Dazed, bloodied and speechless with trauma, Sarah Carter emerges alone from the Appalachian cave system where the events of The Descent took place. Local sheriff Redmond Vaines forces her back underground to help the rescu... more »e team which is desperately searching for her five missing girlfriends. As the team moves deeper into the caves, Sarah?s flashes of fractured memory intensify and she begins to realize the full horror of the would-be rescue mission. Only Sarah knows the terror which lurks in the shadows of the caves. But they are about to encounter a new tribe of crawlers ? inbred, deformed and even more viciously feral than those Sarah faced before.« less
"When the first film, The Descent, hit theaters, I saw it 3 times. The movie is one of my favorite horror films of recent times. When I heard a second installment was being made, I felt bittersweet about it. I went into the film both excited and apprehensive because in most cases, sequels rarely come close to being as effective as the original. THIS however is not the case for The Descent: Part 2!
One of the most common questions about this film is "Why would the lead character, Sarah, go back down into the cave after barely making it out alive in the first place?" and that question is answered very well and makes perfect sense when you watch the film. The story line and atmosphere, while very similar to the first, are still VERY effective. The film brings the suspense as well as the gore.
This film plays out much more like a continuation of the first story than a sequel, almost as if "To be continued..." should have shown before the credits of the original installment. If you are a fan, like myself, of the original THE DESCENT, then please, give THE DESCENT: PART 2 a try. Im almost certain you will not be disappointed. I wasnt.
Bravo to the cast and crew of this great scary film! 5 stars!"
Entertaining but nowhere near as good as the first
Terry Mesnard | Bellevue, NE | 03/09/2010
(3 out of 5 stars)
"The Descent didn't need a sequel. It was a pitch-perfect horror film, one of the best I've seen in the last decade or longer, that incorporated high amounts of tension, a desperate struggle, some amazing jump-out-of-your-skin scares, great characters that you actually cared about and just the right amount of gore. I loved that film. Its original UK ending was also such a great, sad and interesting way to close it out. But apparently, The Descent: Part 2 decides to forgo that horror classic ending and instead uses the American/"happy" ending. It's interesting to note that the sequel is "Part 2" as opposed to simply The Descent 2. It indicates that it is an extension of the first film, as opposed to a sequel. As such, to discuss Part 2, I'll have to talk about the first one. You've been warned.
The American ending of The Descent finds Sarah crazed and amnesiac with fear of her plight from the previous film, running to a rescue truck. During the time she and her team have been lost, the local sheriff has started a search party for Juno, who not only was left for dead by Sarah for her infidelity and a misunderstanding, but is also a senator's daughter. Sarah is taken to a hospital where said sheriff, Sheriff Vaines, decides that not only is Sarah a suspect in the missing spelunkers (for her shirt was covered in blood) but that she must go back underground to help locate them. Never mind the fact that this probably wouldn't happen in real life because 1) she's obviously hurt 2) mentally unstable and 3) uh...she has no memory, remember? Also forgetting the fact that it seems awfully coincidental that she happens to not remember that the cave system is swarming with cannibalistic creatures, we now have a reason for more bloodshed.
That's pretty much the movie in a nutshell. Part of the reason the first film was so powerful and shocking was because director Neil Marshall used two different types of terror and helped add some twists to his film. The first part had a claustrophobic, fearful feeling that maybe you were going to be watching Alive...Underground. But once that type of horror was getting a little stale, he does a complete 180 and now they are fending for their lives against some unknown group of carnivorous cave dwellers. It was expertly filmed and paced to perfection. Part 2 tries to ape that same style. It has the same opening credit sequence, has a similar overall motif and even the same music. In a lot of ways feels like a retread...except nowhere near as good. Again you have a group of people who have no clue they are being hunted by monsters. Again you have a small cave-in that causes the group to be splintered, etc. etc. The only problem is that you, the viewer, is in on the twists this time and it really just gives the entire film a "been there, done that" feel. To counter-balance this, Part 2 almost turns into a gross-out "comedy," where Jon Harris (the director) finds more and more ways to drench his protagonists with blood and finds various ways to make sure that blood pours into someone's mouth. I think this happened at least two or three times. It was almost comedic.
The final nail in the coffin is that the characters this time aren't anywhere near as interesting or developed as in the first film. They quickly turned into crawler fodder and their only reason for being there was to be offed in various ways. Only problem is that, in the first film, I cared. In this one, I didn't. What a let down."
Most sequels suck,but this one!!!!!
C. conway | 03/14/2010
(5 out of 5 stars)
"this is the acception to all those crapy sequels.period.Iloved the 1st/and let me tellya the 2nd is just as good, even better in my eyes. IF YOU CRAVE GORE,GOOD STORY SAME PEOPLE FROM THE 1ST MOVIE AND a feeling of being TOTALLY TRAPT UNDERGROUND this is for the TRUE horror JUNKIE like myself.THX.seee thisssss"
Please note before reading this review that it may contain m
KevLeam | Warwick, England | 03/25/2010
(2 out of 5 stars)
"I had quite high hopes for The Descent - Part 2 as The Descent (Original Unrated Cut) [Widescreen Edition] was one of the most claustrophobic and terrifying films that I can remember from recent years. It continues just minutes after the first film and a rescue crew are ready to find any possible survivors from the caving expedition that went horrifically wrong. The sole survivor, Sarah, is discovered but is suffering from severe psychological trauma and is therefore unable to speak or remember what happened..She accompanies the rescue team back to the cave she has just emerged from, but the creatures that live down there are hungry once again.
After a very slow and unexciting start, the last half an hour or so is very tense and again, very claustrophobic, so it did satisfy me with regards to sticking fairly close to the original's winning formula. Unfortunately where this film failed though was that we'd been there before and seen what is down there, so the whole unknown territory and unexpected horrors that made the first film so shocking was taken away somewhat as there was no real surprises or twists that I didn't see coming. Another thing that made me knock a few stars off (like with many horror sequels) is that the characters from the previous film now appear to be experts on the monsters, even though they had only been in their presence for a few minutes previously and only a day has supposed to have passed. Juno's characters was particularly bad to the point where I actually laughed out loud as she is become some Lara Croft-like action hero overnight, removing a lot of the realism the original had. The monsters are seen a lot more too and are the main focus of the storyline, rather than it being more about surviving in the caves. The ending annoyed me a lot too as it was how it ended was completely unnecessary didn't really make much sense.
I know this sounds like more of a rant than a review, but I think I'm just disappointed at how this is has turned into a fairly generic horror film, which is a shame as the first film felt so original and set a new standard, whereas this is nothing different from any other monster movie really. It's worth a watch if you're a fan of the original but is nowhere near as good so just don't expect anything special here."
THE DESCENT in the wrong direction.
Saint Thomas | Kent, Ohio | 04/29/2010
(3 out of 5 stars)
"I really hate to say this but THE DESCENT : PART 2 rather disappointed me. I'm such a huge fan of the first movie for a number of reasons. One of them being because it came out during a time period (2005) where I thought Horror was finally starting to make a reasonable come back. I'm talking about a come back from the likes of SCREAM and other lame, trendy Slasher movies from the mid to late 90's. The "trial period" of this later scene in the early 2000's had come and gone with enjoyable films such as JEEPERS CREEPERS, FREDDY vs. JASON and WRONG TURN, ushering us into what I thought was the peak of the major come back. Horror movies like HOSTEL and SAW were now winning audiences over, and top notch remakes such as DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE HILLS HAVE EYES and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE seemed to be the next wave. In my humble opinion, the mid 2000's were a great time for Horror.
The reason why I liked THE DESCENT so much was because of it's original execution and realistic view point. The director Neil Marshall (who made DOG SOLDIERS and DOOMSDAY) crafted an almost perfect Horror movie. It was dark, brooding and above all, very scary! I also loved the entirely female cast, something that became lost with this sequel. Another thing I liked about the original film was the use of gritty camera work, atmospheric lens colors and "cult movie" like execution. It was a smart film, but heavily rooted in all it's gory Horror movie goodness! THE DESCENT evoked memories of "giallo" Horror from the likes of Dario Argento and Lucio Fulci.
After I watched THE DESCENT for the first time, I knew it was a good Horror movie. Now, it's considered one of my favorites from the time period. I anticipated a sequel and actually wanted to see one come to be. I thought the idea of the first movie could carry over into a coherent second film. I liked the grim way the "directors cut" version of the first movie ended, but I still thought they could make a passable sequel if they wanted to. After all, that was the "unrated" ending. Naturally I went online at the time and persued information about it for many years before it became an actuality. Here we are, 2010 with what I was hoping for all along. Now that I've seen the sequel, I find myself thinking that THE DESCENT would have been much better off as a single film.
First, let's talk about the story. Things pick right up after the ending of the R rated verion. Sarah escapes the caves, runs screaming into someone on a near by street and is immediately hospitalized. After the doctors have a look at her, they realize that she's not injured (despite having amnesia about what happend) but covered in someone else's blood. This leads the local police to doubt her claims of not remembering anything and the wereabouts of her missings friends. It's an okay idea for a sequel had the director gone about it in a better way.
One of my biggest complaints about THE DESCENT : PART 2 is the lack of style. Gone are the moody and dark caves, instead everything seems to be pretty well lit. The camera angles are all rudimentary, giving the over all movie a cheap and thoughtless look. It would have been much better if they left a lot of the caves, monsters and over all sense of claustrophobia in the shadows. The monsters still look cool but the camera focuses on them in very immature and unsavory ways. They just seemed to be placed there in front of the camera for the sake of Horror. As if the make-up alone is supposed to scare the viewers.
Good Horror directors know that creepy music, lighting, lens color and creative camera work really helps "sell" your idea to the audience. With all the bright lighting and straight forward camera work here, the over all effect from the first movie is lost from the moment this sequel starts up. It's really a shame that Neil Marshall didn't step in to do this film. With his personal touch, this might have turned out to be an okay experience.
With all the negative things I'm saying about this movie, you would think it's totally an awful film. That isn't true. On the contrary, THE DESCENT : PART 2 is actually a pretty competent movie. The acting, production and cast are handled professionally. All the actors seem to be into the story line and it shows in their skills. Some of the characters are unlikeable from the get go (the Sheriff for example) and they never seemed to gain my sympathy through the rest of the film. In cases such as this, I just simply didn't like the casting. It was nice seeing the two girls from the first movie here again, but thats about it compared to the rest of the weaker (and more unlikeable) cast members. Even Juno this time around seemed rather restrained, like she couldn't think of anything to say. She hardly had any lines at all. Also, if you think about it, how the heck is she even alive at all!?! After the events of the first movie, you just knew she was getting what she deserved in the end! Did we really need her back in this sequel? Things could have been fine if the writers just had her dead like the rest of her friends.
Gore wise, I have to give this movie some credit there too. Considering this movie is only rated R, it really doesn't pull any punches in terms of the blood shed. People are chopped, hacked and crushed to death in every single way imaginable. Although a lot of the more graphic violence here seems to be done on the monsters, despite most of the cast ends up dead. Maybe the MPAA see's "creature violence" as less offensive (thus the R rating) than human beings getting eaten alive. These bloody moments seemed like a breath of fresh air in an otherwise straight forward sequel if you ask me. Gore Hounds, check it out for nasty scenes of cave dwelling cannibalism! It might be "in your face" with the camera work, but at least the gore makes up for that. Sometimes a Horror movie can be too dark, hiding a lot of the more bloody scenes. Thats not the case with THE DESCENT : PART 2! It would have been nice to see the director take it into the unrated territory, but I think that might have been mainly due to budget restrictions. Who knows really?
Anyways, what could have been a great sequel will just be considered garbage by the masses. It's not a horrible movie by far if you give it a chance and some parts are just down right enjoyable. Most people will realize it's not as good as the original film (which it's not) and just brush it off without a second thought. It's how Horror movies (and series) come and go in this ever fickle scene. If you don't "wow" people with it right off the bat, you lose plain and simple. It's sad really because sequels actually can be a good thing if they're well done. Just watch HOSTEL II or SAW II for good examples of sequels done right.
I just hope there aren't anymore in THE DESCENT series. The first is the best out of the two. The second is only for people who loved the original movie and wanted more, such as myself. The ending of this movie (awful as it is) sets up the idea for a third sequel, but I hope they don't go through with it. Not if the director isn't going to use good camera work, colorful lenses and better ideas. Without giving away the whole ending on this site, it kinda' reminded me of how some of the WRONG TURN movies ended. It was a rather unnecessary move if you ask me. They should have thought of something a little cooler than the one they went with. You have to see it to know what I mean.