In the dark First of all, pay attention to the writers. Jay Blakeson is not a remarkable and weak figure, for James McCarthy it is a debut at all, as well as director John Harris, and James Watkins had a hand in the weakest and most boring “Paradise Lake”, disgusting “Missing”, and to a good horror “One Eye”, where the script is saved by his partner David Hilton. Trinity of talented authors, in three heads trying to dock the continuation with the first part, stamping conveyor clone without originality, soul and expressiveness.
In fact, miraculously, the survivor Sarah from the first film is forced to return with the rescue team to the caves. Not only does the idea itself sound stupid, and on the screen is served at all ridiculous and without any logic and adequacy, so under the ground they find not only corpses and monsters, but also the girl Rambo, mowing under Alice from “Resident Evil”, and is one of the friends of the main character, again miraculously survived for several days in these caves. Faced with rather creepy creatures, they ride a struggle for survival with unequal chances of success.
What at first was a forty-minute chatter without meaning or need, by the middle, overgrown with the atmosphere of the first part, copying individual moments, as if it were a comedy that beats stamps. Starting from the first appearance of the creatures and bloody attacks on rescuers, the film slides into some kind of slaughterhouse, where the characters completely eliminate dozens of hostile creatures, and they do not even think to decrease in number. A senseless slaughter, where no one is sorry: the characters are not revealed, the characters came out vile and not pleasant, and you watch this nonsense only with one hope that someday they will all die and the credits will go, but the ending turns into an even more ridiculous farce than one could imagine.
The right sequel would focus on a new team with a back story of each character, even without monsters on the screen, it would be possible to unfold the conflict and the main types that change along the course of the action and development of the story. A proper sequel would shed light on the nature of underground monsters, partly explaining their existence. A good sequel would not be ridiculous to resurrect long-dead characters, just to convey greetings to the first part, but would follow the logic of the narrative and would tell about the interesting conduct of the rescue operation. Unfortunately, there is nothing right or good in the film. If the first part was a unique female composition, the sequel waves a gray prefabricated solyak. If in the original “Descent” each character is unique and interesting, then in the continuation of the characters do not even have a chance to turn around against the background of absurdity of actions. And if the first film pressed claustrophobic and tension in the most dangerous moments, making you worry about the characters, the sequel turned out to be what Rob Zombie turned “Halloween 2” – a boring thrash for home video, with good scenes of violence, but completely poor plot.
Unlike Halloween 2, it’s even worse. The number of murders, if you take only people, has not been spectacular, and none of them, perhaps, can scare. There are more abominations, but in the absence of an atmosphere, such scenes do not look shocking and everything looks dry, emotionless, stupid. Yes, of course, something here can be especially remembered, such as a rat, a crushed head and a long-chopped hand, and let it look quite high-quality, it is better for fans of such scenes to watch another “Saw”, where the action makes sense, the plot is not one idea, and the plot is for the most part laid out interestingly and always pleases with its unexpected turns. “Descent 2” can hardly be called even a horror film, it is some rather pathetic parody, looking like an amateur film shot by amateurs.
What is the reason for such poor and miserable work? In the inability of writers to create a complete story together? In the incompetence of a director who is not able to correctly translate written or achieve acting? In the most absurd of the idea to continue where everything is already finished and self-sufficient? It is difficult to answer, but apparently in all this, plus everything in the inability of the actors to show the features of the game on the screen when submitting their images-characters, in the very selection of casting, because of which you yawning, look at a bunch of gray mice, and of course it is worth scolding the producers that give money is not clear what, and allow such ugly miscarriages to appear.
Trying to sit at the screen all the timekeeping, involuntarily trying to cling to at least some positive sides. And here is really still a good makeup and you can repeat the words about high-quality bloody effects. However, both of these advantages have a chic first part, where in addition to them there is a whole kaleidoscope of advantages, as well as other excellent horror films. So why cling to the lonely, slim pluses of a really bad movie to justify themselves, who decided to watch it, and the film itself in their own eyes.
It remains only to admit that all this adventure in the dark is nothing more than an unsuccessful bi-movic, in which only artists tried, saving somehow the visual series of indistinct delusional script. We also hope that we will not see more directorial works by John Harris, as well as Descent 3. Because after such a film is terrible not from a quality horror story, but terrible for the genre itself, where it is necessary to appear one expressive work, as a bunch of ugly barely breathing clones-twins are born, intending to cash in on fame and drowning in the sea of their own garbage, decaying before their eyes. Unsuccessful and unnecessary continuation, not deserving of audience attention. Forget like a dream in a fit of delirium and admit that there is only one "Descent" - the first! And nothing but.
3 IZ 10
Original