The Descent; Part 2

RandolphEsq

Just saw an ad for it. Having seen the first Descent, I have to say I am looking forward a lot for this! Chills and scares were abundant in the first one, and the tension was, at times, literally edge of the seat stuff.
Perfect to set the mood for Christmas if it's as good as the first

Basq

I love the first one..

.. but irregardless of how the good the reviews in the ad are ("Scariest movie ever!" by GoreGoreGoreGoria Magazine! ), the normally excellent Neil Marshall (OK.. didn't particularly enjoy 'Doomsday'), who wrote and directed the first one did a runner, and they hired a first-time director and two writers who have far from a credible resume.

Think I'll pass and wait for the more credible reviewers.

Mr E

Saw it last night. It wasn't awful, but wasn't brilliant either. First-5-minutes-spoiler (not really a spoiler but I'll hide it anyway) -

the girl who survived the first one has amnesia from the trauma, and is convinced by the local sheriff to go back into the caves to find her friends.

. Yep, time for one of these: :rolleyes:

Gore isn't bad, a couple of cheap scares (some really good ones), and some nice set pieces. I've seen worse.

Basq

basquille wrote: »

Think I'll pass and wait for the more credible reviewers.

Mr E wrote: »

Saw it last night...

Gore isn't bad, a couple of cheap scares (some really good ones), and some nice set pieces. I've seen worse.

So.. any credible reviewers about?

Mr. E liked Glitter FFS!

The Recliner

basquille wrote: »

So.. any credible reviewers about?

Mr. E liked Glitter FFS!

I will probably go see it next week

I haven't seen glitter but I doubt I quailify as credible given my fondness for sh!te movies

faceman

The US release of the first film had a very different ending than the UK and Ireland release. Hence the sequel is based on the US version.

Eirebear

faceman wrote: »

The US release of the first film had a very different ending than the UK and Ireland release. Hence the sequel is based on the US version.

Ahhhhhhh!

I was just about to ask about that, because

i have no memory of her getting out of the caves.

faceman

Dont forget spoiler tags people!

johnny_ultimate

Definitely think this is a bit of redundant sequel (although haven't seen it yet!). The first one is my favourite recent horror film (along with Rec) and I enjoyed the grim, self-contained story. It was a pleasant one off, one full of shocks, scares and atmosphere.

This being Hollywood, however, they will just try and copy the formula in favour of a few extra bucks. Same with Rec 2 (although with the Spanish replacing Hollywood!). The Descent and Rec were refreshingly intense and atmospheric horrors. Trying to copy this success somewhat dilutes their uniqueness IMO.

Mr E

basquille wrote: »

So.. any credible reviewers about?

Mr. E liked Glitter FFS!

Phew, I thought you'd found that post where I said Maria Carey carefully balanced her acting and singing ability to glorious effect, and that it was a highlight of the 2001 movie calendar. Looks like that one stays buried, so...

Basq

No, no, no.. this is awful!

And I watched 'The Descent' again over the weekend to gear myself up this piece of crap!

senordingdong

Was it really **** Basquille?

I thought they brought back the original cast and crew and all?

Basq

senordingdong wrote: »

Was it really **** Basquille?

I thought they brought back the original cast and crew and all?

They brought the original cast for bits alright.. but that's where the similarities ended!

Woeful!

pinksoir

basquille wrote: »

They brought the original cast for bits alright.. but that's where the similarities ended!

Woeful!

Yeah, it was a total shocker alright. Gore was absolutely brutal, terrible joke shop blood, they changed the creatures to be more 'Hollywood' - big muscley guys with sharper teeth and pointier ears and

the twist at the end? Sweet Jesus, I saw it coming when he winked at the cop going down the shaft. But it made no sense at all. It was completely tacked on, clichéd cheap horror crap. I can't even see why he'd be doing it. I know he said about his family going missing down there years ago but I hope the writers weren't suggesting that they evolved into those creatures in so short a time. Why was he feeding them animals? And most importantly, why did he pick yer one up at the start and bring her to the hospital, only to lay her out with a shovel at the end? The mind boggles.

It wasn't all bad I suppose. Few cheap scares and some decent tension. Plus

when the annoying Aussie girl is screaming like a bint, you wish that she would just die off. It happens. Most promptly. This is to be appreciated.

Basq

pinksoir wrote: »

And most importantly, why did he pick yer one up at the start and bring her to the hospital, only to lay her out with a shovel at the end? The mind boggles.

Well..

it wasn't the same person to be fair!

The girl at the start he picked up was Sarah (from the original film).. whereas the girl at the end he battered with the shovel was Elen (the latina cop).

pinksoir

Alright, yeah, but still

why would he rescue yer one at the start? Why wouldn't he knock her out and bring her back. It's just lazy writing. A gratuitous nonsensical twist.

Basq

pinksoir wrote: »

Alright, yeah, but still

why would he rescue yer one at the start? Why wouldn't he knock her out and bring her back. It's just lazy writing. A gratuitous nonsensical twist.

Well..

I took that he knew her discovery would lead more people into the cave to find the rest of the group = more people for the creatures to feed on!