Showing posts with label The Descent 2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Descent 2. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Descent: Part 2
Elegiac and poignant are not adjectives one expects to read in a review for a horror film, but the sequel to Neil Marshall's brilliant 2005 horror film The Descent does something interesting in playing off the events of the first film in order to evoke these emotions. Sure the film is a fun, often flawed Friday-night horror flick, but it's also trying to be something more than that – and even though there's not quite the same amount of character development as the original to give weight to the peril and mayhem the characters go through – for a 90 minute sequel director Jon Harris should be given some credit for almost making the film a success. There are pay-offs in the film that don't work, repetitive set pieces, and an ending that is atrociously bad; however, warts and all, The Descent: Part 2 is still a visceral experience that outdoes anything we've seen from the genre since Marshall's original film, and it even slows down for a few moments so that the story can compound on the sadness from the first film, all culminating in making this sequel a better horror experience than its straight-to-DVD American release would suggest.
The film picks up where the first one ended (well kind of, this film asks us to disregard the ambiguity and sadness of the first film's final moments) with Sarah (Shauna McDonald reprising her role) showing up on the roadside in the Appalachian Mountains and kick-starting a search and rescue mission to find her missing friends. There's your plot, your entry point into what is essentially a rehash of the first film with a few intriguing ideas that never get fleshed out. The idea for a sequel as first seemed asinine to me, but what Harris does with the film is interesting enough – especially when considering the possibilities of a police investigation of what happened, briefly taking the film out of the context of horror – but it never builds on that interesting premise and instead jumps head first into your typical horror film where a search and rescue group and Sarah head back into the cave to find her friends. Okay, but what about the set-up? We know that bad things will happen to these people when they get down there, so why should I care about them dying? What are their relationships to one another?
These kinds of questions get tossed aside in the name of rehashing all of the same weird-things-happen-in-the-cave type stuff from the first one, but they happen without the weight of actually caring about the characters. When the characters are in peril, or need to be left behind because they're trapped in some rocks, or lose their way from the group, the film slows down within the moment to give us the touching musical score (from the first film, which was quite good) and remind us that we should feel sad right now, but something feels amiss since we don't quite have the background we need to care about these characters.
Another interesting idea the film only kind of broaches is whether or not Sarah is insane after her experience. When the group first gets down in the cave Sarah is silent (for obvious reasons since the "crawlers" hunt on sound) and takes on some of the physical characteristics of the "crawlers" (the first death scene is a doozy) . Was it all in her head? Did she in fact think that the calcium deposits in the cave where the "crawlers"? Again, all kind-of interesting questions that are never fully explicated in the film because it's more interested in being a visceral entertainment, instead of trying to be both like the first film.
Aesthetically the film is repetitive and therefore not very interesting to look at (even though it's not bad to look at except for the oft phony looking cave set) and lacks the innovative and interesting horror allusions Marshall littered his original film with. However, there are some intriguing moments in the film like when two members of the rescue party scale the cave by leaning back-to-back so that the "crawlers" don't get them, and as they get out through a crevice they happen upon one of the previous spelunkers who tried to get across from one side to the other (this leads to an inspired fight scene). There's also a moment when the search and rescue team happen upon one of the previous film's most nightmarish locations and find the video camera that Sarah used. As they watch the footage of the dead girls before getting to the footage shot in the cave the viewer is reminded of the Picnic at Hanging Rock poignancy set up in the original film where you have these beautiful women who – to the outside world – have disappeared mysteriously. The scene is shot in a way – with Sarah, who has run off from the search and rescue party, slouching behind a rock listening to the voices of her dead friends ring out from the camera – that reminds the viewer of why the first film worked so damn well at evoking more than just fear and dread and horror. This moment of the film is what causes me to open this review with words like poignant and elegiac because as we go back into the cave with Sarah we can't help but be reminded of the loss of her friends.
There is, however, one plot development that fans of the first film will no doubt roll their eyes at (SPOILER) and almost brings the last part of the movie to a screeching halt: Juno is still alive. Yes, the woman Sarah left for dead and we too assumed was done for as she was surrounded by "crawlers" helps save the day in the sequel. I can imagine if fans of the original gathered to watch this in a theater there would be a collective "ugh" in the crowd. Harris does a good enough job of showing Juno to be more like a "crawler" than human when we first see her, but again…I want to know what this suggests: how did she survive? Is she a cannibal now? Is she sane? What does her survival suggest about Sarah? Again, Harris abandons these more intriguing plot threads in order to keep the brusque pace of the film going, and I can't help but think that this film could have been so much more than just a sequel.
Despite these disappointments with the story, and a final bit of punctuation that is all kinds of stupid (and doesn't befit the mood the original established), The Descent: Part 2 is as good a horror film that's been released since the original. That's more of a damning claim on the genre as a whole than the film, but nevertheless it's worth checking out for its visceral appeal and its gushy, squishy gore effects and extreme violence – which by the way director Harris definitely was a Fulci fan as we get a drill through the head a la City of the Living Dead and a pick-ax through the mouth a la The House by the Cemetery – and intriguing enough story threads to keep fans of the original happy enough during the film's economic running time. The acting and the character development aren't nearly as good as the original, but I don't think Harris was interested in making a sequel that aspired to be more than what we get (he certainly isn't trying to recapture the magic of Marshall's film), and for that I can't hate on this sequel too much. Fans of the film should see it, though, as I was pleasantly surprised that despite erasing all of the ambiguity of the first film, The Descent: Part 2 didn't frustrate the hell out of me.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
What the bloody hell?
No...this isn't a rant against the Academy Awards expanding from five nominations for best picture to ten. No, I figured I'd take this opportunity to rant about something else that may be news to some, but came as a surprise to me. In my usual random web searching I decided to see when The Descent, one of the best horror films ever made, was released, and to my shock and horror I found that there is a sequel set to be released in September. The above still is one of a handful of images that has been released in promotion for the new film. Ugh, I feel like screaming, too. Complaints after the jump...
Okay...did the filmmakers think that fans of the movie didn't see the original British version of the movie on DVD? A version, although ambiguous, made a great case for the fact that Sarah didn't make it out alive (The U.S. version ends with her "escape" whereas the U.K. version cuts back to reality and Sarah in the cave with no exit in sight). Also, on the IMDB page they show that the character of Juno is once again in the film. In case you forgot she was left to be eaten by the "crawlers"...so does this suggest then that the whole thing was in her head, that the allusion to the idea that the caves can play tricks on you is actually what happened? But then how do they explain the fact that they are bringing the "crawlers" back in the sequel, and supposedly they have evolved further and can fly now. Double ugh.
Neil Marshall's name is nowhere near this film, and I'm wondering why Shauna MacDonald agreed to do the film again. This will be a disaster if they just do a straight horror. And based on the plot synopsis, and the early images that were released, the film looks like it's just going to be a rehash of the first film: Sarah is rescued, she goes to a hospital, goes back down in the cave to save her friends who are apparently still alive. Again, this all suggests that the "crawlers" were indeed figments of their imaginations (especially Sarah who is a grieving mother and widow, and hints at the fact, early on in the film, that she may not be ready to move on with her life), but if that is the case, and the sequel is primarily psychological horror, then why the need to bring back the "crawlers"? And why make them so visible? They were more or less shadow creatures in the first film, and they came into the plot at a point where the characters would most likely have started hallucinating. The best part of the original is the reading that they all killed each other and imagined the "crawlers". The idea of a sequel with the same characters and the same scenario makes no sense.


I guess one could chalk this up to flattery through imitation, but man this is going to be rough to sit through with an open mind...because yes, I will see it, just like I do with any horror film or any sequel to a film I love. However, this has "bad idea" written all over it. The logic seems all over the place here as they seem to be disregarding any kind of psychological aspect that was clearly at the forefront of Marshall's film; and the fact that they're asking the audience to disregard the darker, nihilistic ending of the original is already putting the sequel in a pretty big hole. The power and poignancy of that final image of Sarah looking at her daughter, then as the camera pulls back they show Sarah looking at nothing (suggesting everything was in her head), is neutered now because of this unnecessary sequel.And it's not like I'm anti-sequel, I just don't understand the logic in making a sequel to a movie where they totally disregard the elements of narrative that made the original so creepy. Perhaps this will be like what Aliens was to Alien, a pedal-to-the-floor action/horror hybrid that was all kinds of entertaining goodness...who knows, but it'll have to be pretty damn intense and impressive to make me forget about the fact that they're pretty much disregarding the end of the original film.
I don't know...maybe I'm too much of a fan of the original to think anything good can come out of the sequel, but it just seems altogether superfluous. Oh well...I guess more thoughts on this in September. This makes me want to find an old essay I wrote in college (published no less!) about the state of horror films...I guess we horror fans, and fans of the original film, play the waiting game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



