« Luc Besson's Angel-A pictures online | Filmstalker | Superman Returns slips in reviews »


Open Water 2

OpenWater.jpgThe film Adrift has just had its name changed to Open Water 2 for its German release, why, no one seems sure, although the big guess is marketing.

Why not? Open Water did pretty well and was quite an effective little film, so why not capitilise on the success? I'll tell you why, because this movie seems to follow the Hollywood model, "more of the same" and chuck in teenagers while you're at it.

The story comes from Fangoria via Moviehole and Cinematical, but the real interesting bit is from IMDB themselves. Here, read the blurb:

A weekend cruise on a luxurious party yacht goes horribly wrong for a group of old high-school friends. They forget to let the ladder down before they jump into the ocean for a swim. The boat proves impossible to climb. They are stuck in the water many miles from shore, with baby Sara left alone on board. Sara's mother Amy must contend with her aqua-phobia as well as...

Stop it now, I'd rather tackle the sharks. Come on, that is the Hollywood rule book just thrown at a movie. Oh I can't begin to say how terrible that outline sounds, you just have to pray that the movie is better, but that name change doesn't give much more hope does it?



The phrase "But...whaaa...??" springs to mind. As does "Blair Witch 2". Silly people.

Say WHAT ?, is my immediate reaction as well. The first one was based on true events, which makes, a completely fictional sequel, just stupid.

I think movies like this should have a warning message at the beginning that says something like:
This sequel you are about to see is lacking original material and artistic merit. It's simply being created in order to earn a profit because of a previous success. Many good films were not made because of the making of this picture... Enjoy the film."
For the love of god!!!!! Godard said it best, "I pity the French Cinema because it has no money. I pity the American Cinema because it has no ideas." I think this is still true today...


The first movie was atrocious and was near enough a complete lie.

Its a well known fact(or i am making it up) that the story for the first movie was what the papers published(i.e. to sell papers) and the true story. (i.e. they never got on board!!) was hushed up because it made the government look stupid.

And don't get me started on KILLER SHARKS in movies again.... ignorant directors fuelled by irrational fear does not make a move.

BTW many shark species are endangered because humans eat them, not the other way around.


Shrek3 Far Far Away needs a new king, and unless Shrek can find someone else, he'll be stuck with the figazavar...


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:



Help Out

Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34