The Movie Diorama 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.

lindarctica This movie gets a lot of negative reviews, because i think people expect a wrong kind of movie. Yes the emotional shots linger a bit too long here and some characters you just want to smack in the face for just being a one-dimensional dick but that are honestly the only flaws i can find. Some movies use certain devices to sell a story, like more focus on the action instead of character build up, some use more emotion and less suspensefull scenes, some use it all, and those are mostly classified as a masterpiece. But not every movie has every device covered, and that's ok. This one is propelled by the intense feel of claustophobia, tension, excitement and suspense. Sure it lacks on the other departments a bit but that is not what holds this movie together. What it's not good at, meh, it wasn;t meant to be it;s selling point anyway. But what ths movie does best - it does so with grace, and that is keeping you to the edge of your seat! Highly reccomend people who suffer from claustrophobia or fear of drowning to skip this movie, because every scene only feeds that anxiety. If you don't have these fears yet, believe me, you will get a good taste of it.

eric262003 "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

alain-leccia I remember watching this movie with my mom in our small town theater. It was in 3D, we didn't know much besides that - only that it was about discovery and danger, and that James Cameron produced it. I honestly wasn't expecting something this visceral and scary and wonderful. The 3D was beautiful and really immersive - for 2009, it's truly amazing - and the directing is just perfect. This movie was a huge surprise but something that I do not want to watch again, and here's why: this movie was a cinematic experience and I do not think I will enjoy the movie as much on a 2D television. If you really want to watch this great motion picture, you'll need a great 3D TV and, not being an owner of one, I don't know if there's one capable of the same abilities a theater has. It's a ride. Imagine the space-mountain, but as a movie about claustrophobia and underground discoveries - here you know what Sanctum is. And this is why I think this movie got some bad reviews : because I think many of the people who watched it didn't watch as it should have been seen. It's like experiencing a Ferrari but without driving, you don't get all of the adrenaline and feelings. So here's my advice : if you have an amazing 3D television, buy the 3D Blu-ray and watch this movie. If you don't, wait until you get one to see it because honestly, it's worth it. And don't spoil yourself the movie, keep the surprise 'til the end, don't try to know what the movie really is about!