ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

daviddax Unlike the nasty comments from previous reviewers, I found this movie to be utterly fascinating. I was 8 years old when I saw it on the big screen in 1953 -- beginning with the creation of the world sequence -- and would love to see it again. I was actually "pre-adolescent" then, so I guess I wasn't yet in the group that was so dismissed by one of the reviewers! Also, Al Gore was not "late to the game" inasmuch as he was only 5 year old when this came out. Sorry! He was just taking the premises of Carson's book forward a number of decades. This movie deserved the Oscar, and it should be required viewing for anyone concerned with the natural world and mankind's responsibility to take care of it.

dbborroughs Irwin (Poseidon Adventure/Towering Inferno/Lost in Space) Allen's Oscar winning look at the ocean and seas. Actually its bases on a book by Rachel Carson. This is a 62 minute look at various sea life. The film begins with a horrible creation of the world bit that segues into a god awful "This is the sea..." or similar nonsense where we get quick cutting and stentorian speech thats more at home in a exploitation trailer "See man vs shark" that sort of thing over and over again. After about ten minutes of really lousy material the film settles down into footage of sea life. To be certain by todays standards its nothing special when compared to the numerous Discovery Channel specials, but its still impressive.Some of it it is actual sea footage, some is from aquariums and much of the non-nature footage is staged or borrowed. but it doesn't matter since once the film gets up and running it just neat stuff (though I could have lived with out the man vs shark bit). Its a good film and worth a shot. I should mention that the film ends with a warning about global warming, which the film says started just before 1900 and which "very shortly" will cause the seas to rise and will flood us all out. Clearly Al Gore is late on the band wagon yet again.

dedletteroffice This work conveys an appreciation of not only sea life but the oceans as an avenue of commerce, subject of artisans and realm of warfare. At a surface level it seems to run counter to the reputation of Rachel Carson as conservationist. It depicts, without judgment, not only the capture but the killing of large fish. At least one such scene was gratuitous. But as that was the attitude of the day (1953), it realistically depicted the attitude, if unwittingly. Still, because of the camera work, the detail and the both Atlantic and Pacific settings the viewer is left with a large chunk of the appreciation of that 70% of the Earth it's obvious Carson and screenwriter Irwin Allen (Flipper, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea) posses.

Robert Reynolds This won an Academy Award for Documeentary Feature and most definitely deserved to win. The whole project is well-executed and the underwater camerawork is particularly worthy of mention. Holds up very well after almost fifty years. Turner Classic Movies usually shows this a few times a year. Highly recommended.