Judging by the box office receipts, I doubt many movie goers were as excited for SANCTUM as I was. Made with the assistance of 3D Revolutionary James Cameron, it was a "disaster movie" about stuff going wrong during a session of prolonged underwater spelunking - all filmed in crystal clear 3D. I've long been fascinated and terrified by underwater caving. The logistics are mind boggling, and the smallest misstep can lead to death. Watching the BBC's PLANET EARTH really brought to this to my attention. The HD footage of sunken wonders was stunning enough alone, but the idea that these caves can run for hundreds of miles and most have yet to be explored (because of O2 restrictions) is food for thought, to put it mildly
I'd heard pretty good things about the movie, and it seemed like a perfect use of 3D. Not for "in your face" effects, but for depth, for the purposes of instilling in the audience a feeling of profound claustrophobia. I've long been of the opinion that literally every film would benefit from added depth, and this seems like a perfect example
I asked my mom to take me (she was kind enough to take me to TRON a few months back), and it was the fourth movie I've seen in a theater since AVATAR . I saw THE ABYSS for the first time in 2009 and it's pretty much now one of my favorite films. I've since seen most of the aquatic epics of the 80s (DEEP STAR SIX, LEVIATHAN) but nothing could compare to Cameron's masterful thrills or the emotion he got from his cast. With SANCTUM I knew not to expect an ABYSS level event, but my expectations were still high in any case
I have alot of difficulty with underwater activities (something to do with water up my nose), and am a claustrophobe. To me, the idea of underwater caving alone can generate as much tension as the whole of TERMINATOR SALVATION. I loved the THE DESCENT, and was most scared by simple shots of characters squeezing through spaces so tight they'd not be able to turn around if they got stuck
Factor in an O2 Tank that could get ripped off, leaving you to drown in the dark under ground? Ugh, it makes my skin crawl. The movie seemed primed to live up to Devin's generous review, at least that was my thinking when I walked into the theater. The film was made with a strict fidelity to realism: the cowriter is someone who was actually once trapped in an underwater cave. The equipment used in the film belongs to him, and is actually deployed in caves and caverns
I don't think you need to be dealing with a mega budget to get at least some excitement from that scenario, IMHO
Unfortunately it is my sad duty to report the movie 'sank' considerably in my estimation once I actually saw it
My mom ended up walking out three minutes in, whispering over to me that it was the "worst acting she'd ever seen". As a begrudging fan of the HORNBLOWER series, and a witness to events of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, I knew Iaon Grufford was no special talent, but he can still be an agreeable enough (small) screen presence under the right circumstances. In this one though? Yeah, he was pretty awful. It didn't help that the script sounded like it was composed entirely of a 40 something's approximation of X-Treme sports slang. Rarely was a single sentence of dialog spoken that sounded in any way like something a non fictitious person would actually say
Anyway..
The photography was beautiful, and the movie had a handful of good moments, but other than that it just was not very well made. I can't help but compare it to the DESCENT, a film that managed to capture the dread of being trapped under the ground about a million times better. There, even before the collapse that traps them, the descent down into the earth was unsettling and nerve wracking. Here, we jump cut to a mile below ground from the surface. Observing the process of actually going down to the underground base camp is essential, IMHO. It sets the stakes and establishes the location. If we feel the the events are actually taking place so deep below the surface of the earth that a rescue is totally unlikely, that can be quite scary. Instead, I never really felt like were in danger since it seemed to take them no effort to get down there in the first place. "Well, if it was so easy to get down, getting out shouldn't be that hard either"
The tension of the lights running out, masterfully handled in the DESCENT, was here hardly present. The idea that you have a limited time to find an exit before you're plunged into darkness forever and unable to escape is really awful. This movie didn't really explore that though, and only really dealt with the light thing in the final 15 minutes
The best part in the whole movie was by far Richard Roxburgh, which is surprising to me since I survived VAN HELSING back in 2003. He was pretty cool in this one, part Mick Dundee, part caving rock star. The only moment in the movie that really managed to capture the dread of being underwater underground was the one where RR is attempting to save his friend with "buddy breathing" only to have her panic, forcing him to kick her away and let her drown. The 3D photography made this gripping. You could see the curvature of the air mask, and their faces behind it. Watching as the O2 blasted the mask clear of water before each could take a breath had me on the edge of my seat. It was hard to watch, and I was hoping it set the tone for the rest of the movie. Instead, tension seemed to drain from the proceedings the deeper down they went. Counter intuitive, to say the least
Anyway, this is unfortunately a minor footnote in the history of the 3D Revolution. Without the photography, I'd have little reason to suggest anyone else bother with this. Still though, it does serve to prove Aja a liar when it comes to his comments that PIRANHA 3D was shot in 2D and "post converted" to 3D because the AVATAR cameras couldn't do underwater stuff and freaked out at light reflecting on water. The movie looked gorgeous
I'd heard pretty good things about the movie, and it seemed like a perfect use of 3D. Not for "in your face" effects, but for depth, for the purposes of instilling in the audience a feeling of profound claustrophobia. I've long been of the opinion that literally every film would benefit from added depth, and this seems like a perfect example
I asked my mom to take me (she was kind enough to take me to TRON a few months back), and it was the fourth movie I've seen in a theater since AVATAR . I saw THE ABYSS for the first time in 2009 and it's pretty much now one of my favorite films. I've since seen most of the aquatic epics of the 80s (DEEP STAR SIX, LEVIATHAN) but nothing could compare to Cameron's masterful thrills or the emotion he got from his cast. With SANCTUM I knew not to expect an ABYSS level event, but my expectations were still high in any case
I have alot of difficulty with underwater activities (something to do with water up my nose), and am a claustrophobe. To me, the idea of underwater caving alone can generate as much tension as the whole of TERMINATOR SALVATION. I loved the THE DESCENT, and was most scared by simple shots of characters squeezing through spaces so tight they'd not be able to turn around if they got stuck
Factor in an O2 Tank that could get ripped off, leaving you to drown in the dark under ground? Ugh, it makes my skin crawl. The movie seemed primed to live up to Devin's generous review, at least that was my thinking when I walked into the theater. The film was made with a strict fidelity to realism: the cowriter is someone who was actually once trapped in an underwater cave. The equipment used in the film belongs to him, and is actually deployed in caves and caverns
I don't think you need to be dealing with a mega budget to get at least some excitement from that scenario, IMHO
Unfortunately it is my sad duty to report the movie 'sank' considerably in my estimation once I actually saw it
My mom ended up walking out three minutes in, whispering over to me that it was the "worst acting she'd ever seen". As a begrudging fan of the HORNBLOWER series, and a witness to events of THE FANTASTIC FOUR, I knew Iaon Grufford was no special talent, but he can still be an agreeable enough (small) screen presence under the right circumstances. In this one though? Yeah, he was pretty awful. It didn't help that the script sounded like it was composed entirely of a 40 something's approximation of X-Treme sports slang. Rarely was a single sentence of dialog spoken that sounded in any way like something a non fictitious person would actually say
Anyway..
The photography was beautiful, and the movie had a handful of good moments, but other than that it just was not very well made. I can't help but compare it to the DESCENT, a film that managed to capture the dread of being trapped under the ground about a million times better. There, even before the collapse that traps them, the descent down into the earth was unsettling and nerve wracking. Here, we jump cut to a mile below ground from the surface. Observing the process of actually going down to the underground base camp is essential, IMHO. It sets the stakes and establishes the location. If we feel the the events are actually taking place so deep below the surface of the earth that a rescue is totally unlikely, that can be quite scary. Instead, I never really felt like were in danger since it seemed to take them no effort to get down there in the first place. "Well, if it was so easy to get down, getting out shouldn't be that hard either"
The tension of the lights running out, masterfully handled in the DESCENT, was here hardly present. The idea that you have a limited time to find an exit before you're plunged into darkness forever and unable to escape is really awful. This movie didn't really explore that though, and only really dealt with the light thing in the final 15 minutes
The best part in the whole movie was by far Richard Roxburgh, which is surprising to me since I survived VAN HELSING back in 2003. He was pretty cool in this one, part Mick Dundee, part caving rock star. The only moment in the movie that really managed to capture the dread of being underwater underground was the one where RR is attempting to save his friend with "buddy breathing" only to have her panic, forcing him to kick her away and let her drown. The 3D photography made this gripping. You could see the curvature of the air mask, and their faces behind it. Watching as the O2 blasted the mask clear of water before each could take a breath had me on the edge of my seat. It was hard to watch, and I was hoping it set the tone for the rest of the movie. Instead, tension seemed to drain from the proceedings the deeper down they went. Counter intuitive, to say the least
Anyway, this is unfortunately a minor footnote in the history of the 3D Revolution. Without the photography, I'd have little reason to suggest anyone else bother with this. Still though, it does serve to prove Aja a liar when it comes to his comments that PIRANHA 3D was shot in 2D and "post converted" to 3D because the AVATAR cameras couldn't do underwater stuff and freaked out at light reflecting on water. The movie looked gorgeous
