Sanctum (2011) User Reviews

Not flawless, but still "breathtaking"

[bennettgardiner · 7/10 · 4 February 2011]

This movie, although not James Cameron's best, is visually exciting and suspenseful. A gripping expedition becomes a race against time and human nature, when a group of explorers navigating an immense cave in Papua New Guinea during a cyclone find themselves trapped in what threatens to become a watery tomb.

The sometimes melodramatic acting and clichéd dialogue tries too hard to construct the nature of each character before the action scenes start to set in, the uncompromising and experienced leader, the rash and cocky business man, the young kid with father issues. There were plenty of chances to let these traits become apparent naturally throughout the script.

The acting gets more bearable as the number of characters starts to dwindle a little. What saves this movie is the sense of scale in the scenery, the beauty of the natural caves, and the realism with which situations become volatile and unmanageable.

Overall, if you want to see a decent, action driven film about of one of the world's last remaining unexplored landforms, then Sanctum will (probably) not disappoint. It could have done without the 3D, which seemed unnecessary overkill. Not as good as The Abyss, but a similarly excellent visual experience to Avatar, unfortunately it comes with a similar level of acting and, with momentary exceptions, emotional depth.

Definitely Better than I was Expecting

[jkdigitaldesigns · 6/10 · 4 February 2011]

I was expecting this film to be a lot worse but it was supported by my JC - James Cameron as executive producer and it does have some of the best 3D visuals out there. I praise Alister Grierson for using proper 3D cameras and not only that, the ones JC prefers and created. It was a joy to actually watch a proper 3D film and not the hideous post production 3D I have bitched about on numerous occasions. I think the utilizing of JC written everywhere will definitely help this film immensely and to some extent it truly deserves it.

Some of the scenes in this film are poetic artwork and sheer beauty and provide some mouth agape splendor. And the 3D really does immerse you in the environment, there were moments of vertigo and a constant claustrophobia suffered by myself. The only thing I have struggled to do that I have tried is scuba diving - I chewed through the mouthpiece and kept wanting to rip my mask off - not a cool way to dive . If you can see this one in IMAX 3D then do it - would be totally worth it.

The film also has a really worked out plot, the story is great, although it has been done to death before in different settings, it's an escape film like Towering Inferno. In fact think of The Poseidon Adventure minus the boat . If you don't work out who will survive in the first ten minutes then good for you . It is extremely clichéd with some obvious flaws - for example, the one lady who doesn't wear a wetsuit but wears this huge red outdoor storm gear thing nearly dies of hypothermia and shivers the whole time and yet all the guys are wearing wetsuits, although all sleeveless so we can see some flesh and they are always nice and cosily warm. What this film really lacked though was a decent script - some of the lines in this film had me laughing and cringing in equal parts. It really needed someone like Roberto Orci and/or Alex Kurtzman from Star Trek fame to flesh it out and make it justifiably awesome. But the script brings a lot of the film to B grade level.

Then the other thing that let this film down was one actor, Ioan Gruffudd - I could not believe how bad he was in this film. This guys is a lead in Fantastic 4, was in Titanic, King Arthur and numerous other films but in this he plays this over the top, heavily and badly accented American and it was so badly played he brought the film down a few notches - there were scenes I was hoping he would die so he would be gone from the film. It was shocking.

I will say thank god for the two main leads, Richard Roxburgh and Rhys Wakefield, playing his son. When I first saw the trailer I wasn't too impressed with Roxburgh - he always puts on a silly accent in films and in things like MIssion Impossible 2 he was this hideous bleach headed idiot. But in this film he really pulls it off and I preferred him as a leading man than as a supporting cast member. I found his role very believable and a strength in the film.

Then there was Rhys Wakefield, I found him great in the film and see a strong future for him following that Australian to US market. He is incredibly attractive and has smoother skin that Just Bieber after a buffing. Josh (Wakefield) has a superb relationship with his father in the film, Frank (Roxburgh). It is a love hate, make them tough relationship and it developed nicely and made Josh a man by the end of the film. His good looks were quite distractive in some scenes - as Josh is holding someone dying both Paul, my viewing partner, and myself were going oooh - nice arms. LOL. I am sure this is not what they were after in this scene . He holds the camera well and I look forward to his next role - those Hemsworth boys need to watch out - this guy is coming for all your parts.

I think this film will do OK. It is a guilty pleasure action film that requires limited thinking. It will be a teenager's dream film . I think with the combo of JC, some great direction in a difficult environment by Alister Grierson and the acting of Roxburgh and Wakefield really made this film a pleasure for me. If Gruffudd was never in this film and the script got a work over this could have been a much much better film. It is out this Thursday Feb 3rd in Australia and I recommend a big screen in 3D. Worth 6/10. Suss all my reviews at SaltyPopcorn.com :)

Drowned In Melodrama

[autobahnsau · 5/10 · 19 January 2011]

The script hovers around B-movie level; the characters are fairly one dimensional. That said, the leads do the best they can with the material. Roxburgh is the shining light in this dark cavernous movie. Relative newcomer Wakefield deserves kudos for getting through some physically grueling scenes while giving the stereotypical "son with absent father" some dimension. Gruffudds character rapidly deteriorates from charming daredevil to crazed selfish psychopath which is boring and predictable. He deserved better.

The old standby kills are easily telegraphed. "Sanctum" is particularly harsh to women. "Females best beware taking on the oh-so-manly task of cave diving; you WILL fail" is the message. The only moment of extreme gore is at the half way point. It was the only time there was much response in our packed theater. Do not expect to be moved or feel much connection with the characters or story.

On the upside, many of the underwater scenes are remarkable. The 3-D is not necessary but does add to the claustrophobia and disorientation the characters must battle. The cinematography and editing are fantastic and easily the best part of the film. Would have loved more panoramic establishing shots of the underground environment so that the audience could get a real feel for why these daredevils risked so much.

Many of the cave shots and renderings are breathtaking, but ultimately there is no heart and soul to either the characters, dialogue or plot. There is a reliance on bombastic music to force emotions, leaving "Sanctum" as cold and airless as the caves being explored. In the few scenes where the music was cut and all one could hear was water and breath, a larger sense of drama was invoked.

"Sanctum" is inspired by a true story. It would have benefited greatly from a more documentary perspective instead of spiraling into melodrama. The poor script and characterization are ultimately anchors that weigh the film down. "Sanctum" boasts Cameron, but this is no Avatar, it's more like the sinking of the Titanic.

Final Verdict: Skip this and see Cameron's superior "The Abyss" instead

Underestimated

[Fabian_warn · 6/10 · 6 March 2011]

Sanctum was a movie that if you read the reviews you, don't want to see the movie. But i still did, and I'm happy i did. Maybe the characters are not so deep that you could hope for? They could have build a bit more on their relations between each other. But you always need to have in mind that it's based on reality. I think that makes the movie a much greater experience, like when he has to kill his father in the end! Just try to imagine the situation, what would you have done to survive? Would you really be able to help a person die if they are in pain by drown them?

And that the movie was in awesome 3-D didn't make anything worse.

Great movie! Great moralities!

How to drown in shallow water

[ExpendableMan · 6/10 · 29 March 2014]

For a film that goes so deep underground, Sanctum is a remarkably shallow experience. Playing out like The Descent with more water and no monsters, it's a beautifully shot survival flick but it's populated with characters so bland that you won't care one bit if they survive or not. And you'll probably be able to figure out what order they'll run out of oxygen in as well.

In fact, it's not that surprising that as his sticky fingers are all over the post-production and cinematography, this feels like a James Cameron flick where the script never got past the first draft. So when Grrr, Aaargh (Frank MacGuire), Whinging Son (Rhys Wakefield), Millionaire Jerk (Ioan Gruffudd), Comic Relief (Dan Wylie), Woman (Alice Parkinson) and Expendable Foreigner (Cramer Cain) find themselves trapped underground, you'll be more interested in how they're going to die than in the clunky dialogue.

That said, there's some eerily beautiful moments of utter horror to be found. From the ethereal splendour of a vast underwater cave to the pockets of air bubbling like mercury on the rocky ceiling, it's a feast for the eyes even when it leaves the brain starving.

Yes, it's clunky. Yes, the cave is surprisingly well-lit and yes, saying "what could possibly go wrong" before abseiling into the bowels of the earth is utterly stupid. But it's pretty, has a couple of cool death scenes (the "hair" moment is horrible) and it's much, much shorter than The Abyss.

don't bother

[pengas · 3/10 · 18 January 2011]

first - Cameron is one of 9 producers. i can only imagine cameron was interested in working under water. besides that, there is nothing jim cameron in this movie in my opinion.

this movie is in 3d which is fun. scenery is great, caves, water etc.

however - there is no plot what so ever. at no point did i feel compassion nor connection to any of the characters.. those who died and those who survived. at no point did i identified myself with the plot, hoping these guys will make it out alive.

yeah - really poor plot and boring dialogs.

acting was good for whatever material was thrown on these poor actors..

seriously - don't bother with this film.

moving along.

Exquisite Scenery Undermined by Weak Script

[scvkiowa · 6/10 · 14 March 2015]

The idea of exploration is a tantalizing prospect in storytelling because it lends itself to tales of heroism, disaster and tragedy (very strong elements in any human-interest story) while also allowing the storyteller to create a character out of an environment; any place of desolation of isolation can become a source of menace and intrigue that can be stronger than any of the human characters and provide a unique adversary. Films like "The Grey" and "Flight of the Phoenix" are examples of environments that provide such an antagonist that presents many merciless challenges more foreboding than anything a Bond villain could dream up. "Sanctum" attempts to do the same thing with caves, presenting numerous pitfalls and obstacles for the characters to conquer and use their tribulations to grow and change.

Or at least that's what should've happened. Unfortunately, for as much good as the cave setting does to present an ominous--and even occasionally beautiful--setting for the characters, the lushly photographed scenery can't hide a stumbling script and a less than prepared cast.

While the actors aren't exactly good, they acquit themselves well enough to get by. What really hurts "Sanctum" is a screenplay that relies heavily the same human drama to forward the story that has become old-hat since "Night of the Living Dead" and finally devolves into complete, blithering stupidity in its final leg.

The most glaring problem is that the actors are saddled with several emotional scenes that fall flat. For example, Richard's speech to his son, Josh, about his failures as a father might've been an asset to the film's story, but when he breaks out a bunch of clichés about the caves being his "church", the whole scene devolves into a silly, eye-rolling exercise. The same can be said of the final showdown between Richard, Josh and their supposed friend Carl, who runs the gambit of hammy acting scenes from screaming Bill Paxton, sobbing yuppie, groveling heel and, finally, complete loony toon jumping out of the darkness screaming like an Indian warrior to knock people on the heads with a rock. I'd say Iona Gruffudd's performance was a detriment, but, compared to his peers, he at least injects some life into these scenes.

The film does have a number of truly effective moments and knows how to use a little explicit gore to increase the emotional resonance of a scene; a split second clip of Allison Parkinson's scalp being rended from her skull adds tension and sympathy during her climbing scene, for instance. It's also clear that director Allister Grierson knows his photography and utilizes a number of wonderful techniques to capture the beauty of their deadly surroundings.

What is most surprising is the filmmaker's choice to focus on how expansive the environment is when a cave would seem the natural place to tighten the frame and accent the claustrophobic setting. Instead, the caves never become as aggressive as, say, the ship hull in "The Poseidon Adventure" or even the catacombs in "As Above, So Below". The threat of drowning is established early in the movie yet is rarely used again as more than an idle threat to get someone to say, "we'd better keep moving of the plot will never go anywhere."

While "Sanctum" will likely only be remembered--if it is to be remembered at all--as a deleterious flick full of minor thrills and one cheese-ball performance, it has enough fun moments to make this an acceptable, if completely unmemorable, watch.

2.5 out of 4

Worthless

[metrohomicide · 1/10 · 11 June 2012]

Who cares is all I can think about this movie. No character you can even remotely relate to. They are not scientists or anything more than tour guides stuck in a disaster movie. Poorly prepared and outfitted tour guides. Might as well have been a teen summer camp who fell in a hole.

Bad acting. Bad story. OK scene settings but how hard is it to design a cave? Convoluted problems - predictable.

Just one issue to speak of (I'll leave the rest alone - don't have that much time) A team leader who has the back bone to drown an injured team member when they can't take care of him doesn't have the same back bone to tell another team member to wear a wetsuit from a dead body to keep from getting hypothermia? Avoid - Avoid - Avoid.

Oh, come on - it's not that bad.

[jewelia606 · 7/10 · 7 February 2011]

Alright, I'll admit that Ioan Gruffud has done much better, same with Richard Roxburgh (one of my all-time favorites, and probably the best in the film). When I can start going through the cast and saying, "Okay, she'll die, he'll die... My GOD I hope he dies..." and be right about it, it's probably not going to be that good a film. That said, it's certainly not the abomination everyone on here claims it to be. It has beautiful 3D camera work, and Rhys Wakefield and Richard Roxburgh are definitely the two bright spots. Do not go into this expecting another Avatar or a horror movie like The Descent as many here seem to have done, but instead an enjoyable adventure flick. I would not recommend this to anyone who dislikes gore, as there are a few scenes that are high octane nightmare fuel.

Very Bad

[peetdjohnson · 1/10 · 3 February 2011]

It's been around 20 years since I last walked out of a movie. I don't like doing it, but with this stinker, I had no choice. Every cheap, corny cliché ever thought up is thrown in our faces within the first 20 minutes (just prior to my exit), i.e. "he plays by his own rules", "hey, your son's a good kid - cut him some slack", "son of a bitch", and many, many more. The last is said with an Australian accent - we don't use that term! The complete lack of character exploration, as well as some absolutely horrendous acting and a 'plot' leaving the viewer feeling they came in one hour late (no, I didn't), all contribute to it's awfulness. I detest putting anything made in Australia 'down', but save your money folks - this one's a dud.

Take it from a caver, the details are very accurate

[EHKastning · 9/10 · 24 February 2011]

Sanctum is an action thriller involving exploration of an extensive, world-class cave system in Papua New Guinea. The movie is inspired by an actual flood event in an extensive cave in the Nullarbor Plain of Australia in 1988. It is not a documentary, but designed to be a realistic, albeit embellished, account that includes non-stop action as the team is faced with its deadly situations and decisions. Although released in 2-D, 3-D, and IMAX formats, Sanctum is not a science fiction or horror movie. There are no monsters, weird creatures, on humanoid inhabitants, such as are found in the recent films, The Cave, The Cavern, and Descent (Parts 1 and 2). And it is not a fantasy underground adventure like the recent remakes of Journey to the Center of the Earth and Alice in Wonderland. Sanctum is about caving, an adventure sport that is practiced by knowledgeable and safety-minded people throughout the world.

Most movie goers may not recognize the authenticity of the techniques and equipment used in the film. As one who has spent over 45 years exploring and studying caves in over 35 states and several countries, I am familiar with modern caving in some of the great cave systems on the planet and I personally know many of the cavers who are making new discoveries every year. Therefore, I can attest to the great care that the director Alister Grierson and writer-producer Andrew Wight have taken to provide realism to the cave setting. In fact, Wight was a survivor of the Nullarbor event and is an experienced caver and diver. That having been said, Sanctum takes some liberties to create an exciting story. Nearly every activity in caving is included in this epic, such as climbing, rappelling and other rope work, squeezing and negotiating tight passageways, and of course cave diving. This story shows what can go wrong with each of these if care is not taken or if safety is ignored. Sanctum is an adventure thriller that consists of a long string of incidents, dilemmas, and solutions. Each situation is believable on its own merit and has happened at one time or another in caving. But in Sanctum, all of these have been combined, one after another, and continually pose challenges and demand solutions. It reminds me of the classic and entertaining cliff- hanger movies of old. This makes for an exhausting tale in which the audience feels the tense and claustrophobic situations. It is unlikely that such a string of events would ever be encountered by a single caving expedition. However, individually accidents do happen, although they are relatively rare because cavers strictly abide by established safety rules.

What disturbs me is that many of the reviewers of the movie to date miss the point of the film and show an ignorance of what caves and caving are like. Here are some typically unfair remarks and why these are so.

"There is little character development." Caving is very focused. When you are underground, you only think about your surroundings and mission. You do not think about the outside world and your life there, much less about your interpersonal relationships with your fellow cavers. It is true that when caving, you learn a lot about your compatriots and their personalities (just like in the movie), but you do belabor interpersonal relationships. Team members are selected based on their proved track record underground. If there are challenges and threatening conditions, you focus on those as a team, as in the film. Many reviewers apparently wanted more psycho-drama among the protagonists.

"The dialog is terse, unrealistic, and too loud." I disagree. Under the emergency conditions such as shown in the film, the dialog of the characters would be similar. There would be a leader and a plan would develop, just as we witnessed in 2010 in the case of the trapped Chilean miners. As for loudness and screaming, this is the only way to make yourself heard in the presence of running water in the echoing confines of cave passages. I know this from experience. One's senses in a cave are very much focused on sight and sound and the immediate surroundings.

"It is a tedious tale." Yes, trying to escape through a cave system that is flooding could easily be tedious and, given the extent of the cave in Sanctum, finding routes and traversing them would take considerable time. Cave exploration is not a fast process.

I have been on hundreds of caving trips, including some grueling ones in long and complex cave systems. For me, the representation of the features in the cave and the techniques of exploration are portrayed quite well in Sanctum. Again, this movie is an adventure story that accurately shows what caves are like, even though it combines many of the dangers into a thrilling series of unfortunate events. It is a fictional tale, but realistically portrayed.

Reviewers who expected Sanctum to be a high-culture movie or one that explores interpersonal interactions among the characters have missed the point completely. Unless they have gone on trips into extensive and wild caves, they have little idea of what caves and caving are really like and what this movie is all about. They can not possibly understand the dynamic among cavers under adverse conditions. I find more faults with the reviewers' logic and understanding than they can legitimately find in the film. The movie stays true to what extensive caves are like and the techniques used to explore them. Given that, it is also one heck of an adventure thriller.

Thrilling, Beautiful

[hashime · 7/10 · 11 February 2011]

I quite liked this movie. The acting is not amazing, and the dialogue was a little sub-par, but this was made up for with the technical realism of the SCUBA diving and the breath-taking (pun intended) scenery. As a SCUBA diver I am a little biased towards liking this film. There are very few movies produces by Hollywood that even come close to displaying the level of realism of the SCUBA in this movie. There are some absurd moments for sure, but in general the movie gets it down well. The cave system for me was the best feature of the movie, it is absolutely gorgeous. This movie may be a pass for many, but if you can spare the time / money, and love exploration it is worth a look.

Bad movie - disses cave diving

[vinodiga · 1/10 · 5 February 2012]

Being a cave diver. This movie sucks - it is not like this at all folks. A certified cave diver never would do any of the dives or behaviors seen in this film. None of would use the equipment used in this movie. What they show is a total misrepresentation of actual cave explorations. It is total trash. Shame on you James Cameron and the so called writers and directors of this piece of trash film. No currently trained open water or cave divers would go under water without a safe second stage. * * * You'll shame Sheck Exley' name and his work to make all diving safe. This movie is only good for giving children night mares. Don't see it.

Sanctum was great visually but characters could've been better

[cccccheck · 6/10 · 4 February 2011]

Warning, spoilers! This is best read after viewing the film.

Whilst there could've been more development of the characters prior to their embarking into the cave, it probably would've been in vain, seeing as all but one of the characters die. Remarkably in the true story the film is based on, all 15 explorers survived.

There were a few moments in the film that will leave viewers scratching their heads. For instance, one of the team is seriously wounded and the father, Frank, decides that whilst the man is still alive and responsive he should be put out of his misery, and drowns him. Second, we have the father's best friend George lagging behind with chest pains and coughing up blood. He has compression problems from the underwater breathing equipment. As odd as it is, rather than tell anyone he was suffering, he draws "George was here" on the cave wall and hides in the dark till he dies. Next, the gory death of Victoria leads her partner Carl (who funded the trip) to switch from swanky American nice guy to a paranoid schizophrenic. Carl attacks Frank, leaving him seriously wounded. Frank is on his death bed and in a heart to heart with his son Josh, he asks him to put him out of his misery too. The characters' actions were all a little over the top and left viewers scrambling for anyone to sympathize with.

So in all this, it made sense that the most compelling character Josh was the only one to survive. On reflection, Josh was the one character that was 'normal'. He didn't do anything stupid and was the only consistently logical voice throughout the film. I expected father and son to survive in the end, so his father's death was a bit of a disappointment. This traumatised kid is left as the last man standing, so when he finally surfaces from the cave, the family on the beach is a sight for sore eyes.

Despite these character flaws, Sanctum is worth watching. Visually stunning although I didn't really notice the 3D effects. Entertaining with a great Aussie flavour. Plus, the acting was impressive.

Disappointing, Expected much more.

[SnowLeopard448 · 2/10 · 22 September 2011]

When deciding to see this movie I saw that James Cameron was an executive producer. This immediately thought that it would be fabulous. After watching it, I realised that it was not what I was hoping at all. Bad acting and average storyline that seemed to repeat itself in every scene.

There is a ridiculously huge amount of preamble before all crucial plot points, which is almost boring enough to skip past.

The acting is very very poor which ruins storyline even if were to be any. This movie features Australian acting, which is funny because I am Australian and the I couldn't even cope with it.

Another thing is the scenery. It was brilliantly done, and I wanted to see more of it, but there was hardly any scenes involving it! Most of all was just conversation between the characters.

Overall I am very disappointed in this movie and would not recommend seeing it.

This movie will makes you breathless, not as much as those characters fighting for air to breathe

[vincent_loy412 · 7/10 · 14 February 2011]

Hmm, let me browse google to check on the definition of 'sanctum'…oh, it's defined as a place of inviolable privacy, a holy or sacred site, or a place set apart. Okay, I finds the connection between this word to the movie.

'Sanctum' is a movie, not released yet in Malaysia, and yet I have watched it. Great, I must be among the earliest Malaysians to have watch this great masterpiece by director, Aliester Grierson. Okay, I think not many of you knows him, but I'm sure you guys recognize the executive producer of this movie, James Cameron, famous for his creation of Titanic and Avatar.

The story is basically about a team of underwater cave divers trapped in the world largest and unexplored cave system after a deadly storm which will submerged majority of the cave underground. As the story flows like an adventure, the survivors must find a way out from this cold, dark, narrow and unexplored cave to the Solomon Sea. This type of story is very typical, like there must be some difficulties going on, one by one will lost their lives, and at the end a people or two (usually couple) will survive.

Yes, that's it. Nothing unusual. The only interesting aspect is that it is a whole different setting (in caves), different characters and different approach to the story. It is still a nice story then. Ahh,…and the visual of the caves is amazing and breathtaking. If you seriously paid attention to this film, you will be easily immersed into the cave as if you are in there, fighting for life with insufficient air to breath. Not me then…I'm not immersed to it enough…

Anyway, this is really worth-watching, especially in the cinema with those 3D technology. The effects would be far better. The only thing bad is the boring beginning, but luckily the pace of the story is quite fast without delaying any time to the climax of the film. Another weakness is on the poor performance of some casts. That's it. Other stuff, all good and satisfying. Well done! Out of 10 points, I rate this one 7.6.

No Intellect needed but Australia rocks, literally

[bassrourke · 4/10 · 31 January 2011]

Very Average to say the least, however the 3D was worth while and effective (most of the time). The limited story of some cave divers who hold crisis talks when the opening collapses with rocks and water filling up their enclosed space fast is appealing for about 10 minutes. James Cameron also produced 'Strange Days' & 'Point Break', both better than this. It must be a mans world down there as many heroics and tempers flare with good, also bad ideas. Any women in earshot are slandered pretty quickly. This is a shame as actress Alice Parkinson comes across the most interesting, however a vapid Dan Wyllie, a male with quips amongst the mayhem,is also cool. Over all there is too much barking orders and intense yelling of survival from all involved comes across trying too hard, rather than playing the actors playing their roles so well. You just want them to find the ocean in a hurry before an all too familiar happy finale. The exterior shots of Australian scrub look rather brilliant.

Water surprise—I liked it!

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 8 February 2011]

A research team exploring an uncharted cave system find themselves in serious trouble when a flash flood results in them being trapped underground. As the water continues to pour in, the team are forced to head deeper into the cave system to find an alternative way out.

Promoted as James Cameron's Sanctum, despite the Oscar winning director's involvement only extending to stumping up some cash for the project, this 3D aquatic adventure (actually directed by virtually unknown Aussie helmer Alister Grierson) is one of the most cliché-ridden films I reckon I have ever seen, utilising a plethora of well-worn chestnuts borrowed from a whole host of other movies (look for shades of The Poseidon Adventure, similarities to The Descent and The Cave, reminders of Daylight and Deep Blue Sea, touches of Turistas, and all sorts of stuff straight outta The Abyss).

Amazingly, despite the somewhat unethical use of Cameron's name to get bums on seats, and the unashamed use of predictable plot devices, corny character development, dumb dialogue and formulaic film-making techniques, I'm surprised to find myself actually recommending Sanctum: it's certainly no Avatar or Titanic, lacking the genuine 'wow' factor of such major 'event' movies, but it is still an enjoyable, well executed piece of escapist entertainment, full of breath-taking visuals and harrowing moments that fully exploit the claustrophobic underground environment.

The first bona fide dud of 2011 has arrived.

[Troy_Campbell · 2/10 · 18 February 2011]

My Mother always told me if I didn't have anything nice to say than I shouldn't say anything at all. Well, this review would already be over if I abided by that, such is Sanctum's awfulness. It had the misleading "James Cameron Presents" label on the posters, but despite the marketing boost this may have produced it also served as an expectations-heightener, something this mega-flop could've done without. In fact, at first glance it's hard to see why Mr Avatar would want to attach his name to a shambles such as this. On a closer look my guess is it might've been a combination of two things: his intense love for the extreme depths of the deep blue (as witnessed in his multiple underwater docos) and the chance to help a relative newcomer in the director's seat (Grierson's only other feature film being Kokoda in 2006).

Unfortunately the Aussie filmmaker doesn't show anything that would suggest he's one to keep an eye on. The action is unconvincing and the pacing uneven, Grierson struggles to effectively frame his shots with flair or excitement. One of the major opening shots featuring a handful of thrill-seekers abseiling and parachuting down the 2km deep cave should've sent the adrenaline pumping, instead it completely fizzles, the first warning sign that Grierson doesn't have a handle on the action. The movie only gets worse from there, and even the admittedly decent 3D can't salvage it.

Andrew Wight and John Garvin's script is downright atrocious. Both their narrative and dialogue is strictly amateurish. The plot developments and character arcs are laughable, predictable and one-dimensional. You'll know exactly how the story plays outs well in advance, but worse, you won't care. The actors aren't given much to work with in way of conversation either; Wight and Garvin heavily overdo the True Blue Ocker Aussie jargon and they frustratingly utilise the dialogue as a means of spelling out exactly what each character thinks.

They may not get any assistance from the dire screenplay or the unsteady direction; however the cast are in embarrassing form and, excuse the pun, sink to new lows. Home and Away¬-er Wakefield proves his thespian skills are more appropriately aligned with extraordinarily crappy soapies; his melodramatic acting unsuited to the big screen. The former Mr Fantastic, Gruffudd, is stilted and wooden as the smarmy American playboy, despite having the advantage of not being required to talk like a bogan from Western Sydney. And the usually reliable Roxburgh – with the most humiliating performance of the lot – lazily growls his way through the absurd role of the tough and bitter old-hand leading the way.

The first bona fide dud of 2011 has arrived.

1 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Fine, 3 - Good, 4 - Great, 5 - Brilliant)

Claustrophobic fun

[laurakneen · 8/10 · 22 February 2011]

Forget the critics, this is an awesome movie. It's fast-paced, action-packed and spectacular. I was tense the whole time and came out feeling like I'd been holding my breath for hours.

Seriously, most critics seem more interested in showing how cynical and cool they are than actually enjoying a great adventure film. I've read lots of reviews, so I'll address a few of the complaints made.

Bad dialogue: It's not Shakespeare, but it sets up the relationships between characters quickly and serves the action well. It also manages to explain the basics of caving and scuba diving (which most of the audience would be unfamiliar with) without seeming too preachy.

Bad acting: I thought everyone was pretty great with what they had to do. Again, it's not bloody Shakespeare.

Predictable: not to me. Yes, they're stuck in a cave so there's only so many things that can happen. But what does happen is really bloody exciting. I guess if you spend your whole life watching movies (as critics do) then any action movie would be predictable after a while.

Unlikeable characters: Um, since when did every character have to be likable? And even if you don't particularly like a character, surely you don't want them to die a horrible death down a cave. The truth is some of the characters you really like, some grow on you and some you almost want to drown with your own bare hands. So a good mix.

Weak roles for women: I disagree. The women are put in freaky situations and react in human ways. Though I didn't quite understand what happened to Victoria - that's one thing the film could have done slightly better.

I've also heard critics complain about too much swearing (seriously, if you've ever spent time around real-life explorers they're generally not too concerned with social niceties, especially in life-or-death situations). And some reviewers complained that there were no monsters in the cave - seriously! That was what was so great about the story - it was extreme but it all could have happened. Man vs nature and vs each other - much more interesting than another monster flick.

Anyway, Sanctum is excellent. Go see it.

Documentary-like ... totally acceptable cave film .............

[merklekranz · 6/10 · 21 February 2011]

Going into "Sanctum", I was relieved to know there would be zero cave monsters jumping out of the darkness. This was going to be a cave movie for thinkers, trying to get out of a flooding cave, with no clue what lay ahead. "Sanctum" is totally acceptable, if you perceive the film as being documentary-like, and can overlook lack of character development, and simply watch the action. The 3D experience is marginal at best, because everything is so confined and dark. I couldn't tell you one cast members name, just that there was a leader, his son, a financier, a grunt, and a couple of disposable females. Nevertheless, I enjoyed "Sanctum" for what It was, an exciting experience in underground survival. - MERK

Appalling!

[twragg · 1/10 · 17 June 2011]

It makes me embarrassed to be an Australian. One of the worst scripts ever written. Even great actors like Richard Roxburgh weren't able to save this one. It started off well, with some great aerial photography, but soon went downhill with corny one-liners and awkward so called 'action' sequences. It amazes me how the characters could endure such trauma (being trapped in a cave with their friends and family dying), yet still manage to have poignant moments of reflection while trapped in crevices less than one metre wide. That actor from Fantastic Four (whatever his name is) will probably never work in the film industry again. His performance was more comedic than convincing. Help!!!!

The deep ecosystem and Sanctum and me

[advsreekanthrvarma · 7/10 · 4 February 2011]

Sanctum is a movie to be watched definitely by believers in the deep Ecosystem.I could watch this movie on the releasing date itself and it was a quiet audience which made the viewing personal.Sanctum rightly gives the message that humans when adapting to natural environments are vulnerable as children.It is the Intuitive human who is allowed into the Sanctum to have the experience to become 'educated'.the characters Frank and his son were beautifully portrayed.Sanctum will be reckoned as a great movie for its cavernous metaphysical expedition.It's a Time Machine.photography is superb as expected.definitely to be watched with family .

Traumitizing

[stevenscaleb98 · 6/10 · 5 February 2011]

Well first of all let me get something straight James Cameron is one of NINE producers, so he didn't have too much to do with it. This movie is maybe the must traumatizing movie I have ever seen! I did cry at one point. I'm not a 3D fan at all. In my opinion the only movies that should be in 3D is animated movies (with a few exceptions such as Avatar). I thought the 3D was okay (better than some movies I've seen), but still unnecessary. This movie was not just traumatizing at one point it was traumatizing during the whole movie! The visuals were fantastic! The effects were great! The acting was exceptional! I liked the movie I guess it was just too traumatizing for me. Final Summary: A good movie with great visuals, effects, and acting, but be warned the Sanctum is extremely traumatizing. If you can handle trauma go see Sanctum because it is a good movie.

Worst. Movie. Ever

[BeefStroganoff · 1/10 · 22 September 2011]

This film has annoying, unlikeable and undeveloped characters. Its story was very run of the mill and been-there-done that. The acting was atrocious. The lead actors - father and son - were so friggin' hateful and annoying. I didn't like them at all.

The suspense was dull and the dramatic scenes were cheesy. I was very bored in the theatres. This film was a torture. I really wanted it to end. Nearly every character's death was contrived and expected. You knew what was going to happen.

The music was good, though, and I liked Ioan Gruffudd's performance - the only standout in this tripe.