Wednesday, April 28, 2010

The Time I Reviewed The Descent: Part 2

.
SPOILERS AHEAD! Not as bad as it could have been - or as some people are saying it is - but not anywhere near as terrific as the original either. It's got some fun gross scenes, and here and there it's able to tap into the claustrophobia that made the first film so potent - there's a cave-in that had me especially tense. And it was great to see Shauna Macdonald again, who I really like as Sarah, our final girl woman.

The problems though... well for one, this is basically a scene-for-scene remake of the first film. They found ways to twist the scenes so they're ever-so-slightly different and here and there that works, the riffing on the first movie. But when the thing's over and you look back at it you can see how they hit the same notes, one after another, with a super strange loyalty. Like that aforementioned cave-in scene - it happens at pretty much the same instant the cave-in in the first film happened. It's a little different here, but not really, especially when it leads to the same outcome the first film did. It's basically just the go-to excuse for separating the people. And that's how many of the notes they were hitting felt - unimaginative.

If it'd tried a little harder to be obvious about how it's riffing on the first movie this might've worked, but as it stands it just mostly felt lazy. There was one scene where they got it right though. There's a moment where the new team stumbles upon the camcorder from the first film, and they start watching the video on it. When it gets to the famous moment from the first movie where we got our first look at a Crawler, where it's suddenly behind one of the girl's shoulders, the person holding the camera throws it down in fear and WHAM the camera pulls back and a Crawler was standing right beside him. Because the film had me trained on the video he was watching and I was waiting for the scare I knew was coming on that, I wasn't prepared for the follow-up scare at all and I actually leapt in my seat, which for all the horror movies I go see is not something I do easily. So good on ya for that one, Descent 2.


But after that Crawlers start popping up like jack-in-the-boxes and it starts getting a little comical, their reliance on that boo.


Especially since the lighting... oh dear, the lighting. I'd read a few reviews before watching the film and they all mentioned the lighting, but I thought, how bad can it be? I wanted to side with the filmmakers - we've got to be able to see what's going on. I can excuse there being mysterious shafts of light a thousand feet under the earth in these sorts of movies if it keeps me from staring at a damn black screen for an hour and a half. But something just went wrong here, y'all. There are scenes where our characters are supposed to be in the pitch black and it looks like they're sunning themselves in Cabo. Let me show you what I mean so you don't doubt like I did:


She's holding that camera in front of her because it's got night vision, meaning that it's apparently supposed to be so dark where she's standing that she can't see anything but what's on the screen. And yet... and yet! Come on! Her backpack is blinding me! There are scenes scattered through the entire film like this, where you suddenly find yourself wondering why the characters are squinting or feeling around and you realize, oh, it's supposed to be dark where they're standing, apparently. Huh.

And lastly, my final problem with the film is this: I really don't appreciate them hiring a man with the body of a Greek god to play one of the Crawlers.


Never in my life did I anticipate checking out a Crawler's ass, but this Crawler was, dare I say it, hot. That's right! I said it! I would totally do a Crawler! But look at that. I mean... not fair, movie. Not fair.
.

7 comments:

Dale said...

Do the crawlers look as stupid in the movie as they do in stills? 'Cause seriously, some of the pics of the new ones...

Jason Adams said...

It depends on the shot, Dale. There are some really silly overly-lit moments of them, to be sure. Where their floppy ears especially just look ridiculous. But they still maintained just enough of a semblance of creepiness, for me. It helps that they remain 100% vicious killing machines, and disgusting ones at that. But yeah, they needed to dial down the damn lights!

shaun said...

I actually enjoyed this a good bit. I went in with super-low expectations, which often helps immensely, and I found myself more than a little pleasantly surprised. Do we think they're making one more? Because SEMI-SPOILER ALERT, if they are not, then that last scene makes no sense.

Jason Adams said...

I went in with low expectations too, shaun, and for all the bitching I did here I did have fun with the movie. I just wish I'd not had to turn my brain off as much as I did was all.

And yeah, that ending... they got some 'splainin' to do. I haven't heard anything about a 3rd film though. But who knows. I'd totally watch a 3rd film, so that speaks well to this one.

homeslaughter said...

Is this when I admit that I was checking out crawler ass in the first Decent?

Jason Adams said...

I actually tried to remember if I recalled any attractive Crawler nakedness from the first one, but I did not. Which is another point in the original's favor as far as I'm concerned. Although this Crawler's hotness did add a new disturbing rape angle to the attacking he was doing, which was... newly disturbing.

CRwM said...

As crawler, I must demand this objectification stop.