to make sure every actor had blue eyes. The producers should do us a favor and stick to reality television.