Most Active
Latest Headlines
- First Look at Milla Jovovich in Faces in the Crowd
- Partake in the Theatrical Zombie Feast
- Blockbuster Member? See Argento's Latest Now...
- Vote Now: The 2010 Reaper Awards
- Fantastic Fest 2010 Films: Cormans Receive Lifetime Achievment Award
- A Clip from Joe Dante's The Hole
- Green Band Trailer for Monsters
- What's the Status of Zombieland 2?
- Wow, Aliens Blu-Ray Transfer Screen Grabs!
Reviews
The Descent: Part 2
Reviewed by: Ben McCarthy
Rating: 4 out of 10
Movie Details: View here
Cast: Shauna MacDonald as Sarah
Natalie Mendoza as Juno
Krysten Cummings as Elien Rios
Gavin O'Herlihy as Vaines
Joshua Dallas as Greg
Anna Skellern as Cath
Douglas Hodge as Dan Shepard
Directed by Jon Harris
Review:
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Exorcist, Poltergeist and The Blair Witch Project. These films have one thing in common; they are all horror classics, but they are followed by below par sequels that are constrained by horror clichés. That is the main problem with The Descent: Part 2; there is no need for it to exist, the film struggles to find a reason, then it just gives up and becomes a film full of predictable set pieces.
The story is set within a couple of hours after the events of the first film. Sarah is brought under the custody of the local sheriff and is taken back into the cave, with an expedition team, to help find the other cave divers. But unknown to the other cave divers, there is something horrifying waiting from then in the darkness. Is it just me, or is this one of the oldest horror clichés in book to warrant an unwanted sequel from a modern horror classic? But they don't finish there, all of the characters are straight from the back pages of other horror movies and it is frustrating. In the first film, all of the characters were well thought through, they were there for a reason; we cared about them. So by time the shit-it-the-fan, so to speak, we were horrified to see them die, we felt each loss, which was carried throughout the film. But in Part 2, we just don't care about them. They are so ignorant and stupid that I was starting to lose my patience with the film entirely, and then I began to laugh at their mistakes, which isn't a good sign for a horror movie. The film is really easy to read, you can tell when a Crawler is going to appear, or when there is a false scare or even what the ending is going to be.
The first film just had one idea to it, which was done very well. It had a simple premise, girls going cave diving and finding something that nature didn't intended. It was short, sweet and made a real impact. In Part 2, you certainly feel the idea being stretched to the limit and it came to a point where it was becoming repetitive and a there is a sense of déjà vu through out the film.
The Crawlers themselves are not as effective this time round, because we already know what they are capable of and we know their basic attack strategy, which demolishes the scares of the film.
But, it is a very well made film with very impressive set design. The caves themselves, filmed inside a studio in London, look and feel very real and the film is still able to create the sense of claustrophobia from the first film. It doesn't skimp on the gore either. Bones get cracked, heads get smashed, people get nibbled upon, lots of shots of women get covered in blood and we are reminded why a drill is such a good weapon.
It delivers the cheap scares, but after a while the film becomes repetitive and tedious. The film doesn't forget its own timeline, however, which is nice for the fans of the original to see that some of the bodies are still there.
If you are in the mood for a cheap Friday night scare with plenty of gore, then this is the film for you. But for the most cynical viewer, this is just a simple case of déjà vu. Predictable and cliché-ridden, this superfluous sequel will no doubt disappoint the fans of the original film proving once again that you can't make the same film again expecting the same results.
| | | 28 comments | | | Add a comment |
Comments
Posted by: Evan B on December 13, 2009 at 22:33:20
First off, this is very disappointing to hear. Second, is there ANY way we can get an expanded review? This seems like it was written in a few minutes without fully detailing why the film fails where the other succeeds.
Posted by: Evan B on December 13, 2009 at 22:34:54
First off, this is very disappointing to hear. Second, is there ANY way we can get an expanded review? This seems like it was written in a few minutes without fully detailing why the film fails where the other succeeds.
Posted by: Matthew H. on December 14, 2009 at 19:27:11
Don't listen to Evan b.
Great review of a film that didn't deserve to be reviewed at all.
Posted by: justin on January 7, 2010 at 08:04:30
the way i interpreted the ending of the original is that she never got out of the cave... i assumed that's how i was supposed to interpret it. i was disappointed when i heard they were making a sequel and i'm not suprised it doesn't live up to the original. it is a great horror movie and i agree with it being number one on the list for best of the decade. of course with that said, i'm still definetly gonna watch this, pretty much because i have to. and i know it's not as good as the original, but i really liked texas CM2. it was a good revenge flick, and i always got the feeling it was where rob zombie got the idea for devil's rejects.
Posted by: Vortex on January 7, 2010 at 09:30:11
So anyone else remember the Crawlers looking like snaggle-tooth gorilla's in the first one?
Me neither.
Posted by: kow626 on January 7, 2010 at 13:17:26
aw geez. as if the 1st one wasn't complete, total, and utter CRAP. i got nothin else to say.
Posted by: Al on January 18, 2010 at 16:11:32
I'm a huge fan of the original and I have to admit I really enjoyed this film. I'm actually glad they made this sequel! Fun, entertaining and worth a look!
Posted by: Kyle on January 29, 2010 at 15:48:01
Well, this site gave Deadgirl 6/10, and the Descent Part II 4/10(same as the new Twilight film.) While Martyrs only got a 3/10? Are you effing kidding me. None of your reviews are even valid.
Disturbia got an 8/10, hahahahah.
Posted by: Ryan Rotten, Managing Editor on January 29, 2010 at 16:35:04
Different strokes for different folks, Kyle.
New York Times has several critics, do you dismiss the overall paper because you disagree with what a few reviewers said?
Everyone has their own opinion about films and we allow each writer their freedom to have their say. So because you apparently liked Deadgirl, Descent II and Martyrs, they have to, too?
Posted by: blackmerkaba on January 29, 2010 at 20:47:17
Very nice point Mr. Rotten! True Story.
Posted by: Paul Anderson Jr. on February 1, 2010 at 05:27:53
Too bad Ryan Rotten has no clue on how to use good grammar or else I might have taken his post seriously. Does it make you feel like a bigger person to be condescending to others? Probably, which just makes you pathetic.
As for the movie, I knew it couldn't live up to the brilliance of the original, but I believe a 4 rating may be a bit too harsh, considering some of the other utter crap that was given higher ratings. That's why I trust my own instincts and not the blabbering of wannabe critics. So, until I see the film myself, I will make sure to steer clear of narrow-minded individuals such as Ryan Rotten and Matthew B. Oh yes Matthew, I saw your void-of-intelligence post as well. If I were you, I'd stick to skipping rope like you normally do.
Posted by: Trick of the Light on February 13, 2010 at 03:00:24
Looks like Mr. Anderson is having a tough time at home or something. Tell me, if you care so little about how people rate movies, then why are you reading a movie review online? Kinda like walking into a cave and complaining about the lack of light, huh?
Anyway, I liked The Descent, but I'm terrified of sequels, which this and a few other reviews did nothing to cure. I think if I come across Part II at the Redbox I'll flip a coin or something.
Posted by: KINGOFHORROR on March 12, 2010 at 10:05:24
I Really Liked Descent 2 plenty of twists and turns and surprises! Good Film cant wait for DVD got it pre ordered
Posted by: Rye on April 28, 2010 at 01:14:10
What I love about the first film is Juno. And so I love this sequel when I saw Juno still alive and fighting with the crawlers. I'm happy that there's a closure between Juno and Sarah in the end. Although, I appreciate more the movie should the two best friends made their revenge for their other friends.
Posted by: mike237 on April 29, 2010 at 20:55:32
Jeez...Ryan has really been taking a beating after his last couple reviews. But, really people, I have lots of horror fans as good friends. And we disagree all the time. It's part of being a horror fan. No one is really right or wrong.
Sure, giving Disturbia 8 out of 10 is laughably ridiculous (unless you're fourteen), but everyone is entitled to their opinions. And these guys give us horror fans plenty of great info and interviews and such. Some of you crap all over them, yet you continue to use the site. What gives?
Posted by: mike237 on April 29, 2010 at 21:00:29
And to justin,
You must not have seen the American theatrical version of the first film(lucky you). In that, they changed the ending to the "happy" version where she escapes the cave at the end. For some stupid reason they decided to go with this ending when they wrote Part 2.
That's why, as far as I am concerned, this isn't really a sequel to the first movie. More of a "What If?"
And I haven't seen the movie yet, but my question right now is, "Why the hell doesn't she tell them about the creatures?" What kind of plot contrivance did they think up to explain that one?
Posted by: djblack1313 on April 30, 2010 at 01:56:11
mike237, Sarah, doesn't tell them about the creatures because she has amnesia (i know, contrived "convenient" plot point) and yet she's FORCED by the F'ing stupid Sheriff to go back down in the caves. terrible movie, unfortunately.
Posted by: Nunya on April 30, 2010 at 02:08:01
People do forget stuff after traumatic events, fool, do your research. And even if she did tell them - do you think they're going to believe her? I mean what if somebody told you there were monsters running around killing people?
But the movie wasn't all that good I admit. It was decent enough but I could have done without seeing it. Glad - I only had Netflix to see it on.
It had some cool nods to the first and some unexpected death scenes that were right on - I'm talking about the swinging part - but the rest was just kind of meh.
Posted by: Rupert P. on April 30, 2010 at 03:07:04
Mike237, if you think about it, the sequel works with the original ending as well. Because you never actually see the creatures get her at the end in that version. For all we know, after that fade out, she fought her way out.
Posted by: mike237 on April 30, 2010 at 14:45:53
I think it was pretty clear that Neill Marshall intended for the ending to mean she was trapped. She had clearly pretty much lost her mind, the creatures were everywhere, and she had no idea where the hell she was. It may "work", but it isn't very plausible.
So, Amnesia huh? Yea, that's pretty stupid. And if she had amnesia, what help could she be to the cops, so why would they force her back into the cave?
Stupid stupid stupid. They should have just introduced all new characters...maybe they could have even stumbled across Sarah, crazy but still alive. Why are screenwriters so damn lazy nowadays?
Posted by: Jonesy on May 1, 2010 at 21:09:45
I always felt the ending of the original was more open to interpretation. Like, that her mind was down there but that her physical body got out. After all, she kept having those birthday cake/kid visions during the film, didn't she? Am I remembering that right? And the ending suggested to me that she could let that go. And you could even interpret the vision of Juno that was part of the original's ending as a premonition for her encountering Juno in the sequel. Those explanations work for me. They fit.
Posted by: ColdCountry on May 2, 2010 at 00:29:20
This film was much better than it should have been. I was seriously disgusted to hear they were making a sequel to a movie that was way too great to need one. Even the trailers I saw for this left me cold.
So imagine how shocked I was that I found myself quite enjoying this continuation of the first film.
As sequels go...this is more Jaws 2 and less Exorcist II. Much the same story and is amped up slightly...but doesn't totally change its approach. To do it 'bigger and better' (like the making of doc speaks to) would have made it really crappy. I think they've made a nice, solid sequel that continues on the story nicely.
Best thing is...it doesn't take a crap on the first one...so many bad sequels to great movies leave you feeling slightly angry at the first flick...not so with this. There are nice nods to the first film and I liked that the film revisited several key points...made it rewarding almost.
Posted by: Zombie WElch on May 5, 2010 at 02:04:35
This movie sucked... plain and simple. IDK why they even bother making it. If your doing a follow up do something different instead of rehashing scenes from the first, which this one did through out its running time. And don't end it with a ****ty cliche ending.
the upside to this, they do show more of the creatures. Thats the only reason to see this.
Posted by: Rip Stitch 5 on May 6, 2010 at 21:04:50
This film is great' much better than i expected. the decent part 1 will always stick out better than this one. the decent part 2 has its great scenes which drags me in to liking it so much, but the plot could of been a little better like the first film had. dont get me wrong' this film is a sequel that is actuly pritty good. try and c what u think about it
Posted by: ana reyes on June 7, 2010 at 01:03:31
i saw diz movie like a month ago nd mahnit wuz good. although dah part dat i didnt quite understand was the part at the end when dat old man hit dat girl with the shovel. yeah he was the one that told them how to get to the caves but datz wat got me all messed up. mahn it was sad wat samantha did in order to help dat other girl. nd it was nasty all dose monsters comin up to her. nd it was sad when juno died but t was good because samantha forgave her i mean not everybody forgives somebody if they lie to u or if ur best friend is in love with ur husband. but yeah dah movie waaaaas good.
1 2
Add a comment