Descent 2: Descent is right!
After seeing the first film I was disturbed and intrigued in equal measure. It is a very good effort all round. Although Ritzer says never bother with sequels we know that sometimes a good film is reinforced or even bettered by its follow-up at times. The key question then: Is this as good or better? Um, no. It is a pretty pointless exercise. The acting is fine and I really like the character of Sarah, she is an admirable soul faced with a string of horrible revelations. However, much as I also really like Shauna MacDonald I think Sarah should have remained buried either in the caves or in her internal misery.
The sets are okay also, just as the mutated beasts/humans? are as disgusting as the first time around. The main problem with it all is that it adds nothing and simply feels like the same film dusted down and rolled out again. There is a twist at the end and it does beg some questions, but so what? I didn't care enough about the film to bother reflecting on the meaning of its final punchline. A lazy cash-in best avoided.
The sets are okay also, just as the mutated beasts/humans? are as disgusting as the first time around. The main problem with it all is that it adds nothing and simply feels like the same film dusted down and rolled out again. There is a twist at the end and it does beg some questions, but so what? I didn't care enough about the film to bother reflecting on the meaning of its final punchline. A lazy cash-in best avoided.
- n-r-johns
- Jan 12, 2011