Open Water [Hindi](in Dubbed Hollywood Movies) Open Water [Hindi] (2003) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Open Water [Hindi] on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Based on the true story of two scuba divers accidentally stranded in shark infested waters after their tour boat has left. Runtime: 79 min Release Date: 20 Aug 2003
Completely unique and amazing film (by BrandtSponseller)
Susan Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Daniel Travis have hectic lives. Even as they're headed out on a much-needed vacation, they're making last minute business phone calls. They head to a Caribbean island for sun, fun and their real passion, scuba diving. On their second day they schedule a spot on a commercial diving trip to a reef, where due to a head miscount by the tour guide, they end up left behind. How will they survive in open water? This is a remarkable film for a number of reasons. It's basically a "super low budget" independent film, made on free weekends by a <more>
husband and wife writer/director/producer team with little-known actors and a skeleton crew. It was later picked up by Lion's Gate after a showing at Sundance in 2004, and went on to earn over $30 million on its US theatrical release alone. Of course, it doesn't deserve a high rating for those reasons. There are plenty of super low budget films made with passion that ended up being terrible, and others, such as The Blair Witch Project 1999 , which made an exorbitant return, but which, for me at least, didn't work very well.The triumph of Open Water is that writer/director Chris Kentis constructed a disarmingly simple film that ends up being incredibly effective in its goals--to present an intense, thrilling, suspenseful life or death scenario with horrific implications and subtextual commentary on appreciating and living life to its fullest, even when faced with the power and non-judgmental potential brutality of nature.You can tell that Open Water is unusual from the first frames. Shot entirely on digital video, Kentis achieves a look that is crisply, almost otherworldly beautiful and colorful and which at the same time conveys a stark, voyeuristic glimpse at a "home movie". This atmosphere helps create an extremely realistic feel, aided by the outstanding performances of Ryan and Travis as well as Kentis' naturalistic direction. For example, while heading out on the boat, he has the cast engaging in small talk, none of which the viewer can quite make out--just as if you were a passenger watching these events unfold.Once our protagonists are left behind to fend for themselves in the open water, the thoroughgoing realism doesn't stop. In fact, Kentis actually filmed his in the ocean, occasionally surrounded by real, wild sharks, which were only controlled by a shark wrangler or "shark choreographer" as he calls himself strategically tossing food into the water to hopefully direct their attention. While trying to survive, mired in their realistic but horrific situation, Susan and Daniel run through a plethora of emotions and conversations, all completely believable.Kentis occasionally relieves the tension by presenting more abstract images--various shots of water at one point, clouds at another. These are beautifully filmed and edited, and very simply but effectively convey volumes about the unthinking ubiquity and power of nature, juxtaposed with man's place in it, attempting to survive.Another unusual sequence has our protagonists still struggling as night and a thunderstorm descend. Long swathes of darkness accompanied only by frightening audio are occasionally punctuated by lightning flashes, which show just enough to heighten the sense of impending doom. It's an amazing moment and a pinnacle of horror film-making, completely justified and believable, yet terrifying. Kentis also deserves kudos for the resolution of the film, which is wonderfully poetic and nihilistic at the same time. Even though the running time of the film is slightly on the short side, the pacing and unfolding of events seems perfect; it doesn't feel short at all.While this is not a film that everyone will appreciate, due to its extreme uniqueness and the uncompromising nature of the script, it is a film that anyone serious about film and especially horror films should watch and give a fair chance.
I found this film terrifying to watch. I've been in a similar situation, except for the sharks. You can't imagine the feeling of being alone in the ocean, far from land, not knowing if you'll make it back to shore. I had drifted out a ways trying to reach a floating log in the Pacific. My friends were hung over and passed out on the beach. It was early morning. I finally reached the log not realizing the tide was going out and I was being pulled further out to sea. Once I discovered what was happening I jumped back in and started for shore, quite a ways to go. It took calming <more>
down, floating a lot, and continued paddling to get ashore. When I finally touched bottom, I crawled up to the beach and collapsed. With the tension, fear of drowning and exertion of strokes, it totally exhausted me. Also wondering what was underneath the surface, not seeing it.I thought this film brought that terror out. It was filmed as though you were right next to the couple. The use of the water level being right where your eyes would be, made it so real. I wondered where the camera was and how did they get that level of eyesight? Chris Kentis wrote and directed this with a keen eye and a good sense of tension mounting. He also brought out excellent performances from two newcomers, Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis. I thought the were very convincing in their performances. I found at times that I was no longer watching a movie - that they were really in the danger that existed. I also think it was possibly beyond the call of duty to put the actors through the paces of being in the water so long. Not your usual demands of actors, unless it were a fish tank and fake waves. But this was real and they were in the middle of the ocean.Hats off to all three involved - Kentis, Ryan and Travis. Chris Kentis also did the camera work as well as editing the film. Good work, Chris. You got me with this.
This has to be the angriest line in the entire movie "We paid to do this!" , uttered in a furious, hopeless growl by Daniel Daniel Travis as he and Susan Blanchard Davis float and drift aimlessly in the calm waters of the Atlantic after being left behind by their cruise and slowly yet inexorably lose any hope of being rescued by anyone. Because it sums up the way reality becomes a surreal nightmare -- young yuppie couple pay for a vacation getaway in the Caribbean and find themselves being shark bait, and who really is to blame? Them? The crew's carelessness for not doing a <more>
name count? They could have gone skiing no sharks there and not been stuck in this quandary. What have they done to deserve this? There are no answers to these questions, only open sea and the mounting dangers just below the surface. To know that these dangers are there, but not to see them, is just as bad -- even worse -- than to actually see them. Chris Kentis, thankfully using the less is more approach and shooting the film in an anti-conventional form no artificial lighting, no backdrops, no CGI sharks, no large water tanks substituting for open sea for close-ups, digital video , creates a visceral experience with this short movie that relies on so much since almost an hour is spent in the water. Never does a moment go by feels like filler: the events feel real, the mounting desperation as Susan and Daniel slowly realize just how dire their situation is feels right even though sometimes the delivery feels too flat -- but this is perfectly fine, since this is how people actually talk instead of talking in speech , and the timing from when the fake shark head which Daniel ironically sticks his head into in the marketplace, from the mention of sharks about 20 minutes in, to the actual, split-second appearance of a shark's fin and tail 30 minutes in is great and its quiet yet horrifying conclusion in many ways, outdoes JAWS. No swelling music, just the vague, grey outline of the animal beneath the surface, and that alone is enough to create moments of incredible dread, especially in the best sequence in the film: its night sequence, where all we see is what they see, darkness and each other once lightning flashes, drowning their screams and implying another shark attack.However, OPEN WATER is not a movie about fear in itself. It's more about this vast, stomach-turning emptiness of how suddenly meaningless our lives become when put into a pun intended fish-out-of-water situation. It's not only knowing that the waters are infested with sharks, but knowing that the end will come.
Finally, back to what movies were meant to do! (by kabee76)
It really doesn't surprise me that some people don't like this film. After all to truly enjoy Open Water one must open their mind and think. In this day and age that hardly ever happens anymore. Most filmmakers just decide to blow things up and hope that it's enough to entertain their audiences. Society in general has become numb what with the plots just laid out in front of us never questioning or asking us to use our imaginations. Open Water is a film that asks its viewers to place themselves at the heart of the movie; to feel the desperation, the hopelessness and the absolute <more>
terrifying ordeal. And for a change the movie is shot in a way that allows the viewer to feel as if truly there. Is it Jaws? No and its not meant to be. Maybe that's where the confusion lays. Open Water is a suspenseful film, excellent at that. If you're someone who actually enjoys figuring out the movie for yourself instead of being told in the first five minutes this is the film for you. Score: A.
Most people are dumb and unimaginative. This movie has some nice bits of pure film-making. (by lanmine66)
That's the only way I can explain the preponderance of comments like "this movie was disgusting" and "worst kind of boring" and "the sharks didn't do anything." To the latter: they behaved the way real wild animals would, nipping Daniel's leg so he would bleed out, die, and provide an inert feast for whoever's hungry.So the acting and dialogue were a bit on the amateurish side, and the plot buildup to the couple being stranded gets a tad boring. Big deal. You don't have to wait long for the film to hit its stride and once you get in the water <more>
the imagination takes over with merely a few, helpful nudges from the filmmaker. The way good horror works on film every time.There are two masterful shots that I think redeem this film of all its low budget sins. The first is right after Daniel is bitten. He knows he's in intense pain but isn't sure how seriously he's wounded or even if he's actually been bitten. He is cold, seasick, and rather numb after hours of aimless drift. Susan dons her mask and submerges to see the extent of Daniel's "bite". We see it from a reverse angle. It's serious. Tatters of flesh at the edges are swaying in the current. And then the money shot: a cut to a medium bird's eye view of the couple enveloped in a billowing crimson cloud. Nothing gratuitous, just a quick revelation to show the beginning of the end. A lesser movie might have had the actors start to panic and "Oh my god you're bleeding!..." etc., but this was way better. Susan tells Daniel it's not that bad and neither partner mentions the fact that they're now trailing blood and Daniel is probably dying. There is nothing to do or say but wait and hope against a fate that is painfully clear.The second shot is sort of a sequel to the first--a little more obvious but devastating in its effect. Daniel has lost consciousness and may or may not already be dead; of course it's irrelevant in any case. The couple have been drifting for over 24 hours and the proximity of a steel buoy, and earlier, an ocean-going ship, tell them, and us, that they are now in the open ocean. While they are now just as helpless as they were 24 hours before, somehow the signs of the buoy and the bulk of the ship, the latter still massive even at a distance of some miles, really convey how insignificant and doomed these people are. There is more visible activity from the sharks below and one glance of the camera conveys the horrible reality that nature has in store for Daniel and Susan. For just a second the lens dips below the surface to show that hundreds of sharks have converged just below, and are simply....waiting. No doubt the sharks are waiting for Susan, the source of a long, arousing trail of blood, to cease kicking to stay afloat so they can feed without threat of reprisal--because, well, that's just what they do. Susan resigns to her fate and lets go of Daniel, who drifts lifelessly for a few moments, a featureless dark mass on the surface, before the inevitable happens: a violent motion that tugs him under. You know what's happening and what you don't see is far more horrifying than any gory display of nature taking place beneath the surface. It's far more frightening to see it unfold from the surface, the last refuge against an inevitable fate. What is shown is the stark, horrifying reality of the situation these people are in, and there's simply no place where man is more helpless and threatened than the open ocean. While pretty and hypnotic on the surface, it's savage and pitiless underneath; fact is you'd be more safe and comfortable in the wildest, uncharted jungle than here.This movie is not about action or performance or production values, which are adequate. It's about what's waiting for the characters a few feet below their kicking, exhausted legs. The one remarkable thing the filmmakers did was work with real sharks, which, frankly, aren't as cinematically impressive as some huge, too "real", chomping CGI eating machine would've been. The bottom line is that what you saw on screen is what you would experience if you were in the characters' unfortunate position: smooth, shiny fins and tails slicing the surface; gray, torpedo-like, snaky bodies sliding around you with sickening ease and quickness; bumps and nudges below the surface from something that's out of sight before you can react; the bite out of nowhere.
Bravo ! The brilliance of shallow pockets . (by what3v3r)
Open the gates . There is still room for marvels in Hollywood . What I cant comprehend is why this movie is so underrated . Its clearly up there in the 7.5-8.0 . This movie entertains you more than any other Friday night crap including spidey 2 and the like.Open water is just based on a simple adaptation . There isn't too much of an acting performance in any of the cast but they still did a good job . And direction too was just normal . But this movie is like a magic potion , a synergy of mundane ingredients to produce something miraculously spectacular . The movie is basically a low <more>
budget attempt which blooms into a chillingly creepy and a completely involving experience . There is some astonishing photography which captures the chill in the air surprisingly well . Personally , the movie didn't fail to involve me one single minute along its course . Its remarkable how such a simple low budget film can have so much force and effect and can give the viewer so much to think about .Roger Ebert might have goofed up "Gladiator" worse than my board exams , but with "Open Water" he is definitely right ."Rarely but sometimes , a movie can have an actual physical effect on you . It gets under you and sidesteps the "Its only a movie." reflex and creates a visceral feeling that might as well be real . 'Open Water' had that effect on me ." - Roger Ebert Watch the movie and don't expect flying Lamborghinis or space bound fireballs or even monstrous "Jaws" .
It seems a lot of people were expecting "Jaws" when they rented "Open Water". This is no monster movie. It's a quietly intense psychological film, that works amazingly well. The fact that it was literally shot without a crew makes it nearly a miracle of a movie.I was pretty impressed by the cast, especially Susan Blanchard Ryan . It isn't often that two unknown actors can carry a film so well. Their emotions are very real which really adds to the tension.I'm pretty sure the director Chris Kentis will go on to make some good bigger budget movies. He's got <more>
a real knack for building suspense. I was also impressed with the organic structure of the narrative. You're not really sure where it's taking you, which only adds more to the horror of what eventually happens. Kentis' dialog writing seems to be the weakest aspect of the movie. Some of the dialog the actors have to literally spew is awkward and extraneous, sort of a failed comic relief. In a no-budget movie that's often the case. Hell, that's often the case in big budget movies. Overall the movie is very successful and all involved have received just praise.
I recently viewed the movie, "Open Water". I disagree in part with the comments of "Movie 1021". The only comparison between this movie and "Jaws" is the ocean. To bring the sharks into the review, likening the movie in any way with "Jaws" would be like reviewing "Casablanca" as "just like Open Waters" because the two main characters are a man and a woman.This movie, "Open Waters" is said to be based upon actual events, much like the movie "Perfect Storm". As with "Perfect Storm", the screen writer could <more>
only guess at the interaction between the two main characters during their disastrous ordeal. I found this interaction extremely believable, especially the argumentation sequence which showed the viewer that the writer and director understand human nature to a special degree. The vast majority would respond in kind if placed with a loved one in such a situation. Blame must be established in the frustrated, exhausted mind and finger pointing is imminent even between those most loved.In "Jaws" the focus was on the shark...which actually leaves its own environment, thrashing onto the boat, the haunt of man, to destroy him with almost human passion and vengeance. In "Open Waters" the two humans found themselves in the habitat of the shark which simply followed its biological norm and fed upon that provided by the ocean.In my opinion, "Open Waters" is an excellent study of human nature, not the nature of the shark. The writer, it seems to me, was expressing the reaction of human nature to a situation totally foreign to it, while the sharks reacted to the situation exactly as their nature dictated in a situation completely common to it.I enjoyed this 'study' very much and would recommend the movie to any who ask me.J. Ira Monroe
I'm a diver, and I like dark movies and original films. So I guess this one's made for me. But you know what? I liked "Finding Nemo" too. There's something to be said for judging a film on it's own merits rather than on the merits of the film you were expecting to see. Perhaps the outraged masses posting here ought to be reading reviews rather than writing them.As an experienced diver, I should probably say a couple of words on movie's premise. The "left behind" scenario depicted here, is presumably based on the Lonergan incident, which made world-wide <more>
news precisely because it was so unusual. The standard procedure I've encountered goes like this: you sign in on a signup sheet. They check you off when you exit the boat, and check you on when you reboard. The crew does a roll call before moving the boat; you answer for yourself and yourself only. If someone says, "Oh, he's in a bunk below," they go down and get you. While it's possible to be missing swept away in the current, out of sight behind land, etc. the boat does know that you're missing, and they're not leaving without you. Only the most egregious violation of procedure--not a mistake--can account for the missing Lonergans.Of course, if the film had done that, they woundn't have a film--just a vacation video. Oh, and if the crew would have let that guy dive alone--they would have caught their mistake! The buddy system claims another life.