Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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

Paul Magne Haakonsen I hadn't expected too much from "Sanctum", given the synopsis of the movie. And I had anticipated it to be just another spelunking movie, which it turned out to be. Sure the movie was filmed nicely, but it just turned out to be a mediocre and predictable movie.The story is about a group of people exploring an uncharted subterranean cavern when a massive storm leaves them trapped in an unmapped cavern that is rapidly flooding. With no help from the surface, the people have to find a way out by their own; but with the water rising, batteries running out and air tanks running low it becomes a desperate race against time.The acting was alright and people were doing good jobs with their individual roles and characters. It was Richard Roxburgh who carried the weight of the entire movie.The music was a real strain to the movie and to the overall enjoyment. Why? Well, because it was too forced at trying to be grandiose and epic, and also because it was way too loud compared to the sound and dialogue."Sanctum" wasn't memorable in any way, and it didn't leave any lasting impression.

Pete Alen An underrated film.Ratings and reviews on this film which I find credible are ones written by people who dive themselves and perhaps know something about cave diving too, people who have seen the film in a proper theatre in 3D and understand this is an action and thriller film, fictive but still based on actual crisis scenarios in cave diving. As such it is one of a kind and very well done as such.In the darkness and sound systems of the theatre my company was very immersed into the whole experience of the film. My son and I were also emotionally moved, especially by the ending scenes because we as diving hobbyists know we might have to face situations with similarity. Situations may become complicated because of diving technicalities and sometimes hard choices have to be made as so many incidents have shown, last case being the finnish cave divers deaths in Norway's Plurdalen 2014.While some review writers complain about characters and character development I think it is irrelevant in this case. "One does not go diving to be engaged in discussions of people's relations and emotional life, even though strong emotions have to be taken into account and can arise while diving. The place for that talk is afterwards, either at the bar or at the funeral gathering", as I've heard someone comment.If you are interested in seeing the film then keep in mind that the movie is not meant to be seen on a TV-screen or in a regular space with lighting and sound not being suitable, so it's just regrettable if one hasn't the chance to see it on the big screen.

Spikeopath Much was made during the publicity and promotion for Sanctum of James Cameron's name being attached, understandably so. Sanctum is what it is, a glossy exercise in 3D film making, a disaster movie awash with clichés and contrivances, a picture that's narrative drive comes from following a well worn formula in this particular sphere of genre film making. Is it fun? Thrilling? Oh absolutely! The effects work is super at times, the scenery equally so, whilst some of the set pieces are dynamite. If you can get past the cheese and cliché buffet bar then there's a whole bunch of tasty treats to be sampled down in those dark and dingy cave formations…It's directed by Alister Grierson but in truth this is a Cameron movie, and with that comes the fact that it's the best and worst of Cameron. Take that as you will… 6.5/10