A good movie, made at a time when you didn’t need to add a couple of black gays to the plot just to please the agenda. We didn’t know then that it was good. And seriously, the film is about the fact that the salvation of drowning is the work of drowning themselves. You always have a choice: fold your legs and drown in milk or try to whip butter. If it were not for the outright disregard of physics and common sense at some point, it might have been a little better.
There are two categories of James Cameron films. Some he directs, others he produces, and these second ones are usually not very good. Sanctum is a prime example of this.
Everyone who watched it in the cinema confirms that the 3D technique here is like in "Avatar", but the technique alone is not enough to make the tape successful. You need at least a good script and good actors, and there are problems with that. For almost two hours, we will hear from the characters stuck in the cave, and the father of the protagonist will commit strange and sometimes unjustified actions, trying to hide behind the fact that he is an expert speleologist and in general all of himself a hero. Is that true? The character himself will say more than once that everyone who happened to be in this cave made their choice consciously, like himself. What is heroic about pulling yourself and your colleagues out of a cesspool where everyone has stepped voluntarily? Maybe it's heroism, but it's quite controversial, which is spiced with cave talk and poetry just for beauty.
While the film is technically good (the camera doesn’t tremble and there’s no overdoing even in the dark), the key scenes are sometimes shot too chaoticly. From what we see and hear, it is unclear why speleologists die. Sometimes it seems that some just hit the rope, and others just out of fear? What could be more ridiculous? It hurts and something else. At first, "Sanctum" tunes viewers into the fact that there will be many victims here. There are many characters, and at different levels of the cave, and even a hurricane is not far off. But only a few people participate in the main events. Just as Aliens would focus on the same number of characters as the first Alien. Perhaps if there were more animals in “Sanctum” that would scare the main characters, everything would look more exciting.
The main problem with the film is its predictability. The scenario is so unoriginal that at the stage of clarifying family ties, it is already clear who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist. The main character, in addition, has an incomplete family - a very worn-out cliché, which in 2007 was boring. According to the plot, there is even a “battle with the boss”, without which no clichéd film can do.
Well, what can I say? Having decided to let the audience dust in the eyes, the authors scored on the freshness of the idea and decided to limit themselves to a simple drama, which, although it breaks through on emotions, but due to its secondaryness, is eventually lost among competitors.
6 out of 10
This is an incredibly exciting film, if you like survival movies, the topic is not new, but in such films you always do not know who is next and what is next... I really liked it, I advise you.
A film about survival where you can live for a few days, slowly go crazy and eventually die.
A group of speleologists descends into the largest network of caves in the world – the Esa’ala caves in Papua New Guinea. The work of exploring the unexplored depths captivates some characters so much that they spend 17 days without seeing sunlight. When a powerful storm begins, several people remain in the caves and are forced to look for another way to the surface.
In fact, “Sanctum” is not outstanding in its genre and it plays out the standard situation in which a group of several people lose someone in their ranks when passing the “new level”. In such films, there is a kind of Fort Boyard principle, where if you want to guess the keyword and get even more gold, you need to sacrifice one of the team members. In survival films, everything is the same: the characters die one by one, thereby giving the “voucher” to the rest to a new level.
The same thing happens in Sanctum, and as in any film where the characters are faced with a choice (surrender and die or continue to fight), the viewer is involved in what is happening due to the fact that he is also in this team. But only watching from the outside and can not influence the situation.
In order to fully feel what the characters are going through, you probably need to be in their shoes and, accordingly, go to some cave. I have not dealt with such cases, and therefore I can only at the level of my assumptions understand what a person is going through and what he feels when he realizes that he is pressed by hundreds of thousands of tons of rock, the only way out is blocked, and it is likely that another will not work.
To maintain self-control and stay with a cold head can not everyone, which demonstrates some characters. But there are those who realize the burden of the situation and are ready to sacrifice themselves, realizing that they become a burden for the group. No matter where you are – in the depths, in a cave or in the mountains – the burden is thrown off your shoulders and the team moves on, because the choice is obvious: either one or all of them.
“Sanctum” allows you to fully feel the severity of such a choice, as well as to follow how the behavior of a person changes, slowly but surely realizing that the end is near.
Alistair Grierson’s film involves a number of actors whom the viewer could see in notable projects. Richard Roxburgh is the Count Dracula of Van Helsing and the Duke of Moulin Rouge! Yoan Griffith, who starred in Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk at the time, and also played the role of Mr. Fantastic in the Fantastic Four. In addition, you can see the future Polite Stranger from the first part of Reese Wakefield’s “Doomsday Night”. By the way, most of the cast is assembled from Australians (the director is also from the kangaroo continent).
Several times the film quotes a fragment of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem "Kubla Khan, or Vision in a Dream":
In the land of Xanad blessed
The palace was built by Kubla Khan,
Where Alf runs, the stream is sacred.
Through the darkness of giant caves, foam,
It flows into the sleepy ocean.
In these lines, in my opinion, selected very successfully, veiled in fact what happens throughout the picture. The depths of the caves, the seething streams of water, the proximity of the ocean, where the water falling into the caves flows - this is all there, everything is clear here. The country of Xanad and the palace built in it can be interpreted as Nature and a giant cave with vast halls, under the vaults of which stalactites are built, acting as an element of decoration. Well, for Kubl Khan, you can take the hero Richard Roxburgh, whom some characters throughout the film call a real hero (who, however, is unknown to anyone).
And by the way, this passage also serves as proof that the second exit from the cave is still there, because otherwise the water would constantly accumulate in it and sooner or later it would flood. She's got a place to go. But this place of drain can be extremely narrow for an adult to squeeze into it. . .
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
I’m completely turned around when this movie is called “mediocre.” When they talk about Cameron, who made a "passing" film. After seeing reviews and ratings below average, I decided to reconsider. I was not disappointed.
Hollywood filmed many horror films about various heroes who in a thunderstorm run away from wolves and hang on a moss-covered stone, holding one little finger of the left hand. And I always look at it with a dull snout and an expression on my face, "Fuck you." I don't believe it! I’m not a professional speleologist and I can’t say for sure, but in the film “Sanctum” everything looks so real, like sitting in a wetsuit and breathing in wet air, squeezed by the power of rocks.
It's not a nightmare. It's a reality. Whether we want to believe it or not.
Most importantly, all the mistakes depicted in the film are real. The film is very specific. When the girl took out the cutter and started cutting her hair. It’s so real that it doesn’t even elicit emotions. Or when she didn't wear a dead man suit. I find it dissonant. How come?! If you want to live, wear it. But again. It is a reality that exists regardless of what we like or not. In general, the actors are satisfied by 99.98%.
The film has such an iron-clad internal logic inside that there is nothing to argue with. Of course, some of us will think that heroes behave stupidly. They should have ... (substitute their own). But the reality is that human speleologists exist, they climb into caves, and then, as they say, shit happens. Something sneaks up unnoticed. At first glance, the atmosphere of an extreme situation is not created. But people begin to get out of various inadequate. Inadequate and making mistakes. About this and the movie.
I also read reviews about the poor performance of actors who did not shed a tear. I don't even want to comment. Do you know what you're writing? Can I add another round of applause? Is this a show or a show?
And although the film is not “great”, large-scale (it does not claim to be),
10 out of 10
Again, we have a film in which the Russian translation does not say anything to ordinary viewers. What a sanctum. It was only then that I learned that it meant "sanctuary." But even after watching the movie, I can't get the connection. Unless you mean the untouched and impregnable womb of nature.
But the film itself can not be called bad, it is quite beautiful. But for $30 million, it could have been better. It feels like Cameron took most of the budget. The film was rather disappointing... it was terrible to look at amateurs. There were warnings of an approaching storm. I thought it would be a professional show, but I was wrong about it. This movie is about not exploring caves. Heroes as if not prepared and just like a picnic came to have fun. After the final, the beginning looks so stupid - just the height of amateurism and excessive arrogance. I like the characters Frank and Luko. They really tried to curb the stupidity of tourists and somehow return the situation to a calmer and more predictable state. But the fools ruined it. In this regard, the film is very lifelike. In reality, a lot of cases when in pursuit of spectacular people parted with life. Therefore, the hero of Roxburgh turned out to be the most elaborate - a tough explorer of caves, requiring a clear order and compliance with safety requirements. Such a person can be trusted with life.
On the one hand, the audience will grab the head from the illogical actions of the heroes. But in life they also wondered about accidental deaths - where did they go? So I personally liked the movie for one go. But it is disposable, I do not want to watch this idiot again. It was funny to watch the rich bourgeois turn into primitive and fight for food. Frank rightly said: “These polished majors live in chocolate, knowing no trouble and immediately lose their face at the signs of danger.”
But it feels like the film's underwhelming. Here slip beautiful views and curious plot moves. Many subtleties of the work of speleologists are told and this is an interesting occupation - the study of the depths of the Earth. Therefore, the film is perceived ambiguously, because again bad acting destroys everything - screaming, panic, confusion, no one listens to logic. But glad that here at least did without monsters as in “Descents”. It's just people and nature. More movies like that. In some places it even resembled another Cameron film “The Abyss”.
As a result, I can’t put a problem with the film in principle and recommend it too hard because of disposability and lack of work. Although I am more inclined to the recommendation. It is necessary to observe safety – the film teaches this.
6 out of 10
The film tells about the fearless explorers of the deep sea, their incredible dives in the endless ocean and the struggle with the elements, which is always more dangerous than it seems at first and always shows what you really are and what you are worth. The authors of the picture revealed absolutely every character, the closer to the climax, the more the viewer understands the true essence of each of them. How many people will be around when the risk to life exceeds all possible limits? What about those who have to choose between their safety and the safety of others? Are those who seem to be so good or so bad?
Against this background, the main storyline develops - the relationship between father and son, trying to get closer and find some common points of contact, doing a common business. A teenage boy goes through the entire period of growing up from selfish whims to independent decision-making, on which the life of his father and his entire team depends in just a few days.
This movie is supposed to be very impressive, but it didn’t happen in my case. It is hard to say what I lacked, but the film did not leave a deep trace in my soul. For the moral component and good camera work, I put 6 points. Probably, in order for the film to make the maximum impression, it should be watched on a large screen, and better in 3D format.
6 out of 10
The film is shot, relatively speaking, on the basis of "real events" (the term "based", i.e. did not occur in its place at that time, but only became the reason for filming this film). The plot tells about a group of drivers of a very motley composition (there are also pros from among the “rich sponsors”). A group of people come to the island, where there is a colossal cave, going two kilometers underground, with reservoirs, grottoes and an underwater river. A real microcosm! Then the plot itself occurs, namely, a downpour begins and the entrance to the mine is flooded with monsoon flows. Six people (the most different!) are cut off from the world and forced to go through the overwhelming psyche underground corridors in search of “another way out”. In the end, only one is saved, the rest all die.
The script is very accurate and most importantly accurate. This is not an attempt at melodrama (as was the case in Titanic) or the end of the world as we say in War of the Worlds. The phenomenon of this film is that there is nothing superfluous and personal. There is a clear event line, going from the beginning of the film to the end: the arrival of the characters, acquaintance, general information, the first tragedy, disaster (pouring the cave with water during the monsoon), the main plot (struggle for survival - salvation), the finale. The film amazes with incredibly beautiful views of the underground kingdom, very accurate and correct acting (here truly was the main word “don’t replay!”), beautiful soulful music, etc. Everything is harmonious and balanced.
During the filming, Cameron's studio was used, intended for the film "Avatar".
The film is very pleasant and strong (no dirt, no cynicism).
However, when I looked online to find out more about the film, I was sadly surprised. It turns out that the film caused a flurry of negative reviews of critics, received 1.5 points out of 4 possible and received a minimum of positive ratings from the audience. To be honest, I was in shock... Taking into account which films find significantly higher support, given the fact that some perfect dummy in terms of plot and embedded ideas like “Time of the Witches” or “Titanic” collect incredible box office. I was really impressed! Of course, “Sanctum” is not “Solaris” and “Manhollandrive”, but at least definitely not “Resident Evil” and remakes. This is a cool, simple and beautiful film quite on the level of “Death among icebergs”, “Vikings” or “Pianist”. The problem with this film is that it revives the former brilliant Hollywood, shows the real American art in a classical performance, that is, in the form it was 30 years ago, before it completely degraded.
The question is, what is wrong with this movie? Why did it provoke such a negative reaction from the audience?
I think there are three things:
1. It is very traditional (in the plot, according to the combination of "acting game-sauntrek-fabula). He is rebuilding old ties rather than calling for new "beavis and batheads." You can say "reincarnation" of classical Hollywood.
2. On the screen, three things are consistently proved in the plot, namely:
(a) “Ten” (six) people are worth more than any of them separately. And the life of all is not equal to the life of any single unit. That is, the plot of “Sanctum” is opposite to the plot of the film “Saving Private Ryan”. Six is more expensive than one and nothing else. Society (a flock, a group) in a situation where it is necessary to survive is all, the person is nothing! No matter how “good” or “beautiful” she is.
(b) Democracy is nonsense, choice is nonsense! The ingenious moment when the group in the course of their trek through the tunnel stumbles on one side of the void and dead end, and on the other side of the underwater “meat grinder”. On the first way there is no chance to escape at all, on the second there is a risk of dying (possibly someone will die!), but the rest will pass and survive. At this point, a group of characters are asked to vote on which path to go. The response of the pack leader is brilliant: “You can vote, or you can just go wherever you want!” Our votes in the current situation will be equally divided, so there is no sense in voting! Go if you decide to die and not be saved. The leader of the pack assumes all the blow and all the responsibility, and only he, based on his experience and knowledge, which no one in this group has, makes the final decision. And democracy is nonsense, because if you allow democracy, everyone will die.
c) God is not here! No, I do. The most controversial moment is when the old man, the driver leader, says, "There's no God here, there's no one here to come to our rescue and get out of this ass to save your lives." Only we can save ourselves, and therefore we must do the right thing. And, nevertheless, the whole film, the plot of the film the result all refutes this phrase of the driver. In fact, God apparently exists and he gives everyone a chance, some (like poor Victoria) several times in a row, but only those who truly deserve it are saved in the end. Who was the smartest and the smartest.
3.) I don’t know why, but I have a clear sense that the film made the audience feel somewhat inferior. Anyway, there was total silence in the hall for 100 minutes. No one shuddered, no one moved, no popcorn. That's me personally, as a rather cynical critic, that's what struck me the most. The audience watched the entire film in complete silence and without comment.
As a result, there is a purely accidental refutation of the three commandments of the modern Western world, namely: “one is worth ten”, “the main thing is a person’s choice (man always has a choice)” and “there is no god”. God does exist, and He makes the final choice, not man. Man only acts on the basis of his being.
You know, if this film was made in the 70s of the last century, I would not be surprised, but it was made NOW, that is, in our time. Something is happening in the United States that was unthinkable before. You can call it a “spiritual renaissance”, or you can just “death to the majors!”
No matter what the movie is about, the music is great! The plot, especially the final scene - melodramatic, but you can believe, and most importantly - beautiful.
Here, below, I found the meaning of life. Here I can look at myself like in a mirror and say, here I am.
Under the thunderous rolls and downpours, watching “Sanctum” is like messing with the characters of a picture produced by James Cameron in one cave lake! A two-hour battle of people and the bowels of the earth with ticks keeps the viewer, not giving, not that to move away, to come out, to rest, popcorn has no time to chew!
A typical story about fanatics becomes a familiar eulogy for them. Having started some research, a group of speleologists descends into the underground caves under the leadership of a brilliant ass-superspec, constantly festering his son (who, in the meantime, is one of the best climbers of the group, but for dad, of course, a sloppy and a young lady). The caves are full of water (and air endless reserves!), mysterious passages and unknown embellishments.
However, while the idyll is below, bad weather rages on the surface, driving ground groups into shelter, and the underground ones, of course, have a weak connection. While in the underground kingdom rejoice in the discoveries, grieve for the first losses and plan further adventures, the fishing rods have long folded at the top, and no one will save travelers along the earthen gut.
Delightfully exhausting the nerves of the viewer thriller, which is not surprising with so many necessary elements: nature, heroes, characters, conflicts (external and internal), and the theme of “survive” in itself a thriller. And to "survive" in the film by Cameron-producer - double!
I wonder how I missed this picture! Or forgot?! So much so that at first hung on déjà vu - is this another "Dangerous Immersion"? Thriller "Sanctum", which is not Peterburg (except as hopelessly watery), at the height, IMHO.
9 out of 10
More than 60 minutes of viewing and no emotions. For all the time watching one continuous expectation that “now it will begin”, but instead of immersing myself in the atmosphere of the film, I plunged into despondency.
I started watching because of Cameron’s good grades and involvement in the film, hoping he wouldn’t let me down, but I was wrong. And I did not understand why the film received such ratings, what could hook in this film?
Picture? I did not see the beautiful and amazing underwater / underground world, as I did not see the normal picture of the actions taking place due to the bad work of the director.
The work of the actors began to irritate me from the very beginning: some of them, going on a serious expedition, which promises a breakthrough inexplicably, looked like they had arrived to ride in Disneyland. The blonde deserves a separate disgust. In general, their work and an attempt to express a storm of emotions created the impression of excessive playfulness, or indifference / inability to express at least the grief of the losses that occurred. Dialogues are template, simple, dry, worse than only films about and for all sorts of stupid teenagers about their studies in college.
In addition to all the horror on screen, the musical accompaniment just seemed out of place. Some people tried to add to the drama, but it only made me want to get rid of all this hour and a half Armageddon.
In the land of Xanad blessed
The palace was built by Kubla Khan,
Where Alf runs, the stream is sacred.
Through the darkness of giant caves, foam,
It flows into the sleepy ocean.
Running a little ahead...
Yes, I became a diver, I began to dive into caves. Yes, before this film, I was a fat fat fat jackass who had never done anything in his life and saw the world only from the window of an apartment, an office, public transport and a car.
What is this movie about?
This is a film about people who need challenges, about fathers and children, about the elements and the force of nature, about the severe struggle for life, in a place where there is neither god nor devil.
The main characters pass in this cave of purgatory on the way to paradise through the awareness of their weaknesses - self-confidence, dependence on the opinions of others, distrust, fear and underestimation of abilities.
The conflict of fathers and children is shown through the modern value system and as a result, the son comes to the understanding of the father not long before his tragic death scene.
Associations
In essence, the message of the main idea that the director conveys to us through the action of the film, the first association I had with the Vertical Limit. The film has similar experiences.
Picture
About the magnificent entertainment of the film I can say that the underwater beauty shown there inspired me to dive, inspired by these landscapes I began to dive in the Ordinsk cave.
Game of actors
Most actors are unknown to me, but they played as if they were not actors, but real real people.
The actors resembled real people I came across when I started diving into caves, with the same types who speak and act similarly.
After watching it for the first time, I thought it was a bad game and the actors weren’t good, real people didn’t talk or move. But when I immersed myself in this environment and watched the film a few years later, I saw real people from the real world in these characters.
The game is so good that the game itself is invisible. This is probably the case when a fake cannot be distinguished from the original.
Music
The music in the film will complement the picture - the same, with specifics. Adds a little space to the atmosphere and somehow is not particularly remembered and not thrown into memory.
Features
There are plenty of lyaps in the film, but I think they were allowed deliberately, so as not to overload the main message with technical details and their explanations.
The name of James Cameron, who is the screenwriter of this picture, without a shadow of a doubt, is familiar even to a person who is largely indifferent to cinema, but the brilliant Alistair Grierson on the cinematic Olympus looks somewhat more modest, but this does not weaken his directorial vision and non-standard approach to modern genres.
And in fact, referring to the genre as an adventure drama with elements of a thriller, willingly and without arguing, you can agree with the directors, based not only on the commitment of the plot to real events, but also for the simple reason that the plausibility and tense atmosphere do not let go throughout the picture.
A group of professional speleologists - specialists go on the most extreme and risky expedition, namely to the underwater cave of Esaala (Papua, New Guinea), unexplored and mysterious. The plot unfolds in a limited space, which, in my opinion, adds sharpness and adrenaline, as well as a special atmosphere of mysticism and natural grandeur.
At the whim of nature, a tropical storm begins, unexpectedly catching the whole group in cave confinement and driving everyone into a deep unexplored labyrinth of small insidious, but so alluring and striking with its beauty and chamber caves. The first victim we see very soon, and this chain is staggering footage of the departure of the characters. Death, terrible wild fear, pain, blood, risk - all this is filmed vividly and emotionally.
The acting line is represented by not too eminent talents, but not at all reducing the effect of watching. And we need to pay tribute to all the actors and crew who risked not only their health but also their lives.
Especially correctly emphasized by the authors of the blood relationship of Frank’s father (Richard Roxburgh – a good acting work) and his son (Reese Wakefield), showing the emotional side of their communication in a critical situation, and bringing it to a new level of trust and forgiveness.
Such paintings openly represent complex force majeure situations, fully revealing the nature and character of the characters and it is very important to see the essence, which is clearly visible in moments when there is no time to think, and you need to act quickly and without mistakes. But how it turns out that the most difficult thing is to maintain composure, because panic, instincts and emotions turn on, overshadowing the voice of reason.
Result: What could be more valuable than someone else's life? Just your own life!
Only one will survive. Who is he? ... be sure to look if you are attracted to adrenaline, and you will answer this question.
7 out of 10
It is not enough to find a way out of the situation - you still need to be able to push it through.
Despite quite a lot of negative reviews, I decided to watch the film by Alistair Grierson. And I have to admit, what I saw exceeded my expectations.
The plot of "Sanctum" is very simple. A group of researchers studying the cave was hit by a tsunami. As a result, the cave was flooded. To get out, they need to find another way out. In general, our heroes will run, crawl, jump, dive and climb the walls of caves, trying to save their lives. All this seems too banal, but do not forget that the plot is based on a real story.
I haven’t seen any of the actors in the movie before, so there were concerns at first. But they were completely unfounded, because all the actors played flawlessly. And this is despite the fact that it is very difficult to portray panic, and in many similar films it is painful to watch the actions of heroes in extreme situations. In "Sanctum" all actions are clear and correspond to the atmosphere of the film: it is clear that everyone's nerves are strained to the limit. I remember Richard Roxburgh and Alice Parkinson best.
Do not look for impressive special effects in the film, there are almost none. Instead, “Sanctum” delights with excellent cave landscapes (you can see immediately what spent $ 30 million), reminding that the executive producer of the film is none other than James Cameron. It takes 109 minutes to look at rocks. But I don’t think the beautiful picture in this film is the main thing.
Throughout the film, we see a real drama centered on the tense relationship between Frank’s strict but loving father and his son Joshua. In the end, Josh realizes that his father, with whom he initially did not work out, is a real hero. A hero no one knew.
I don’t know what critics lacked to appreciate this picture! I saw this movie in the theater and then again four years later. I've had everything in this movie.
1. The most beautiful places that on the surface ( take the very "mother" of the caves), that underwater landscapes.
2. Fighting for life in a difficult situation. Struggle with nature, with people, with yourself. I love paintings that show how different people behave when fate throws them trials. Sometimes you have to decide whether to save yourself or someone else.
3. A real man. Well, there should be a person in such a film, outwardly, maybe not attractive, courageous, brave, honest ("and first of all, with himself"), the father of the family ("albeit not quite successful, but the son (that is, and even all in the father"), etc. And the most important thing is that this person can make a decision, sometimes tough, hard, with which many will disagree and he takes all the responsibility, all the burden of guilt. Even though his own son accuses him of accepting the role of God, he continues to do as he sees fit and go forward. Because there's no going back. Because only these tough rules will help you survive.
4. Great plot. I'm not a diver, and I don't swim well. Maybe the professionals will find a lot of inconsistencies here, but I didn't watch a documentary where you can learn the basics of scuba diving. To me, it was a great, exciting film. There was never a moment when I got bored or wanted to sprint forward. And during the viewing, you can experience a lot of emotions, empathizing with the heroes.
5. Nice casting. Richard Roxburgh and everyone else did a great job. Their heroes believe, empathize, hate and cry with them. For me, all these names did not say anything, only after watching the filmography, I remembered that I had already seen this actor. But it probably only benefited my perception of the film.
Result: has long wanted to review, and not a bit regretted. I took it to my collection.
I didn’t decide to watch the movie because of the director or producer. I just saw an interesting poster and an intriguing abstract. Therefore, my impression of the film did not spoil the famous name. That’s probably why I liked the movie.
Plot. A typical plot of a disaster movie. He's predictable. But he is not deprived of his own special charm. The film begins at the end, so the ending was not surprising. But to me, the film focused more on character relationships than on intriguing moves and unexpected endings. The characters are taken from real life. Of course, there are small logical holes, but they are not noticeable behind the general plot.
Actors. This movie doesn’t have the names of the actors. But they're not needed here. The actors did an excellent job. Richard Roxburgh (Frank) played great. I believed everything he said. All his actions seemed right to me. John Griffith (Carl) made him hate himself. His facial expressions were simply indescribably realistic. Reese Wakefield (Josh) was slightly overplayed. Sometimes I wanted to slap him in the face so that he would stop hysterical. Perhaps this is what the authors wanted. All the other actors also played well and naturally.
Picture. She got a lot of attention in the movie. The landscapes are just fascinating. I never thought caves could look so interesting. I didn’t watch the film in 3D, but even in the usual format, the picture is exciting. The special effects were harmonious and almost imperceptible. In general, everything looked bright and unusual.
Music In this film, she creates an unrivalled atmosphere of tension. It is almost invisible and performs a more background role. But she gives the film the atmosphere of a psychological thriller, which he so lacks.
Atmosphere The film has been in suspense since the beginning of the story. Some moments were slightly delayed, but in the second half the film is gaining momentum. The atmosphere of the thriller is small, but still present. The film takes not “boo” moments, but difficult relationships between people.
The film is very well made. The development of characters shows how different all people are, but when they share a common danger, how cohesive they can work. This film is about ordinary people who react differently to difficulties. Everyone will find a part of themselves in this film.
Sanctum teaches us friendship and love for loved ones. Self-sacrifice and determination. You should always make the right choice, whether others like it or not. This life is yours, but nature can make adjustments. Great movie of life.
No need for prejudice, you need to live with your head and your heart.
8 out of 10
This cave became both a temple and a tomb for them.
It looks easy, but hard, like that.
There are such spectacular moments in the film, it is breathtaking. And not from the special effects, they do not catch the eye, such may not be there. But you are very worried, looking at the terrible death of researchers.
I’m not revealing the essence of the film right now, but from the genre it is so clear that the deaths in the script will be enough, so in any case, get ready to watch a person drown before your eyes, and the blood will freeze with fear and pity for them, as it looks quite realistic.
Strongly felt oppressive atmosphere of closed space, cold, lack of oxygen. When watching, even breathing becomes difficult when you see them choking.
The point of the film seems to be to show how a group of people, and in particular each person, behaves in a difficult situation when your own life is at stake. And you choose, either for one or for yourself. The chances of survival are equal, because there is a risk in both cases. But one small mistake can lead to irreversible consequences, and they simply have nowhere to get out of this situation, since even their time is limited.
The story is not new, but the film still looks in one breath.
Who liked the film “descent” associated with the cave, “the day after tomorrow” about a natural disaster, or in general films about researchers, then look.
There is a lack of color and something unusual. Of course, the film tried to make as realistic as possible, because in the same real situation it will be, dark, damp and cold. But I, as a spectator, would be interested in seeing some incredible creature, a deadly virus, or abandoned ancient architecture, but there is no such thing. Everything is monotonous and rather monotonous, although the idea of the film is good and you could come up with something very spectacular.
But then the film would look like another fiction, and then you look and think – everything is real, something is missing, but nothing superfluous and stupid.
That's why it's worth a look.
Papua New Guinea. During a large-scale study of a network of huge and very deep underground caves, as a result of an accident, five specialists - divers, cavers and climbers - fall into the trap. They have no choice but to go into the cave in search of another way out. Will their psyche withstand such an extreme situation? Will they have enough physical strength to resist the ancient nature?
And why this film is so cursed, I don’t understand. In my opinion, a very atmospheric and quite interesting thriller turned out. The action is level, the shooting is great, the actors are not genius, of course, but almost everything is on level. Yes, the plot is simple, even primitive in places, but what did you want? So that the aliens would come or that some underground worms would eat them all? At least in such a plot at least believe, and all the characters behave quite logically, not that in other films. It is clear that in such a difficult situation, someone will lose their nerves, someone will not have enough composure, and someone on the contrary will show themselves as a real hero.
The most impressive here, of course, the atmosphere of these deep-sea caves, which is created by a wonderful video sequence and musical design. Cold, blue water, beautiful rocks, air bubbles from valves, shiny diving suits, an enclosed space that causes a feeling of claustrophobia. It's not just good, it's just great. On the one hand without any unnecessary special effects, on the other hand stylish and tasteful.
The cast, of course, does not shine with star names, but in such a situation there is someone to talk about. First of all, this is Richard Roxburgh, who embodied on the screen the image of a stubborn speleologist with a stone heart and nerves of steel. Power, professionalism, willpower is a great role. I also liked Joan Griffith, whose character gradually turned from a rich and confident playboy into a beast acting solely for the sake of the instinct of self-preservation. The rest are worse.
In short, “Sanctum” is a strong, one-time survival thriller. Not brilliant, but not second-rate. It is quite possible to see, I personally even experienced some pleasure.
7 out of 10
In a black-black cave, on black-black stones lies a black-black corpse.
As my mother says, American directors like to shoot in the dark. The motive is clear: cheap and angry - but you can't see shit! Having seen the Sanctuum, she would have only confirmed her opinion. However, I am not going to advise her to watch this movie, as empty and monotonous as most scenes in it.
I'll start with the main claim. The beginning of the film sets us up to expect to see real extremes, people who commit acts on the verge of life and death, “shifted” on the basis of risk. However, in the course of the action, it turns out that there are no extremes here and does not smell, but there is one truly trained person and a handful of self-confident teenager-level satellites from a cheap youth thriller, who in the course of the action will kill themselves and kill others - in general, portray an extra, a herd.
From here follows the main problem of the film - the characters do not want to empathize, except for the main character and perhaps the Latino who held the stone at the beginning of the picture. To the rest of the participants of the trouble, you remain at least indifferent, as a maximum - you have dislike and even disgust. Women are shown in the film, as if confirming the thesis that it is better not to take the weaker sex “in the mountains”. This is a variety of whims, in their situation inappropriate, and feminist attempts to prove something there to the men – it looks extremely stupid.
And here the film touches on another topic - different reactions of people to extreme situations, tests for strength. What do we do in a difficult situation? The more people remain human, saving their lives, the more worthy they are of the title of man. In the film, self-control and reason are fully preserved only by Frank. The worst thing is that even he can not be a person to the end - for the sake of increasing the survival of the group, you have to kill the infirm. In extreme situations, as in war, there are laws. The remaining members of the group at such moments turn on, protesting, seemingly for the form, but we see that all this is false - each of them thinks only about his American "ass."
The trouble is that Frank didn't choose his own half-timers, even his own son isn't morally ready for such a journey. The question is, why did they come here, why did they pretend to be experienced? I recall the opinion of our Soviet climbers expressed somewhere on television about self-confident Americans who, after a short course of a young fighter, feel like professionals, not being such in fact. Apparently, this is the same case - the tourists drove for "wow" impressions, and how slightly dangerous - put in their pants and deflated. The film politically correct bypasses this unsightly truth, coming to it from the other side - Frank admits that he did not fit into the philistine urban and family life. He cannot lie, deceive himself and others, and erase from himself what he is not. Only in the caves he becomes what he is, and then he descends to the depths. “Caves are my church,” he tells his son.
The scenes of the film are monotonous: pitch darkness around, flashlights on helmets, pouring water from everywhere, stones-stones-stones... The space for the action of the film is most often closed, there are no scales - mainly passages, gaps, no mesmerizing landscapes and views. There is nothing to look at - it would be just boring, if not for the heroes - with them jelly and nauseous. And also savoring the views of corpses, annoyingly floating out as the remaining group progresses. Not to mention the fact that with the dead, the director’s blunders also swim out into the light of God, such as: just drowned Karl surfaced, and does not lie at the bottom. Or the devil knows how much the crashed Luko carefully survives for the sake of the viewer only to let himself be gently drowned by Frank’s hands.
In general, the film turned out to be gloomy in the picture, monotonous in the plot and empty in content. I wonder why it was necessary to fixate on the various deaths of characters, was it possible to make an interesting and exciting beautiful film about the real extreme explorers of caves, showing unbending willpower, ambition, team spirit and ... humanity, which you want to strive for. Judging by the movie “Sanctum”, for most it is an unattainable height.
If you look long into the abyss, the abyss begins to look at you.
Discouragement and disillusionment - these are the words that describe the share of negative criticism directed at the film. Oddly enough, the picture of the Oscar-winning D. Cameron, caused a storm of negative reactions only because it did not become another copy of “Avatar”. Sooner or later, the director gets tired of pompous filming and wants to make his own movie, "Sanctum" this confirmation. Maybe I don't understand something about this argument, but I really liked the tape.
Sanctum, a picture for those who appreciate primarily not the complexity of technology and the use of special effects, but the ability of the director to squeeze out of the environment that accompanies the plot, a high-quality picture. The film crew fully conveys us unforgettable impressions when diving into the cave. From the first shots you get an unforgettable delight when, against the background of a green tropical forest, you see a huge black hole, beckoning fans of sharp adventures.
The atmosphere of the tape is fascinating. Throughout the film, the director keeps the viewer in suspense and excitement. I think the profession of speleologist is suitable for those desperately in love with the unknown. Perhaps this is just my guess, but such are the main characters of the picture. Richard Roxburgh maximally squeezed out of himself adamant and tough scientist Frank McGuire. On the one hand, he is an ardent scientist, embroiled in work that, when dangerous, sweetens his own ego even more. On the other is a leader who shows a note of pity for the team and his own son, who is indifferent to his father’s hobbies. Reese Wakefield, who played Josh, struck me not so much with his pleasant appearance as with the physical fitness and agility of a real caveman. Throughout the film, my eyes were focused only on this duo, who performed the difficult family relationship between father and son. Applying through an obstacle, a key theme of the film, it stretched from start to finish without losing its relevance.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see the movie in 3D, knowing what kind of shooting and processing technologies were used, I think it looked great. Only nature, nothing superfluous, natural environment and imagination of the director. Add to all this shooting underwater. I think that such an undertaking is one of the most painstaking, because you need to show the viewer the natural water space, without overdoing with special effects, and also focus on the actor. Do not look for the likeness of “Avatar” in this picture, because “Sanctum” was not designed for a large audience, but at least for amateurs. I am very happy to be on this list, for which I deserved:
9 out of 10
P.S. could not resist such beautiful lines permeating the whole film: In the land of Xanad blessed, the palace was built by Kubla Khan, where the Alf runs, a sacred stream, through the darkness of the giant caves, foaming, flows into the sleepy ocean.
I heard about the movie a long time ago. But he doubted whether to watch or not? So I did watch this movie yesterday. I mean, the movie is bad, but I didn't doubt it for nothing. Yes, shot beautifully, skillfully, even professionally, but this is not enough! Everything else in this movie is very lame.
What limped N1 - the plot! As it is clear from the description, in the center of the plot is a group of speleologists who decide to penetrate the largest cave system on Earth. Because of the storm, they descend into the depths of the cave. Soon they begin to flood, so they try to find the only way out of the cave. And then what? Maybe a lot of people liked the movie, but I don’t see any quality script. Throughout the film, it felt like I was watching the middle of a movie: running, screaming, drowning, drowning, crashing and screaming again. No reasonable dialogue, no logical events. Nothing!
"They say this movie is based on real events. I sincerely hope that the heroes of this story died, and they will not have to see how wretched their story turned out on the screen. – William Waffle
What limped N2 - heroes! Yeah, they are. Throughout the movie, from the first minute, I hated Josh (Reese Wakefield). Not as bad an actor as his hero. Well, it's just wooden. Groaning, smart, crying, not thinking anything, in my opinion. Oh, the expression. It's a terrible expression! Others didn't "pump up" either: the tree again! In general, their characters were shown as if it was all a joke - there is no danger, no problems. What a stupid thing to do! What is Victoria worth (who watched, he understood me).
“The script seems to have been written by the best divers or by the best divers among the writers” (Chris Hewitt).
What limped N3 - realism! The film is based on real events, as stated at the beginning. I understand that the creators wanted to add to the movie sharpness, action, intrigue, which was not, but why lie? You can read it on Wikipedia as it actually happened. First of all, why kill everyone as if we were in a "destination point"? Second, why didn't we see the rescuers that were supposed to be there? Why lie about the divers themselves? If they've seen this movie, they've definitely sued for defamation. Everyone betrays each other, lies. Fights. Conspiracies. Escape. Why?
What lame N4 - actors! As William Goss once said, “Heroes meet all these dangers with such an unflappable appearance that one wonders whether it’s all fake or actors can’t play.” I know two main characters, Joan Griffith and Richard Roxburgh. I think they have proven themselves as good actors in other films. At least I liked their game. But what happened to them in this movie? When they portrayed any emotion, I would close my eyes and say “la la la la la la la la” so I wouldn’t see or hear it! What a terrible game, like in the theater. Reese Wakefield, I hated the whole movie. I don't believe it!
The whole film was tormented by the question: what is the meaning of the words “executive producer James Cameron”?
As soon as I found out that one of the producers of this film, James Cameron, immediately took interest in him. I was disappointed after watching for a few minutes. Yes, there is a sense of his hand here: excellent shooting quality, views, sound, the use of 3D pleased - but what about the plot and the "great" actors? Now I realize that the name is not everything!
“Sanctum” is, to put it mildly, a bad movie that I do not recommend to watch! I do not understand those who appreciate this film, because apart from the deaths and ridiculous actions of the characters, we did not see anything here. Yes, the beautiful views, the shooting in the water and the fact that in the beginning everything seemed promising. The review is neutral only for, again, the shooting, the presence of Yoan Griffith and Richard Roxburgh, whose play disappointed me, and for the not very banal finale, which is still terrible, but for this film just right.
4 out of 10
Through the darkness of the caves, where the darkness of moisture is resounding, the ocean flowed into the lifeless. (Coleridge Samuel Taylor)
Have you ever thought about what would have happened? .. If you chose a different profession, a different university to study, another soul mate in life, another city, another apartment or house? . .
I have no doubt that everyone has asked this question. This is the nature of man - to doubt the correctness of the decision, so as not to make a mistake, not to lose, not to lose.
And who can argue that making any decisions in life is a difficult but important step, on which all its further development depends.
And will the one who condemns a person for this or that decision made in conditions when there is no time for thinking about them, there are no opportunities, all external factors are set against you, and when not only your life depends on everyone, but also your partners, friends, relatives? . .
It is in such situations that all the qualities of the human soul are manifested: self-sacrifice, courage, courage, fortitude, no matter how banal it may sound, but also cowardice, betrayal, weakness.
You will say that all these are truisms, but only when a person finds himself in such a situation, that is when those grains of values that are really important in life are revealed.
The life of researchers is fascinating and dangerous. It fascinates with the possibilities of discovering unexplored depths and beauty, but this opportunity pays off in full with the risks that the discoverer is exposed to.
The film is unusually beautiful, fascinating, enticing from the first minutes and keeps in suspense until the end of viewing, and then leaves a long impression. The music supports the whole film. I did not see here the pompous long monologues characteristic of films of this genre - they are all read in the eyes of the characters, for which I thank the actors and the director. Makes you think about a lot and revise a lot, transferring the plot to real life.
P.S. Thank you to everyone involved in making this film.