Watch Sanctum For Free

Load of rubbish!!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Boring

A Major Disappointment

"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

Such a great movie!to be honest, I never expected this! I just thought it wasn't going to be a good movie... at all. But when the movie began to play, i just got drowned into this! The way everything is filmed and brought up, I never saw that coming...David Cameron, along with his crew, did a great job here!I also liked the actors and the relations, the drama...The somehow strange relation between Frank and Carl, as well as the way Carl is acting towards everyone, just amazing...Everyone's strength and willingness to secure the lives of those around them, so special, so emotional...Great job guys

Sanctum (2011): Dir: Alister Grierson / Cast: Richard Roxburgh, Rhys Wakefield, Ioan Gruffudd, Alice Parkinson, Daniel Wyllie: Overbearing and increasingly horrid cave diving film that uses the 3D gimmick to exhausted failure. It stars a host of little known actors who are introduced quickly before diving into the largest cave in the world. From there the place floods with a storm being no help to their quest. What is truly unfortunate is how this film claims to be inspired by true events yet it relies on stupid thriller clichés that mount towards one survivor. Director Alister Grierson does his best with the watery visuals and an overlong tunnel of caves but the cast do little more than shout over loud noise and die in accidents that might have been prevented had an common sense been used. Among the cast is Richard Roxburgh as the experienced explorer whom spends much time being right and fending off arguments. Rhys Wakefield plays his son who is an experienced climber. He spends much of the film arguing with his father and having to prove himself. This bickering is not half as entertaining as an episode of Jerry Springer. Ioan Gruffudd plays some outsider who takes video and pictures but how the screenplay handles his fate is total thriller bullshit. This all feels staged and phony from a narrative standpoint. Other characters are about as dull as the folks narrating their activities on fishing shows. Then there is the huge marketing regarding James Cameron as executive producer. It isn't like he directed it. Had he directed it then perhaps it might not have turned out to be the total toilet waste fiasco that it is. Score: 2 / 10

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