Quite a lot of CGI in this piece of ITV telly, but not to the extent that it takes away from the acting or the story. In this age where people want more and more 'instant classics', this will probably not impress some people who will see it as a predictable story with an equally predictable ending. I didn't, honestly think it was a bad effort at all. David Jason can easily take-on a role such as this and make is watchable. It lends itself to the subtle chills that the stories of M.R. James deliver, and although it may not be groundbreaking it is certainly a change from the usual stock of 'Drama' that ITV dish up (i.e. detective shows, or pseudo-reality TV.) All-in-all, it was easy viewing and has a satisfying ending. Worth a look.
25 Reviews
Intriguing idea, not brilliantly executed.
d_imdb-4713 April 2006
A derivative but nonetheless intriguing set up; a ship (in this case a submarine) is found many years after it sank, with no sign of the crew, or what happened to them. This has been done many times, it is essentially the story of the Marie Celeste. Despite that the set up hooked me, I love these kind of vaguely supernatural / time travel plot lines, however familiar they are.
To be honest I was disappointed by what was delivered. David Jason is a fine actor but his character in this came over as terse, sullen and not especially interesting. As he is the lead, and therefore your focal point throughout the story, this was a big failing. He just wasn't interesting or unusual enough, you learned almost nothing about his character despite him being on screen for most of the 180 minutes.
The plot itself seemed to peter out rather than deliver a climax, for a thriller (or at least a war time drama) I felt there was too little tension. The actual operation of the submarine and the technical side all felt very authentic but this did not compensate for the lack of plot, or genuinely interesting characters. The officers were all a little stiff, the crew were similarly generic, all of them have been seen many times before.
Towards the end I felt the plot simply ran out of ideas and some of what happened bordered on silly. The story seemed to flirt with the premise it had created, rather than really go into it. I never felt this story got going, I appreciate it was television but there was far too much chatter. It was slow in places where it needed pace, or another twist and this was, for me at least, the other major failing; ultimately the story lacked imagination. What Ghostboat delivered was almost exactly what you expected, no more. There was no moment when I thought 'now that is interesting, I never saw that coming'.
Despite these misgivings I thought it was not bad for a TV two parter. It was ambitious and though it failed to hit the target it was at the very least something different.
To be honest I was disappointed by what was delivered. David Jason is a fine actor but his character in this came over as terse, sullen and not especially interesting. As he is the lead, and therefore your focal point throughout the story, this was a big failing. He just wasn't interesting or unusual enough, you learned almost nothing about his character despite him being on screen for most of the 180 minutes.
The plot itself seemed to peter out rather than deliver a climax, for a thriller (or at least a war time drama) I felt there was too little tension. The actual operation of the submarine and the technical side all felt very authentic but this did not compensate for the lack of plot, or genuinely interesting characters. The officers were all a little stiff, the crew were similarly generic, all of them have been seen many times before.
Towards the end I felt the plot simply ran out of ideas and some of what happened bordered on silly. The story seemed to flirt with the premise it had created, rather than really go into it. I never felt this story got going, I appreciate it was television but there was far too much chatter. It was slow in places where it needed pace, or another twist and this was, for me at least, the other major failing; ultimately the story lacked imagination. What Ghostboat delivered was almost exactly what you expected, no more. There was no moment when I thought 'now that is interesting, I never saw that coming'.
Despite these misgivings I thought it was not bad for a TV two parter. It was ambitious and though it failed to hit the target it was at the very least something different.
Intriguing plot, spoiled by incongruities
phyljohn01025 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The full two-hour production was broadcast on PBS, Watertown, N.Y. on 2007 March 25 without commercials.
Intriguing plot. It took a while for me to realize that that the genre was supernatural, requiring some suspension of belief. Gradual subversion of most of the crew by the spirit of the submarine was well done. What was not made clearly enough in the movie is that the submarine went through a time-warp... twice; the first time, gradually back into the WW II period and the second time, rapidly, when the submarine encountered the peculiar electrical storm. Time-warp explains the attack by WW II vintage Me 109 aircraft mid-way through the movie and the sudden re-emergence of the sub back to 1981 for the final attack on the, by then, Soviet naval base. It also explains why the sub could sink enemy (German) vessels, including another submarine, without triggering WW III.
I'm not sure about British subs but US subs certainly had radar later in WW II. Unfortunately, the movie sub lacked a radar antennae. A minor quibble.
Yes, subs did sink other subs, usually when one of them was on the surface. However, the last German sub sunk by combat in WW II was by a British sub whilst both were under water. The British captain was a master at tactics and working out fire control coordinates. (The last German sub to be sunk in WW II was by HMCS New Glascow, a frigate, which was unaware of the sub and accidentally rammed it whilst the latter was partly submerged and trying to sneak to its home port.)
Incongruities:
As pointed out by others, chlorine gas is produced by sea water entering batteries, not by shorting them out. Shorting out the batteries would have caused failure of the electric propulsion and the sub could not have run under water. Okay, maybe only some of the batteries were shorted out.
WW II torpedoes had safety devices to prevent them becoming armed or the torpedo engine starting whilst they were still in the torpedo tube.
How was it that the captain and the professor could continue inside the sub without gas masks after the crew had been forced to abandon it because of chlorine gas?
Worse, at one point, after all the crew except the captain has abandoned the sub, the professor re-enters the submarine via the conning tower, whilst the sub is submerging, in order to fire the scuttling charges (explosive charges intended to deliberately sink the submarine in order to avoid capture by the enemy). All he had to do to sink the sub was to leave the conning tower hatch open as the submarine submerged.
With a little thought and expert advice the producers could have avoided or glossed over these incongruities. As it was, incongruities in the second half of the movie spoiled the mood that was well established in the first half of the movie.
Intriguing plot. It took a while for me to realize that that the genre was supernatural, requiring some suspension of belief. Gradual subversion of most of the crew by the spirit of the submarine was well done. What was not made clearly enough in the movie is that the submarine went through a time-warp... twice; the first time, gradually back into the WW II period and the second time, rapidly, when the submarine encountered the peculiar electrical storm. Time-warp explains the attack by WW II vintage Me 109 aircraft mid-way through the movie and the sudden re-emergence of the sub back to 1981 for the final attack on the, by then, Soviet naval base. It also explains why the sub could sink enemy (German) vessels, including another submarine, without triggering WW III.
I'm not sure about British subs but US subs certainly had radar later in WW II. Unfortunately, the movie sub lacked a radar antennae. A minor quibble.
Yes, subs did sink other subs, usually when one of them was on the surface. However, the last German sub sunk by combat in WW II was by a British sub whilst both were under water. The British captain was a master at tactics and working out fire control coordinates. (The last German sub to be sunk in WW II was by HMCS New Glascow, a frigate, which was unaware of the sub and accidentally rammed it whilst the latter was partly submerged and trying to sneak to its home port.)
Incongruities:
As pointed out by others, chlorine gas is produced by sea water entering batteries, not by shorting them out. Shorting out the batteries would have caused failure of the electric propulsion and the sub could not have run under water. Okay, maybe only some of the batteries were shorted out.
WW II torpedoes had safety devices to prevent them becoming armed or the torpedo engine starting whilst they were still in the torpedo tube.
How was it that the captain and the professor could continue inside the sub without gas masks after the crew had been forced to abandon it because of chlorine gas?
Worse, at one point, after all the crew except the captain has abandoned the sub, the professor re-enters the submarine via the conning tower, whilst the sub is submerging, in order to fire the scuttling charges (explosive charges intended to deliberately sink the submarine in order to avoid capture by the enemy). All he had to do to sink the sub was to leave the conning tower hatch open as the submarine submerged.
With a little thought and expert advice the producers could have avoided or glossed over these incongruities. As it was, incongruities in the second half of the movie spoiled the mood that was well established in the first half of the movie.
Ghostbored
Chickenhawk200211 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Ghostboat was a nice idea, partly saved only by the always watchable icon that is David Jason.
However, this was a tired, plodding effort that sadly went nowhere, and sadly sank into the murky depths of drama lite.
The CGI was mostly deplorable,I assume as most of the budget was spent on the actual set which was on the whole quite good.
However, what spoilt this for me, and I would guess anyone with any connection with submarines (I have no connection but am an avid Sub sim player) or anyone who has watched Das Boot, was the total lack of realism.
Warning- here there be spoilers!
Torpedos were launched at long range targets on a whim. No time to bother with settings, range, calculations, deflection etc. Just arcade style point and shoot. Reloading took a few seconds too When the sub was attacked by the slowest flying ME109's I have ever seen, the sub managed to dive in seconds.
And worst of all was the appalling cartoon "Russkies" who just pointed excitedly at a blip on their radar as the sub "snuck" into a heavily fortified harbour, with it's periscope up the whole time, and did nothing.
All in all a pointless waste of two evenings. This could have been a taut one hour ghost story. But it wasn't.
However, this was a tired, plodding effort that sadly went nowhere, and sadly sank into the murky depths of drama lite.
The CGI was mostly deplorable,I assume as most of the budget was spent on the actual set which was on the whole quite good.
However, what spoilt this for me, and I would guess anyone with any connection with submarines (I have no connection but am an avid Sub sim player) or anyone who has watched Das Boot, was the total lack of realism.
Warning- here there be spoilers!
Torpedos were launched at long range targets on a whim. No time to bother with settings, range, calculations, deflection etc. Just arcade style point and shoot. Reloading took a few seconds too When the sub was attacked by the slowest flying ME109's I have ever seen, the sub managed to dive in seconds.
And worst of all was the appalling cartoon "Russkies" who just pointed excitedly at a blip on their radar as the sub "snuck" into a heavily fortified harbour, with it's periscope up the whole time, and did nothing.
All in all a pointless waste of two evenings. This could have been a taut one hour ghost story. But it wasn't.
watchable, but could have been better
myriamlenys25 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The year is 1981 and a Russian merchant vessel has just narrowly averted a collision with a British submarine. The Russian captain is not the only one to be completely stunned by the incident, since the submarine dates back to World War II. It was believed "lost with all hands", but for one survivor found floating in the Baltic Sea and picked up by the Nazis. Firmly decided to clear up the mystery, British naval intelligence contacts the sole survivor, by now a grey-haired professor of mature years...
For a television mini-mini-series, "Ghostboat" seems to have enjoyed an enviable production budget. The premise is quite promising - and quite spooky. The execution does not live up to the premise, although it does have its moments, mainly thanks to some fine acting performances. The whole might have worked better if we, the viewers, had been introduced more closely to the life and times of the submarine crew anno 1943, complete with a description of the captain's nature and ambitions. Sadly the viewer learns little about these men, meaning that the question of their ultimate fate (or possibly ultimate fates, plural) becomes less than riveting. Moreover, it is never entirely clear just what we're dealing with. Are we talking about time travel, about some kind of possession or spectral influence, about people going stir-crazy and/or about a submarine having a will - an evil will - of its own ?
Anyway, in its own way "Ghostboat" is a comment on the troubled nature of 20th-century global politics, what with a hot war cooling not into peace but into a cold war. In the mini-series, the new submarine crew transitions nearly seamlessly into the old, with officers and engineers from 1981 talking about sticking it to the Krauts and the Jerries ; one rather gets that the opposite process would have worked just as well, with people from 1943 becoming hell-bent on driving a Breznjev or an Andropov from the Kremlin... And of course "Ghostboat" offers an interpretation of an age-old horror/fantasy theme, to wit a weapon that wants, nay needs to be used, and coerces its wielder into violence.
For a television mini-mini-series, "Ghostboat" seems to have enjoyed an enviable production budget. The premise is quite promising - and quite spooky. The execution does not live up to the premise, although it does have its moments, mainly thanks to some fine acting performances. The whole might have worked better if we, the viewers, had been introduced more closely to the life and times of the submarine crew anno 1943, complete with a description of the captain's nature and ambitions. Sadly the viewer learns little about these men, meaning that the question of their ultimate fate (or possibly ultimate fates, plural) becomes less than riveting. Moreover, it is never entirely clear just what we're dealing with. Are we talking about time travel, about some kind of possession or spectral influence, about people going stir-crazy and/or about a submarine having a will - an evil will - of its own ?
Anyway, in its own way "Ghostboat" is a comment on the troubled nature of 20th-century global politics, what with a hot war cooling not into peace but into a cold war. In the mini-series, the new submarine crew transitions nearly seamlessly into the old, with officers and engineers from 1981 talking about sticking it to the Krauts and the Jerries ; one rather gets that the opposite process would have worked just as well, with people from 1943 becoming hell-bent on driving a Breznjev or an Andropov from the Kremlin... And of course "Ghostboat" offers an interpretation of an age-old horror/fantasy theme, to wit a weapon that wants, nay needs to be used, and coerces its wielder into violence.
It's very watchable, just hard to follow.
Sleepin_Dragon29 July 2021
It's funny how you can romanticise about a film, or piece of TV that you saw years ago, I haven't seen Ghostboat since it was first transmitted. I was all set to give it ten stars, and write a glowing review, but maybe time hasn't been so kind to this show, or maybe I watched with rose tinted spectacles.
I think the early stages of it are fantastic, it's creepy, it's eerie, it's certainly sinister, as it develops from its midpoint to the ending, it totally loses it for me, I don't think I knew what was going on.
Imagine Ghostship meets a A Touch of Frost, it doesn't really know where it sits, is it trying to be a horror, or a psychological drama thriller, it really does fall apart as the mania sets in.
The acting is first rate, David Jason is awesome, as is Ian Pulston Davies. It was great to see Sir David Jason appear in something like this, so well known for OFAH and Frost, I'm not sure he had done anything like this, ITV certainly have him some varied parts.
Great production values, it looks super smart, nice equipment and sets, I thought the scenes of the sub moving through the mines looked amazing.
Worth watching, just expect two hours of surreal goings on.
Watchable if a bit muddled, 6/10.
I think the early stages of it are fantastic, it's creepy, it's eerie, it's certainly sinister, as it develops from its midpoint to the ending, it totally loses it for me, I don't think I knew what was going on.
Imagine Ghostship meets a A Touch of Frost, it doesn't really know where it sits, is it trying to be a horror, or a psychological drama thriller, it really does fall apart as the mania sets in.
The acting is first rate, David Jason is awesome, as is Ian Pulston Davies. It was great to see Sir David Jason appear in something like this, so well known for OFAH and Frost, I'm not sure he had done anything like this, ITV certainly have him some varied parts.
Great production values, it looks super smart, nice equipment and sets, I thought the scenes of the sub moving through the mines looked amazing.
Worth watching, just expect two hours of surreal goings on.
Watchable if a bit muddled, 6/10.
Not too bad, but a bit predictable
OnboardG127 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This isn't actually a bad attempt at a naval ghost story. It was much better than I expected, although it did look like degenerating into the expected "haunted house" style story, it just about kept its head above water until the end where the rather predictable "Captain talks to ghost operators appeared". The "posession" of crew members was well executed and was introduced well with little slips of the tongue like referring to the enemies as "gerries" instead of Russkies. Some parts were just downright confusing, such as the Bf109s overflying the boat, with little explanation of whether they were just imagined or whether the crew were seeing Russian ASW aircraft as German fighters. If this is the case though then the final engagement at Kaliningrad is a huge continuity error, with the captain's eye view of the shipyard showing Russian "typhoon" class SSBNs, rather than German U boats.
The CGI was awful. While it wasn't bad enough to ruin the movie, it REALLY irritated me. With just a bit more effort it could have looked sharper and cleaner than it actually was.
Despite the historical inaccuracies it proved to be enjoyable enough, but not enough to make me buy the DVD. It isn't historical enough to compete with "Das Boot" or fast paced enough to compete with "The Hunt For Red October". Nice try Mr Jason, not bad.
The CGI was awful. While it wasn't bad enough to ruin the movie, it REALLY irritated me. With just a bit more effort it could have looked sharper and cleaner than it actually was.
Despite the historical inaccuracies it proved to be enjoyable enough, but not enough to make me buy the DVD. It isn't historical enough to compete with "Das Boot" or fast paced enough to compete with "The Hunt For Red October". Nice try Mr Jason, not bad.
Ghostboat
jboothmillard19 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if this story was true because the war on at the time ended not long after, and there was mention of bodies never recovered in the wreck of the boat, but personally, who cares. This is a very interesting and near creepy story of one man's survival on a boat, and then somehow, the same events happen again on what seems to be the same boat. Sir David Jason as Jack Hardy is the man who survived a terrible storm on a large boat/ submarine. Unfortunately, the events that previously happened to him happen again, and the members of the new boat he is on seem to "sink" into the spell of past history. Jack is now trying everyone he can to stop the events that happened to him and the boat 40 years ago. Good!
Excellent thriller, very eerie, superb acting, 10/10
Bulleon11 April 2006
I don't tend to watch a lot of television (preferring to stick to DVDs) so something has really got to interest me to get me to firstly remember the programme's on and secondly to actually watch.
The thing that immediately attracted me to the programme was, of course, fabulous actor David Jason. And yet again he excels himself in this wonderful thriller.
The story is based on a book also called 'Ghostboat' and is about a submarine called the Scorpion that surfaces in 1981-but which hasn't been seen since the second world war where it was presumed to have sunk. When it sank only one survivor was found, Jack Hardy (David Jason) who can't remember anything due to amnesia) When the sub resurfaces, Hardy is invited to go on a journey on the sub, with another crew and retrace the path the Scorpion took to find out what happened to it.
When they first go onto the sub to check out the damage and pull out the bodies of the dead, they find something astonishing. There are no bodies, everything is as the crew left it 40 years ago, nothing has changed.
And so the journey begins. Hardy can hear voices, things are happening in the same way they did 40 years ago-and the crew are beginning to change. As Hardy says 'The past is breaking through' The CGI effects in the film are very, very good, although not perfect, the storyline is gripping, the acting and cast are stellar.
The perfect thing for the family to gather in front of the telly to watch-10/10!
The thing that immediately attracted me to the programme was, of course, fabulous actor David Jason. And yet again he excels himself in this wonderful thriller.
The story is based on a book also called 'Ghostboat' and is about a submarine called the Scorpion that surfaces in 1981-but which hasn't been seen since the second world war where it was presumed to have sunk. When it sank only one survivor was found, Jack Hardy (David Jason) who can't remember anything due to amnesia) When the sub resurfaces, Hardy is invited to go on a journey on the sub, with another crew and retrace the path the Scorpion took to find out what happened to it.
When they first go onto the sub to check out the damage and pull out the bodies of the dead, they find something astonishing. There are no bodies, everything is as the crew left it 40 years ago, nothing has changed.
And so the journey begins. Hardy can hear voices, things are happening in the same way they did 40 years ago-and the crew are beginning to change. As Hardy says 'The past is breaking through' The CGI effects in the film are very, very good, although not perfect, the storyline is gripping, the acting and cast are stellar.
The perfect thing for the family to gather in front of the telly to watch-10/10!
Not the best but good fun if you want some puzzling Sunday Night entertainment
4everard27 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched GhostBoat with my mum, and I do like this sort of thing and it did intrigue med with a submarine appearing out of nowhere from 40 years missing. It also had David Jason which I thought was a good choice.
Travis was very good as the mutinous first mate, probably taken from Pirates of the Caribbean 1, or that could be just a wild guess. I do like a good madman especially when there is no escape, the Shining anyone? It did get a bit weird towards the end when the ghosts were operating Travis and all the ships compartments. It was exciting when the ship was about to cause WWIII. Yes all that from a two part serial drama on ITV. I do recommend if you like a good horror story!
Travis was very good as the mutinous first mate, probably taken from Pirates of the Caribbean 1, or that could be just a wild guess. I do like a good madman especially when there is no escape, the Shining anyone? It did get a bit weird towards the end when the ghosts were operating Travis and all the ships compartments. It was exciting when the ship was about to cause WWIII. Yes all that from a two part serial drama on ITV. I do recommend if you like a good horror story!
Distinctly average
ronnie-henderson11 April 2006
Very average, and predictable.
Some good moments though, but was let down by cheap and nasty CGI FX.
This was, however a decent TV short drama which can was good to watch once. Doesn't quite have the longevity to persuade me to purchase the DVD to build my collection.
This certainly won't be one of David Jason's more memorable roles as it doesn't have the charm and complexity of shows such as Open All Hours and Only Fools and Horses.
As usual with ITV Dramas, the constant interruption of commercial breaks added to my disappointment of this programme. Although at some points my attention was drawn to the show, the frequent commercials were very off-putting and the temptation to switch over to an alternative channel was high.
Some good moments though, but was let down by cheap and nasty CGI FX.
This was, however a decent TV short drama which can was good to watch once. Doesn't quite have the longevity to persuade me to purchase the DVD to build my collection.
This certainly won't be one of David Jason's more memorable roles as it doesn't have the charm and complexity of shows such as Open All Hours and Only Fools and Horses.
As usual with ITV Dramas, the constant interruption of commercial breaks added to my disappointment of this programme. Although at some points my attention was drawn to the show, the frequent commercials were very off-putting and the temptation to switch over to an alternative channel was high.
Jason does it again!
munchkin7810 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Yet another brilliant bit of acting by Sir David Jason. As a lover of all this spooky and a fan of Jason I found myself glued to the screen.
Ghostboat kept me riveted, the plot was good and the acting too. I particularly liked the way the crew were taking on the personalities of the crew which came before them. Commander Travis becoming "possessed" by the previous captain was good.
However, i found the ending somewhat disappointing, a great build-up to an anti-climax.
All told a great program, which should most definitely be shown again in a few years time.
Ghostboat kept me riveted, the plot was good and the acting too. I particularly liked the way the crew were taking on the personalities of the crew which came before them. Commander Travis becoming "possessed" by the previous captain was good.
However, i found the ending somewhat disappointing, a great build-up to an anti-climax.
All told a great program, which should most definitely be shown again in a few years time.
Sadly predictable
kerravon11 April 2006
David Jason is brilliant. Sadly a good actor cannot salvage an obvious story line (which owes a lot to other works, such as the similarly named Ghostship) which meant it all became a little predictable, and towards the end just plain silly.
Characters behave inconsistently and illogically as the story lurches towards the less than surprising end.
The special effects themselves were also erratic - obviously a lot of money was spent on the set of the sub, but the cgi shots ranged from the okay to dreadful.
Okay if you are bored, but not the great work I was expecting.
Characters behave inconsistently and illogically as the story lurches towards the less than surprising end.
The special effects themselves were also erratic - obviously a lot of money was spent on the set of the sub, but the cgi shots ranged from the okay to dreadful.
Okay if you are bored, but not the great work I was expecting.
First episode of Ghost Boat on Sunday 9 April 2006 at 2100 hrs.
keithhallam9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is not really a spoiler but it is a negative comment. I enjoyed the first episode of this TV movie. However, as a submariner of some 17 years it annoyed me that such a simple goof could be committed and not picked up by the Naval Adviser, surely not a submariner! As the character Cassidy enters he hears a comment about increasing the battery charging rate and advises against it as this will cause chlorine gas to be generated and kill the crew by poisoning. This is entirely untrue. Hydrogen gas will be generated. It would only kill the crew if it ignited and blew up. Every submariner knows that chlorine gas will only be generated if salt water gets into the battery and reacts with the battery acid. This was always the fear of submariners when the boat was damaged and sea water was coming in. Keith Hallam, Blackpool.
It's not that good either.
davesones11 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
With David Jason as the lead and also one of the producers, I expected a lot more than I got when watching this. The first half was pretty good and promised an intriguing finale, but the second part descended into a confused and unconvincing mess where the crew weren't the only ones to wonder what was going on. I got the feeling that some rather heavy-handed editing had occurred, both with the plot and the final production. There were glaring anomalies in the story line and the original theory of how the sub had reappeared after being missing for forty-odd years was completely ignored at the end (apart from a brief display of mysterious lightning).
Good entertainment and different role for David Jason
evandavies19 December 2011
A story like this will not appeal to everyone but I thought it was very original and well put together overall. A good change from the usual period dramas that come from British productions. There were some bits that could have been better with regards to acting and script but it was still entertaining. Some story points are a bit too subtle and easy to miss so might need a second viewing to fully appreciate how it all fits together. The ending was quite bold and strong which I didn't expect. The visual effects were good for a relatively low budget production and there was quite a lot of computer graphics that looked as good as from a feature film.
Silly thriller
MarianPahars9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
David Jason, a 'family favourite' plays a character in the exact same style as he does in A Touch Of Frost, in this ridiculous and predictable thriller.
In this 2-parter, David Jason plays the character of a old WWII seaman who is called in by the Navy when his submarine re-emerges after disappearing in the war. Only David Jason's 'Jack Hardy' survives from the original crew but he suffers from memory loss, and has to piece together his movements from a series of flashbacks when taken back inside the ship.
The story then becomes laughable when the Navy decide, for some reason, to re-enact the last voyage of the Submarine by piecing together the movements from the Captain's Log. After accidentally sinking a Russian Submarine they come under attack from German WWII aircraft and Jack Hardy realises that someone is filling in the incomplete Captain's Log...
Good for a one-off if you don't want to do much thinking but easily forgotten.
In this 2-parter, David Jason plays the character of a old WWII seaman who is called in by the Navy when his submarine re-emerges after disappearing in the war. Only David Jason's 'Jack Hardy' survives from the original crew but he suffers from memory loss, and has to piece together his movements from a series of flashbacks when taken back inside the ship.
The story then becomes laughable when the Navy decide, for some reason, to re-enact the last voyage of the Submarine by piecing together the movements from the Captain's Log. After accidentally sinking a Russian Submarine they come under attack from German WWII aircraft and Jack Hardy realises that someone is filling in the incomplete Captain's Log...
Good for a one-off if you don't want to do much thinking but easily forgotten.
del boy being uncle Albert
chrischatty11 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
an excellent 2 parter the 1981S crew slow change into the 1943 crew was brilliant however the idea that the commander could control what was going on was stupid because he was the most possessed it also makes you think how close we did come to world war 3 during the cold war if stuff like that is classified. however several questions were left unanswered such as if the 'ghost' of scorpion was made real and could be seen why weren't the bodies of the crew also if it was 1981 outside and 1943 inside how come there were the 3 planes which attacked. although i was not very impressed with the graphics apparently they cost £1000 a second over all i think it was a good supernatural thriller
disappointing
carolynmontgomery10 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A submarine lost in WW2 re-appears in 1981 and David Jason's character Hardy (The only survivor of it's last voyage) is asked to go back with a crew and retrace the steps of the Submarines's last journey (why? You may ask?...well obviously it wouldn't be much of a drama if they just found it and put it in a maritime museum :p)
Anyway after the recent hype about the drama I did have high expectations but was disappointed. There was lots of submarine jargon which went over my head, so unless you have a particular history with or an interest in submarines, then I'm assuming most people would have the same problem... and so it got a little confusing.
I wouldn't attack the plot too much because after all it is called 'Ghostboat' and so you expect it to be a little far fetched/supernatural so that's fine BUT... at the end when the Navy and the Russian Navy (or whatever they're called in Russia) closed the case on the strange goings on, there was no mention of and never any mention of, all the other boats they blew up along the way...and as for the hostile German aircrafts...well I can only assume that they were imagined?
Now I know there were some grey areas as to which was going on in the past and which was in the present but Hardy did state that it was only 1943 inside of the sub and still very much 1981 outside... hence the reason why the Russians of 1981 were getting a little anxious at the sight of the sub on its radar... so I'm assuming that the boats they blew up were real and of 1981 too?
But...if I did get too confused by all the submarine jargon...and completely missed something due to this fact...and anyone knows any different...please tell me?
Thanks :-)
Anyway after the recent hype about the drama I did have high expectations but was disappointed. There was lots of submarine jargon which went over my head, so unless you have a particular history with or an interest in submarines, then I'm assuming most people would have the same problem... and so it got a little confusing.
I wouldn't attack the plot too much because after all it is called 'Ghostboat' and so you expect it to be a little far fetched/supernatural so that's fine BUT... at the end when the Navy and the Russian Navy (or whatever they're called in Russia) closed the case on the strange goings on, there was no mention of and never any mention of, all the other boats they blew up along the way...and as for the hostile German aircrafts...well I can only assume that they were imagined?
Now I know there were some grey areas as to which was going on in the past and which was in the present but Hardy did state that it was only 1943 inside of the sub and still very much 1981 outside... hence the reason why the Russians of 1981 were getting a little anxious at the sight of the sub on its radar... so I'm assuming that the boats they blew up were real and of 1981 too?
But...if I did get too confused by all the submarine jargon...and completely missed something due to this fact...and anyone knows any different...please tell me?
Thanks :-)
Okay made for TV sub movie.
Blueghost16 August 2013
I just finished watching this ITV production, and all I can say is that I liked what I saw, but will note that there was room for much improvement.
How so? Well, for one, the main vessel around which the movie focuses was a World War 2 British diesel submarine. Big deal, you say, ah, but one of the major story points is that the sub seems to operate like a modern nuclear sub, or one of the modern Nordic or Germanic subs which are quieter than either the US, UK or Soviet subs. Simply put WW2 subs stayed on the surface, and only went underwater when needed, but you'd never know that by watching this movie.
The other thing is that there's a little bit of creep factor in this film, but it's not accentuated enough. We understand what's happening to the crew, but the made for TV production values seem to limit both SFX and other production values to really ram home the message to the audience.
I imagine the biggest mis step taken in this film is that even though the boat as a "life of its own" so to speak, a late 20th century crew, a crew that is not trained in diesel sub operations some how manages to bring this vessel out into open ocean, and operate her like a modern nuclear powered SSN.
Huh.
You know, if you can get by that, and the cinematography which is a little uninspired, then you can probably enjoy watching this film, but the story of a haunted ship and her affect on the crew takes precedence over operational details and plot points.
It's not a great film, but it is a mild diversion for a couple of hours. Give it a shot.
How so? Well, for one, the main vessel around which the movie focuses was a World War 2 British diesel submarine. Big deal, you say, ah, but one of the major story points is that the sub seems to operate like a modern nuclear sub, or one of the modern Nordic or Germanic subs which are quieter than either the US, UK or Soviet subs. Simply put WW2 subs stayed on the surface, and only went underwater when needed, but you'd never know that by watching this movie.
The other thing is that there's a little bit of creep factor in this film, but it's not accentuated enough. We understand what's happening to the crew, but the made for TV production values seem to limit both SFX and other production values to really ram home the message to the audience.
I imagine the biggest mis step taken in this film is that even though the boat as a "life of its own" so to speak, a late 20th century crew, a crew that is not trained in diesel sub operations some how manages to bring this vessel out into open ocean, and operate her like a modern nuclear powered SSN.
Huh.
You know, if you can get by that, and the cinematography which is a little uninspired, then you can probably enjoy watching this film, but the story of a haunted ship and her affect on the crew takes precedence over operational details and plot points.
It's not a great film, but it is a mild diversion for a couple of hours. Give it a shot.
A real gem
neilor-13 February 2024
Sometimes, watching standard and not particularly famous movie, you stumble on a real gem. Ghostboat tells a story used in many films. A ship/submarine falls into a time tunnel... but in this movie things are much better done. The story captivates the viewer, although the plot is predictable, it is not boring. The directing and acting is perfect. Worth every minute of watching. I didn't know David Jason as an actor, but half the fun of the movie is his performance.
Of course the effects are not the best quality and there are many scenes which look as from cheap b-movie but this is not multydolar production.
Of course the effects are not the best quality and there are many scenes which look as from cheap b-movie but this is not multydolar production.
Very poor
alanbourne-4645524 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The idea might pass muster, if you like the idea of a haunted submarine that wants to start World War III for no apparent reason, but the execution is terrible. Nothing much happens for long stretches, apart from sweaty submariners looking at dials and twisting valves while muttering naval mumbo-jumbo with a stiff upper lip. At each plot point the story becomes more ludicrous, and even the actors seem not to have the heart for it.
I should have known early on when nobody knows the boat is in need of exorcism and the dock workers can't open the hatch whatever they do. A naval officer then has a go, apparently because he's a toff and obviously knows more about opening hatches than mere manual workers. He seems more surprised at his failure than when a few seconds later it opens all on its own, and nobody bats an eyelid. I should have switched off then, but I got to the end (just).
I should have known early on when nobody knows the boat is in need of exorcism and the dock workers can't open the hatch whatever they do. A naval officer then has a go, apparently because he's a toff and obviously knows more about opening hatches than mere manual workers. He seems more surprised at his failure than when a few seconds later it opens all on its own, and nobody bats an eyelid. I should have switched off then, but I got to the end (just).
an excellent movie
gerdomino15 April 2006
David Jason was magnificent in this movie. forget the press comments ( the one I read was written by an egotistical maniac - unfortunately , most critics are of the same mold). This was a very watchable movie , being in two parts , I made a point of watching the second part ( what further proof do you need , none for me - my wife watched all of it as well!) . Well chosen David , for a dramatic role , out of the tried and tested. You convinced me. I didn't want to laugh at any stage ( now that's a challenge). You will have to ditch the cockney accent though . I look forward to your next role - surprise us all , with a complete change of diction! Any way , well done. I love you. Jerome
Again not a spoiler - just a comment
RaeBLS7910 April 2006
I thought the first episode was brilliant and I can't wait for the concluding part showing tonight, 10 April 2006. Nothing so far is as it seems. I think that anything that was 'incorrect' (as pointed out by the previous poster from Blacpool) during the first episode will be cleared up tonight and anything that isn't shouldn't really draw it away from being a brilliant programme. Sir David Jason's acting is, as always, absolutely amazing and the other cast members also do this TV programme much justice. It may contain the 'odd mistake' but what it is, is a brilliant story surrounded by mystery and an intensity not yet known.
Unmitigated (rhymes with flight): but still better than "Black Sea"
joachimokeefe21 March 2020
David Jason as an ex-submarine lieutenant with an extremely wobbly accent who becomes a professor of something. He just happens to be the sole survivor of the sinking of HM Submarine "Scorpion", in 1943.
A demented Royal Navy Commander enlists him as navigation 'advisor' on a mission to recreate the last voyage of the 'Scorpion' in order to discover the solution to a time-space-anomaly that could be used as a secret weapon in the Cold War.
Look, do I have to go on? No. This movie is UTTER RUBBISH. How anyone has the cheek to present it as grown-up entertainment I fail to fathom (geddit?).
But it's STILL not as bad as Jude Law's 'Black Sea'.
A demented Royal Navy Commander enlists him as navigation 'advisor' on a mission to recreate the last voyage of the 'Scorpion' in order to discover the solution to a time-space-anomaly that could be used as a secret weapon in the Cold War.
Look, do I have to go on? No. This movie is UTTER RUBBISH. How anyone has the cheek to present it as grown-up entertainment I fail to fathom (geddit?).
But it's STILL not as bad as Jude Law's 'Black Sea'.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
