tomgillespie2002 Following a series of attacks on cargo ships and, most notably, nuclear submarine's, the Pentagon send their best ship, The Tigershark, to investigate. On board is Lieutenant Commander 'Reef' Holloway (Arthur Franz) and noted scientist Sir Ian Hunt (Tom Conway), who after examining the previous incidents and eye-witness statements, soon form the belief that they are dealing with some kind of underwater alien craft. Holloway's attack-first-ask- questions-later approach puts him at loggerheads with young pacifist Dr. Neilson, Jr. (Brett Halsey), the son of a revered scientist. They soon discover their speedy enemy, and Holloway finds himself confronted by a one-eyed monster intent on world domination.There is a lot to criticise about The Atomic Submarine, regardless of the obvious budget limitations and drive-in aspirations. Sci-fi movies from the 1950's and 60's manufacture most of their charm from bad special effects and clunky dialogue, but The Atomic Submarine looks particularly ropey, with miniature toys and a fish-bowl filling-in for apparently state-of-the-art aquatic engineering and the great blue yonder. The first two-thirds of the film is extremely talky, which would be fine if not for the characters being little more than B- movie archetypes, either puffing their chest with patriotic defiance or providing some light comic relief.Yet the climax, which sees a lot of the crew massacred by the drooling extra-terrestrial (voiced by John Hilliard), proves worth the wait. It's certainly formulaic, but it's full of wobbly, retro sets and a genuinely creepy score by Alexander Laszlo, key aspects in what makes these films so fun to watch. The face-off between Holloway and the spaceman also contains some unintentionally hilarious dialogue. "At last Commander, we meet as your people say... face to face!" says the alien. "That's a face?" Holloway replies. The Atomic Submarine is immediately forgettable, best watched late at night when you feel like you're the only person left awake in the world, but this effortlessly likable fluff.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

unbrokenmetal This 50s SF movie was set 10 years in the future, fictional 60s when submarines were supposed to run regularly below the ice of the Arctic circle. After several vessels were lost under unknown circumstances, the latest atomic submarine 'Tigershark' is sent under Commander Wendover (Dick Foran) to make „the strangest, most fearful voyage ever made by a submarine, atomic or otherwise", as the narrator calls it, meaning to find the reason for the destruction of so many ships. The first sign of trouble is when the 'Tigershark' hits an electrical storm. Natural phenomenon or created by someone? Scientific (cough) expert Sir Ian Hunt (Tom Conway) suspects little green men in flying saucers, but how to find them in the Arctic Sea that stretches for thousands of miles? A nice, old-fashioned b/w SF flick. Fighting aliens under water (instead of meeting them in space or on Earth) makes a good variety of the typical formula. Brett Halsey, who later became a western star ('Today We Kill, Tomorrow We Die!'), appears as young Dr Nielsen who joins the expedition as diving expert, because his father is off sick, but the military crew doesn't trust a civilian. Platinum blonde Joi Lansing has only a short appearance as somebody's girlfriend.

dimplet What a stinker! Oh, I've got to write more. There are no redeeming qualities to this movie, which isn't good, and isn't so horrible that it's funny. If only the acting were terrible, but it's only bad, like the script. What kills it is there is no life to the movie, no spirit. You feel like the actors punched in on a time clock and are just there for a paycheck. No one is having any fun. The concept isn't particularly bad, atomic submarine meets undersea UFO. But at some point you are supposed to be afraid, and at some point something actually interesting is supposed to happen. Nada. The last 10 climactic minutes seem to last for two painful hours.This isn't a B movie; this is a Zzzzzz movie. The music is slightly interesting, if you look at it as a possible model for the Star Trek TOS scores. Is there any actual connection? I can't find any. The best way to watch this movie is to have someone tie you down to a chair and pry your eyelids open. The best thing about this movie was the poster. I wish I could remember why I wanted to watch this movie? Oh, wait. Could it have been some of the off the mark reviews on IMDb?Why don't they make remakes of bad movies? Then the remakes could be better than the originals. Instead, they take great movies and make them into stinkers. It doesn't make any sense. Someone could actually make a pretty good remake of this, with today's CGI special effects and a reworked script. If they do, I hope they change the ending and have the UFO blow up the nuclear submarine.

DAVID HALEY I saw this film for the first time a few hours ago. I had not heard of it previously. Although my impression of it is not as favourable as that of most of those who have posted user comments, that may be explained by the fact that I am not a science fiction fan as such. I am happy to watch such films but I take them as I find them.The point which I wish to make here, though, concerns something which is not in the film. Is it an omission or is it something which no one thought to be of any importance ? Lt. Milburn was killed in the fight against the alien invader - "a casualty of war". It is of course clear that the film endorses the position that men in the services must put their lives at risk in the service of their country (or, indeed, as here, the world). However, the film has established Lt. Milburn as the only member of the crew to be seen to have a wife. Not only that, she is expressly described as "the mother of my three children." Despite this, there is no acknowledgement at all, either at the conclusion of the battle, or at the end of the film, that Mrs. Milburn has been left as a widow with three (undoubtedly young) children to raise.I do not expect a discussion of pension rights and entitlements. What may legitimately be expected, I would say, is some reference to the human cost of what has been depicted in the film, as well as the conclusions as to defence and the need for vigilance which are the film's primary messages.