Just so...so bad

Excellent, smart action film.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

I think the worst part of the film is the poor writing, combined with no character development. When things started going south, I barely cared. It was well done. But, it was quite predictable, had little sense of awe and wonder, and fell shot on so many levels. The whole harsh father, and browbeaten son routine has been done hundreds of times, and usually alot better than it was done here. I really had a sense that I lost two hours of my life with this movie. And there was little in the way of a payoff. If these guys were so experienced, and so well funded, how on earth did they find themselves in that situation with a cyclone on the way? What were they thinking? Why take those kinds of risks? I understand the concept of thrill seeking. But within reason, and within a reasonable safety margin. Right? Dumb. Really dumb. The reinvention of the term dumb and dumber.

The only reason this film gained traction was due to Cameron having his name attached as executive producer. Remove that, and I doubt many would've seen this, proving that a glorified name drop is still a tangible marketing technique. Alas, this cave diving expedition becomes washed up rather rapidly, descending into a spiral of predictable clichés. Based on co-writer Wight's own experience, an expedition exploring an underwater cave system goes awry after an unpredictable cyclone floods the hollow. Transforming what looked like a made-for-TV documentary into a made-for-TV disaster survival film. It's unfortunate that the monotonous acting, dull expendable characters, obvious green screen, predictable plot and impersonal screenplay resulted in a low quality film that has all the aesthetic appeal of a TV release. The cinematic scope is only upheld by the breathtaking underwater sequences, where O'Loughlin's cinematography really shines amidst the murky depths. A few scenes of tension as individuals burrow through tight passageways or attempt to flee the flooding caverns, but it's not enough to overcome the incredibly obvious flaws that have not made the film age well. The disposable crew reek of stupidity. When a renowned cave diving expert commands "you need to wear the wet suit" and you reluctantly reply "I'm not putting it on", well your life expectancy has diminished substantially. "Don't use the knife", she uses the knife. "Don't shine your torch at her", he shines the torch at her. I understand the heightened state of mind, but these lines of advice should've been adhered to and consequently result in characters that you don't relate to. Actions have consequences. Also thrown into the mix is a clichéd collapsed father and son relationship that, whilst provide some emotional moments and is well acted by Roxburgh, feels far too forced. The inevitable character deaths weren't memorable, obvious green screen is obvious (like really obvious) and Grierson's direction was rather lacklustre. The mediocrity kept pouring in.

"Sanctum" is a fearful adventure tale executed in very convoluted fashion. There are some levels of intensity and excitement and the ending has some heftiness to it, but all of it is plagued by the misused effects of 3-D. The film is being stapled as a "James Cameron Production", but since Cameron doesn't have a lot of creative control we know that fewer flaws would've occurred in this film if Cameron was in the director's chair and the 3-D would've been put to better use.Based off off actual events, a group of explorers embark on a journey to the Esa-ala caverns of Papua New Guinea in which claims to be the largest cave system on the planet. Their mission is to rediscover the once seen route and to reach a "base camp" beneath the lower depths for the purpose of how surface water could drain into the caverns finding its way into the sea.There's really no necessity in exploring these caves, but the team leader Frank (Richard Roxbergh) explains to his son Josh (played by Rhys Wakefield) that this cave is the key to living and that anything that is not submerged is meaningless and that human eyes contact has never been opened up to a world like this one.After the first few minutes of utter nonsense, the team goes right into the cave system and that trouble is only an eyelash away. They go through some dangerous climbing and life-threatening dives, making me wonder what was going on, where are they and why are they going to such great lengths to explore this cave system?When it comes to overwhelming film continuity, "Sanctum" takes the cake. Never once does the film pinpoint the locality of the cave let alone a clear picture of what the cave space looks like. At least in Cameron's "Titanic", the animated features give us a better indicator of how the might ship sank. At least we knew the events that lead during the scary final hours. Here we do see an animated sequence of partial areas of the cave, but everything is only seen briefly and never gives us any time to indulge in the bigger picture leaving us with empty knowledge of the cavern itself."Sanctum" didn't need to be shot in 3-D. The spaces were extremely claustrophobic, the lighting was quite low and the atmosphere looks dimmer than it should have been. The only lighting were get are from battery dependent headlamps and the characters seem to in a world of darkness so why wear the glasses? The illusion of depth is the primary purpose of when you use 3-D. For that to be done, we must prevent the forth wall like we're touching it. Like in "Jaws 3-D", when the shark was on the prowl, the body just touches the screen and the 3-D effect was null and void. The eel attack was quite creepy.Cinematographer Jules O'Loughlin's 3-D effects touches the screen continuously, The framing consists of indistinct blocks of stones and such. And then I ask myself, why are the closer objects less distinct? Sure there are plenty of closeups but they wear out their welcome pretty fast when shown in 3-D.In the editing, we get very little in terms of how the actions of one character coincides with the other. There's a part where one of the characters gets in trouble underwater and we get nothing to explain what happened and why other than to distract us and confuse us. Three team members follow what's happening via computer monitor. And all we get are their reactions and nothing more. But where do they their information from? The closing scenes determines in ruthless fashion of who survives in this journey and who's left to die which includes Frank and Josh which is long but it's effective in detail and not necessarily for the sake of 3-D. I hope when people see "Sanctum" they don't assume it's a James Cameron 3-D dependable film. In fact "Sanctum" might deter the reputation of Cameron and 3-D itself

An underrated film.Ratings and reviews on this film which I find credible are ones written by people who dive themselves and perhaps know something about cave diving too, people who have seen the film in a proper theatre in 3D and understand this is an action and thriller film, fictive but still based on actual crisis scenarios in cave diving. As such it is one of a kind and very well done as such.In the darkness and sound systems of the theatre my company was very immersed into the whole experience of the film. My son and I were also emotionally moved, especially by the ending scenes because we as diving hobbyists know we might have to face situations with similarity. Situations may become complicated because of diving technicalities and sometimes hard choices have to be made as so many incidents have shown, last case being the finnish cave divers deaths in Norway's Plurdalen 2014.While some review writers complain about characters and character development I think it is irrelevant in this case. "One does not go diving to be engaged in discussions of people's relations and emotional life, even though strong emotions have to be taken into account and can arise while diving. The place for that talk is afterwards, either at the bar or at the funeral gathering", as I've heard someone comment.If you are interested in seeing the film then keep in mind that the movie is not meant to be seen on a TV-screen or in a regular space with lighting and sound not being suitable, so it's just regrettable if one hasn't the chance to see it on the big screen.