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!!!

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

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.

Ouch, why did I watch this? .... Specifics: wooden acting, inconsistent personalities, bad special effects. Most of it looked like it was filmed in a bath tub. Water seemed to come from places it couldn't possibly come from. Occasionally when somebody threw a bucket of water at the actors from off set, they seemed genuinely surprised. The plot (and I use that term loosely) seemed to fall apart at every turn. I have to give the camera crew credit, they were able to induce the true feeling of sea sickness in me, even as I watched on a fairly small screen. I am sure that all the people involved in this are nice and everything, but this production did not come together well.