MovieChat Forums > Sanctum (2011) Discussion > Don't deserve the Low rating at all........

Don't deserve the Low rating at all.......

posted 12 years ago by Don_Falone1985
16 replies | jump to latest

I'm glad i didn't listen to the majority of you in here otherwise i would of missed out on a pretty decent movie. Now before anyone questions my movie choice i just want to point out my favourite movies of all time are ' The Godfathers part 1 and 2 , " the good, the bad and the ugly" and " Goodfellas" So in other words, i have a liking for top quality movies. Was this movie top quality? Hell no!! Was it a really good thrill ride, well paced and did it keep me entertained? Hell yes!!! Yes some of the acting was a bit off key at times but i honestly really enjoyed this movie and so did my girlfriend. I just couldn't believe the low rating it got on here because it certainly don't deserve the negatvity it gets. Anyone else enjoy it like i did?

[–] annjardin 12 years ago

I totally agree. I gave it a nine. I do admit that you must see it twice to really appreciate it. The first time it was chaotic, I could not get the accents and I did not understand Frank's motives. The second time I absolutely got it and I just loved the emotional pull it had. I almost cried at the end. It gets a bad rap and it does not deserve it. It is a pretty decent adventure flick. I am glad I spent the time!

Ann Jardin

[–] DurakSuka 9 years ago

You're an American, aren't you? God help the poor Americans.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

[–] fedilio 12 years ago

Agreed, I love this movie, gave it an 8.

[–] Furiousfury 11 years ago

True. Not a bad movie at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpvcfv5FjfE&feature=related

[–] leishayoung 11 years ago

Thanks guys,I haven't seen it but I am more willing to accept your balanced opinion of the film and will check it out.

Sometimes 'non-conventional' films that don't adhere to the Hollywood cliche can lead people to think that a film is bad. Is that what is happening with this film?

I'm interested to hear your interpretations about why people don't seem to like it.

BTW, I will be checking this film out because of your collective comments because they sound objective...thanks!

[–] Riotboy-1 11 years ago

I agree. This movie was quite entertaining with some chilling death scenes. Maybe people were expecting monsters or something so they gave it a low rating. 7/10

Look at the night sky, where does it end?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] clacton0 10 years ago

Just seen this film and it was OK.
I gave it a 4 out of 10.
As it was a bit long.
Its funny reading this board users saying they are British when in fact there Australian in the movie LOL.
I guess they don't have Neighbours or Home & Away soaps.

www.youtube.com/eastangliauk

[–] tommot-821-930383 10 years ago

The biggest problem, for me, with the movie was having the name "James Cameron" shoved in my face.

That sets the bar entirely too high.

If it had been exclusively an Australian film (WTF did the British thing come from? ) then I'd probably have enjoyed it a bit more.

As it was, it seemed stuck in limbo between an indie movie and a blockbuster.

[–] Obnoxiously-Adorable 10 years ago

OMG. Me too.

Holy shít, me too.

´¨*¨)) -:¦:-
¸.•´ .•´¨*¨))
((¸¸.•´ .•´ -:¦:-
-:¦:-Oooh, sparkly!

[–] Ixnatifual 10 years ago

Just saw it and really liked it. Gave it a 7.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] squicker 10 years ago

The key problem with the film is the characters are ill thought out and do not act within their own logic: Mountaineer oblivious to lethal hypothermia risk, survivalist father asking to be killed rather than try to survive, his own son killing him yet finding help 15 mins later.

These weak characters and constant inconsistencies drag you out of the film.

Some atmospheric camera work can't overcome big problems like this.

[–] aliasbrush 8 years ago

^And this illustrates precisely why people give it a low rating; they're so used to OTT run-on-the-mill cliche pop culture movies that they have no clue about realism.

I'll just take one example.

survivalist father asking to be killed rather than try to survive

That survivalist father had punctured his lungs and was essentially drowning in his own blood. His chances of making it out were not one in a hundred or even one in a million. He was already dead and waiting for it to come. Just like he'd done earlier in the film to another member of his crew who had zero chance of survival, he wanted a quick death to ease his suffering and give the rest of the team a chance of moving on without delay. How is that inconsistent?

It's a miracle his son made it out at all. What do you think his odds were if he wasted energy and the limited oxygen he had dragging his father's dying body? They were a big fat ZERO. They BOTH would have died.

Okay, this too...

his own son killing him yet finding help 15 mins later.

Um, it was more like several hours. You do know that movies don't follow a strict real-time basis don't you? The son carried on alone enough for his light to run out and to use up all his oxygen. And how on earth was he gonna do half the stuff he was doing to survive carrying his father's dead weight?

I'm sorry there weren't more monsters and explosions in this movie for you, but I really enjoyed it. It was a tense and realistic movie... a rarity these days.

[–] kaze (349) 5 years ago

no. this film is a piece of crap.