Is it worth $10 No
It’s great that movies can serve as an escape from the everyday, especially when they take us places we’ve never seen. “Sanctum” easily has that covered; unfortunately, it takes us somewhere we’d never want to go.
Not sure about you, but if someone offered to take me cave diving in a place where some passages are called “Devil’s Restriction” and “The Elevator,” I’d kindly pass on the offer. Most non thrill-seekers would, even if spelunking is a hobby. So part of the fun going into “Sanctum” is the promise of watching an expedition team discover a giant, remote cave that heretofore has not been explored.
And then the movie starts.
After a half-hour of painful dialogue and an absurd amount of foreshadowing, a cyclone causes the cave to flood, forcing our explorers to find a new way out. With limited lighting, air supply and patience, the team dives deeper in the hope of finding a new exit.
The five people who embark on the journey encapsulate every stock character you can ask for: There’s Frank (Richard Roxburgh), the world-famous cave diver who doesn’t get along with his unappreciative but talented son Josh (Rhys Wakefield); there’s the millionaire financier Carl (Ioan Gruffudd), who wants to conquer nature, and his girlfriend Victoria (Alice Parkinson), who has no diving experience; and finally there’s George (Dan Wyllie), Frank’s sidekick with a history of decompression sickness.

With that brief description knowledgeable filmgoers can pretty accurately guess how this will play out. This is not a surprise: The film was executive produced by James Cameron (Avatar), who hasn’t told a fun, inspired story since “True Lies” in 1994.
To be fair to director Alister Grierson, it’s not the predictability of the story that’s its biggest problem. Rather, it’s the overwhelmingly dreary sense of despair that just wears you down, to the point where you don’t care who lives or dies – you just want the movie to end. Adding to the discomfort is a series of vivid and overly graphic scenes that make you cringe and want to look away. What’s even worse is that after they’re over you’re not eager to start looking again.
You may be looking, by the way, through 3D glasses, though there’s nothing here visually that warrants a third dimension. In fact, if it was possible to take away a dimension from the 2D, that’d be just fine. The more in your face this movie is the more unbearable it becomes, lending credence to the motto that there certainly is too much of a good thing.
“Sanctum” is technically well made – the action is nicely staged and easy to follow, and the characters’ actions/motivations are almost always understandable. However, it’s hard to appreciate bones protruding through skin and roughly 90 minutes of utter despair after a painfully boring setup.
Did you know?
The film is based on the real-life experiences of its producer, Andrew Wight. You can listen to my interview with Wight here.

mfrost4321
said:
|
... Since it was a true story, we knew that at least one person would make it out alive, but were hoping for more. |
|
Gsypydreamer
said:
|
... For me, I go to the movies to feel good and be entertained... This movie did not do this for me.... It made me feel depressed and horrible... It did not matter how beautiful the scenery was.. all I kept thinking was this was based upon a true story. This actually happened to REAL PEOPLE. That thought alone kept me from any enjoyment of the movie. So do I feel it is worth seeing... sorry not in my book.. How could anyone want to pay $10 plus to a true story of people suffering and dying. Unless you are into that sort of thing.... Personally, you can see that any time ... just drive down town.... go to Veterans Hospital, Cancer Ward, or walk into a Animal Shelter people n save your $10. |
|
eddie nova
said:
|
... The 3D was totally not necessary. I thought the movie dragged in the first 30 minutes..However, my favorite part is what happened to Victoria,cause boy was she annoying! |
|
Leo
said:
|
... I think even if they would have made this big turkey with big stars it will still flat out sucks and the 3D well this is another way for the cinemas to make more money if you want real 3D go to the magic kingdon. |
|
lunarmirage
said:
|
... I completely agree that it was not worth the money. The 3D was completely unnecessary and the stock actors were so one dimensional it was laughable. The whole time you were basically just watching to see if your death predictions came true and sadly they did frame by frame. I am a diver and even the beautiful scenery could not distract me from the extreme formulaic nature of this movie. |
|
pirucha
said:
|
... here we go again. Great photography not matched by the plot of the movie, that it had too many actors or actresses, so they have to make them disappear one by one until they ended up with only, yes you guessed:ONE. However I think I can spend 10 bucks on this, just because some scenes keep you on the edge and that is worth your money. |
|
pirucha
said:
|
... Photography and special affects, very, very good. Unluckily they forgot to add a credible plot to the good work. I don't know if they had too many actors and actress to beguin with that they must start to trim them by making them desappear. Som scenes keep ypu on edge and are well done others are forgetable. |
|
kiddagn
said:
|
... I agree with the 3D being unnecessary. But I really enjoyed this movie. Yes it was predictable but you didn't know exactly how things were going to play out. It kept you on the edge of your seat the whole time wondering how the heck are they going to get out now. My vote is ***1/2 |
|
jenmccarthy72
said:
|
... I am a little disappointed that the reviews coming out aren't positive for this movie. I was pretty excited about it prior. I may have a different take on it though being a diver as well as cave dive experience. So I will see what fellow crazy thrill seekers like myself also say before deciding to not go at all. |
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|


