Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

On the outside this film is just fine. It has an okay plot, albeit very predictable and unoriginal. However it lacks the excitement, shocking moments, tension and claustrophobic atmosphere of similar films, such as Misery.The film is very boring. It does not have enough twists and moments of excitement to merit being a feature length film. The film also lacks energy and actually feels very tiring to watch. It also lacks atmosphere. Altough the entire film has a feeling of tension, largely due to its score, it does not have enough moments of sudden action to really engrose the viewer. The characters are poorly presented and lack any sort of motivation. The relationship between Nicole Kidman as nd hi sd husbdnd is not given enough time at the start and as a result the viewer never really cares asbout what happens at the end. The villain isnt introduced properly either and he does not seem to have any clear motivation.The actors are lazy and unconvincing. None of them are in any well memorable. All in all, this film is a terrific bore. Do not watch.

Dumbest premise for a movie ever. An intelligent Naval officer leaves his wife and boat with a stranger on board to get in to a dingy and row over to another boat when he could have just driven his boat over just like his wife started to do. Really? Does any one but me see how implausible this seems? lmao

I always include this cinematic landfill on the list of my top 10 horrible movies I've had to endure. Finding this turd thrilling is equal to believing Adam Sandler movies are actually funny. Corny acting, horrible script, predictable in every way. My wife was getting irritated with me because I was doing the lines before the actors. The scene set ups were so obvious. You could predict every outcome, every scenario and every word. Actors cannot save a mess like this. Everyone is.............dead. And.....don't open that door! Come to mind. Talk about dead in the water. This is an insult to the classic thrillers. It always puzzles when I see words like excellent thriller and fantastic used in reviews of this kind of formulated device. It's like their frame of reference is The Three Stooges meet Godzilla. Now that's a thriller.

After tragically losing their son in a car accident, wealthy Australian Sam Neill (as John Ingram) and his exceptionally beautiful young wife Nicole Kidman (as Rae) take their dog "Benji" and set sail for a hopefully restful vacation on their yacht. Out on the "Dead Calm" Pacific Ocean waters, they find handsome Billy Zane (as Hughie Warriner) in distress. He claims his boat is sinking and everyone else on board has died from food poisoning. As this seems a likely story, they rescue the attractively shirtless and suspicious-looking Mr. Zane. This leads to the problems you'd expect, under these circumstances. This situation, probably done best by Roman Polanski in "Knife in the Water" (1962), is built on the supposition that the handsome newcomer may be dangerous and will reveal an aggressive sexual interest in the pretty woman. The cast is attractive, the formula works and the photography (by Dean Semler) is beautiful.****** Dead Calm (4/7/89) Phillip Noyce ~ Nicole Kidman, Billy Zane, Sam Neill, Rod Mullinar