“Deep Rising” is polyamorous entwining of “Alien,” “Titanic,” and “Tremors.” It is hard to believe today that “Deep Rising” was a big budget 1990s action movie. On the other hand, it is not hard to believe that it was a flop, though it hardly deserves to be branded a 29% on Rotten Tomatoes. “Deep Rising” is one of those erstwhile A-list Hollywood bombs that hold up as delightful kitsch.
Let me enumerate the ways in which “Deep Rising” takes its place as a late Friday night, slightly stoned viewer’s choice:
1) The CGI effects are early efforts that elicit a slightly tipsy uncanny valley effect that, while less than realistic, has a playful visual buoyancy. The body horror is made palatable, and even tasty, by the designer’s waggish wink behind the gore. The undersea monster itself is neither laughable, nor particularly horrific. As a scaredy-cat who cannot watch horror after dark, I prefer the mild terror of a monstrosity that I can look in the eye without flinching. Hardcore gore aficionados will probably not enjoy the coiling and uncoiling of the monster’s many, many limbs and great gelatinous eyes as I did because they are more slimy and icky than grisly and terrible.
2) The cast fit snugly into the grooves of the flat, shooting gallery figures they are playing. Their precision offers us pleasure and relief from the suspense of not knowing exactly who will die and who will survive. I have enough stress already—here is a world of monsters that tick-tock like a metronome.
The lead role of the freighter-for-hire captain was written for Harrison Ford who, not unwisely turned it down, but his cadences are so ingrained in the dialogue that Treat Williams’ delivery sounds like Ford lightened with shades of Kurt Russell. The rest of the cast are fungible monster-fodder, as they should be, with one particularly stellar moment delivered by Wes Studi as he becomes a monster snack; his expression is sublime.
3) The script is a piquant stew of flat projections without subtext or interior life mixed with heady exuberant humor, seasoned with propulsive action. Begging the question, why wasn’t this a hit? It surely seems to fit the mass market taste. A little bit trashy, a little bit smart.
I expected a throwaway movie made by money-hungry dummies, instead of a work of kitschy wit. This would go very well with “Big Trouble in Little China” (1986) for tone or with “The Thing” (1982) for theme.
