criterionforum.org

Posted: **Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:31 pm**

Welcome back Lino!

Click on the youtube link in the first post. Inside the car right after the woman turning to discover her "dead" friend unexpectedly at her side, a quick close up of her eyes. Then closing credits. That's how the US version ends.

Posted: **Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:39 pm**

So, he hasn't really added anything new then? I was under the impression that the director shot new scenes?

Oh, and thanks!

Posted: **Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:27 pm**

caught this one last night and am i ever glad i did. sure, it might not be original. it follows all the rules of a classically executed horror movie, but that is enough for me these days. highly effective and a lot of (nerve racking) fun. for every thing it does right, all the faux jump scares and juno becoming a cave-creature slayer are easily overlooked. Speaking of jump scare, this movie has the most effective jump scare that completely pays off.

i'm sure someone has mentioned this, but, for my part, i actually felt that the cave creatures were a relief from the horrible claustrophobia. i've never bounced my knee so much when watching a film. i also appreciated how they didn't play up the cave creatures early on. they just happen to come across them. great stuff.

caves are creepy. definitely worth your time and money.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:36 am**

SPOILERS BELOW

I saw this tonight, and I have to agree with Matt on this though I disliked it a bit less. There were a few good scares, but I have to admit that the filmmaking was sloppy at times, particularly during the fight sequences that were particularly hard to follow. The homages to The Shining and Carrie were simplistic but they didn't really bother me.

I also have to agree that outside Sarah, I really didn't give a shit about any of the characters and the build up to the caving expedition took WAY too long especially for so little in terms of character development. Was I the only one who thought Juno was having an affair with Sarah's husband? The whole sequence of the husband helping Juno out of the water and Sarah keeping an eye on him seemed to indicate some kind of funny business but that is sort of left behind. As is the plot thread of Sarah taking some kind of unknown drugs back at the cabin.

Also, it really bothered me that the "advanced" cave dwellers couldn't feel the heat of the torches or flares. Wouldn't they have figured that out?

This had a lot of hype but I wasn't blown away at all. Serviceable at best, with few genuine scares. But I will say the gore was a lot of fun.

Finally, I thought both endings sucked. The British one made more sense, but the whole "it's all a dream" nihilistic ending doesn't particularly make it better.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:43 am**

Antoine Doinel wrote:SPOILERS BELOW
Was I the only one who thought Juno was having an affair with Sarah's husband? The whole sequence of the husband helping Juno out of the water and Sarah keeping an eye on him seemed to indicate some kind of funny business but that is sort of left behind.

I'll take it that you are being serious, although if you are you must have been reallly bored by this and not paying much attention from the offset!

SPOILERS BELOW

1. At the beginning, when Juno breaks down in the hospital it is because she has lost her lover (Sarah's husband) in the road accident.
2. This is also why she doesn't hang around in Scotland(?) long after the accident.
3. It is also why she cryptically says 'we all lost something that day' to Sarah in reference to the accident.
4. It is also why Juno has a pendant taken from her that is engraved 'love every day'. 'Love every day' is what Sarah husband used to say.
5. When Sarah finds that Juno has this pendant it is the catalyst for her killing/sacrificing Juno.
6. It is probably also why Beth(?) displays animosity towards her (generally using looks), as it is pretty clear that Beth(?) has her suspicions.

So no, you weren't the only one who noticed this. Not since it underpinned the entire film.

I hate smileys.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:05 pm**

n w wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:SPOILERS BELOW
Was I the only one who thought Juno was having an affair with Sarah's husband? The whole sequence of the husband helping Juno out of the water and Sarah keeping an eye on him seemed to indicate some kind of funny business but that is sort of left behind.
I'll take it that you are being serious, although if you are you must have been reallly bored by this and not paying much attention from the offset!

SPOILERS BELOW

1. At the beginning, when Juno breaks down in the hospital it is because she has lost her lover (Sarah's husband) in the road accident.
2. This is also why she doesn't hang around in Scotland(?) long after the accident.
3. It is also why she cryptically says 'we all lost something that day' to Sarah in reference to the accident.
4. It is also why Juno has a pendant taken from her that is engraved 'love every day'. 'Love every day' is what Sarah husband used to say.
5. When Sarah finds that Juno has this pendant it is the catalyst for her killing/sacrificing Juno.
6. It is probably also why Beth(?) displays animosity towards her (generally using looks), as it is pretty clear that Beth(?) has her suspicions.

So no, you weren't the only one who noticed this. Not since it underpinned the entire film.

I hate smileys.

Buh?! Wow, I guess I did miss a lot but it was so offhandedly conveyed.
I know Juno broke down at the hospital but it was unclear whether she crying because of her friend's loss or her own. Also, I completely missed the "Love Every Day" thing as did my girlfriend. But I cared so little for Juno either way that when her demise arrived it didn't really matter to me.

So the whole movie is a cautionary tale about infidelity? Yikes.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:31 pm**

I think your girlfriend must have been going down on you during the whole movie.

I watched this with a couple of my buddies that can't shut up during a movie and still I managed to see more of it than you did.

Offhandedly conveyed? Does that mean "not spelled out in neon lights"?

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:18 pm**

No, it just means, "shitty character development".

We don't know if Juno's affair was a one time thing or not. If the husband didn't love Sarah anymore. If Sarah still loved her husband or not. If the husband actually cared for Juno or if she was just obsessed with him. The whole "affair" was so poorly sketched out as were the relationships between the three that any emotional payoff was completely lost on me. Even if I had known the "Love Every Day" thing (which, in retrospect, adds nothing except for proving to Sarah that Juno killed one of the other girls at the bottom of the cave) the entire balance of power between Sarah, Juno and her dead husband is so underdeveloped that Sarah's "revenge" at the end of the movie is hardly satisfying.

It's one thing not to spell things out for an audience, it's completely another to underwrite the characters.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:02 pm**

IMO the characterisation was perfectly acceptable for 1h 40 min horror film about people going into a cave and getting eaten by an army of gollums. You want bad characterisation, watch Elevator to the Gallows. Makes this look like Cassavettes.

Antoine Doinel wrote:We don't know if Juno's affair was a one time thing or not. If the husband didn't love Sarah anymore. If Sarah still loved her husband or not. If the husband actually cared for Juno or if she was just obsessed with him.

Can't agree with any of these points. Gestures made between the characters tell us all we need to know

Antoine Doinel wrote:The whole "affair" was so poorly sketched out as were the relationships between the three that any emotional payoff was completely lost on me.

MMmmmm.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Even if I had known the "Love Every Day" thing (which, in retrospect, adds nothing except for proving to Sarah that Juno killed one of the other girls at the bottom of the cave) the entire balance of power between Sarah, Juno and her dead husband is so underdeveloped that Sarah's "revenge" at the end of the movie is hardly satisfying.

I don' think that it isn't supposed to be "satisfying" as such.

No point in building more meaningful responses because it seems you were asleep/heavily sedated/drunk when watching the film.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm**

Dude, I wasn't passed out. If you can tell me the details of the affair between Juno, Sarah and her husband I would love to hear it.

As for "satisfying" - I meant what I said. It's the final big kill of the movie but it seemed to go off with a whimper. Juno's dead. Who cares. She was a bitch anyway. As for Sarah, I guess she got even for her husband's philandering ways. Whatever.

For a movie about people being eaten by gollums in a cave, it spends nearly an hour of expository, ultimately useless "buildup" (the realtionships between the girlfriends - again - barely sketched out) while the rest of the film ignores key plot flaws/threads (Sarah's drug use; the inability of the advanced creatures to feel heat). I can't honestly understand all the rave reviews this is getting.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for characters worth caring about in a horror movie (or any genre film). I cared for none of these people which left me waiting for the big scares to come which never did.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:41 pm**

Probably best to agree to disagree?

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:37 pm**

Well he did admit he missed a lot of stuff.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:29 pm**

N.W.: Yes, I'll agree to disagree

Invunche: I better rephrase my "missed a lot" - I was kind of using it in jest. Of the 6 points N.W. brought up I only missed:

4. It is also why Juno has a pendant taken from her that is engraved 'love every day'. 'Love every day' is what Sarah husband used to say.

But:

5. When Sarah finds that Juno has this pendant it is the catalyst for her killing/sacrificing Juno.

Her killing Juno is also to make up for the person she killed accidentally (I forget her name).

Finally:

6. It is probably also why Beth(?) displays animosity towards her (generally using looks), as it is pretty clear that Beth(?) has her suspicions.

This pretty summarizes Marshall's approach to developing character - using vague looks by characters who may or may not suspect something.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:04 pm**

I get it. You want things spelled out. No shame in that.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:08 pm**

Lino wrote:BTW, how does the US version end, anyway? Oh, and the part about the director having to film a more logical version for its north american distribution always makes me laugh hard. Is the average IQ so low over there?

I don't believe anyone has yet responded... the North American version basically ends a few short minutes before the original ending, before the final revelation. As you can imagine, ending it there makes for a more conventional and far less dire ending, if not an entirely happy one, and also completely alters (or fails to alter) one's understanding of all that went before. Maybe the US ending is a good choice for the "twist-adverse", though from what I know of the film the original ending strikes me as the more satisfying and interesting one. Plus, I've heard the US ending actually has a rather abrupt feel to it, as though it concludes a few beats too soon.

I (unfortunately) know all this without yet having seen the film. It's not the sort of thing I'd go to the theater to see, and so I did a bit of research before purchasing the Pathe 2-disc UK release.... which arrived yesterday!

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:21 pm**

it has been addressed in the first post in this thread -- there is even a link to the original ending on youtube.com. threads: check 'em out.

Posted: **Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:41 pm**

I missed the Juno affair angle too. It seems like a waste of mental energy to look for subtleties in this sort of film.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:28 pm**

Barmy wrote:I missed the Juno affair angle too. It seems like a waste of mental energy to look for subtleties in this sort of film.

Applying a tiny amount of your brain's massive wattage might not have been a total waste had it allowed you to understand certain primary motivations and animosities between the two main characters.

However, I disagree that the "affair angle" was at all subtle. The distrust and animosity between Sarah and Juno, and the reason for it, was constantly underscored from the very first scene, and made totally explicit when Sarah was told that the pendant that Juno had was "From Paul".

I had been under the impression that the US version merely ended a minute or two before the UK version, prior to the final revelation. But it seems that if this were the case, the ending would be far too abrupt. Was there something additional filmed for the US version?

SPOILERS FOLLOW: did it end with Sarah simply driving away? Or did it go so far as when she pulled over, puked out the window, and turned to find Juno's apparition in the passenger seat? Anything different beyond that?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:42 pm**

it cut to credits right after she saw the ghost of juno.

EDIT: although it may seem like a one last scare *wink* at the audience, it is also fairly satisfying thematically, as you can infer that she will be haunted by ghosts for the rest of her life. she sees dead people.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:06 pm**

I didn't pick up on the hospital/adultery stuff when I saw it either. I was fully awake. In hindsight, I didn't understand the car accidents relevance to the story. I figured it did but that I didn't get it. I guess I need to see it again to have all the pieces fall into place. I went in with no previous info nor did I read anything online. I don't think the background stuff is clear, but I don't mind that it isn't. I like to discover things on repeated viewings. I am not a fan of horror films, per se, but I really felt this one was quite good.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:06 pm**

Applying a tiny amount of your brain's massive wattage might not have been a total waste had it allowed you to understand certain primary motivations and animosities between the two main characters.

This isn't Bergman--it's a piece of trash that I went to precisely because I wanted to check my brain at the door. I thought Sarah was pissed at Juno because (1) she didn't stay at the hospital, (2) she killed that chick and (3) she gratuitously led them into a cave with no exit that was filled with crazed Gollum mutants.

"From Paul"??? Like I would even know what the husband's name was?

My bad.

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:35 pm**

Yeah, but how can you appreciate Bergman when trivial stuff like this goes over your head?

Posted: **Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:53 pm**

I always read Ebert's review before I see a Bergman.

Posted: **Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:45 am**

The Descent offers plenty ambiguity; first off the best interpretation is the whole episode is a schizophrenic nightmare brought on by Sarah's mental breakbrown post- the tragic accident that stole the lives of hubby and daughter.

Director Marshall brilliantly but subtlely builds this fact up.

Spoiler

Point one, Sarah's awakening in the hospital blatantly eludes the fact she is susceptible to hallucinations, darkness pursues her down the hospital corridors and she is in fact wholly conscious through this episode as Becca catches and embraces her while Juno looks on.

Point two, she is taking medication in the cabin, is this some anti-depressent medication or anti-psychotic sedative or tranquilizers. Did taking this medication bring on her descent into madness or did the deprivation of this medication bring on the madness (a la she left the pills at the cabin or lost them in the cave-in)?

Point three, Sarah frequently hears her dead daughter Jessica giggling while mentally conscious and is haunted by constant nightmares about her and the accident in her sleep.

Point four, Sarah is the first one to see the crawlers.

Point five, Juno is the perfect trigger for a mentally unstable person to over the edge into insanity. Um, let's see, two jumpscares one intentional, one unintentional, learns after a second near-death episode (the cave-in) Juno has led them to an uncharted cave to enjoy caving activities with no available help alerted or people waiting on the other side.

Point six, the crawlers are characterized by contradictory fractured behavior. Like a psychological manifestation rather than a physical manifestation. In other words, delusions of a schizophrenic. Just note every time the crawlers have Sarah dead to rites, she manages to beat them, beat them back like the genuine hallucinations they are.

Point seven, Sarah screams in the blood cave the audience hears her scream, through Marshall's editing, cuts to Juno, Becca, and Sam, the fading echo of the scream is that of a crawler.

Point eight, the cake there are five candles until the final scene in the UK version where it possesses six candles. What does this mean? Five candles for five doomed cavers. Five candles until Sarah accepts her own demise in joining her daughter in death on the anniversary of the accident a year ago.

Point nine, the disappearing bones in the final scene replaced by the appearance of Jessica. Further allusion to the hyper-delusional inner-madness of Jessica. If the bones aren't real? What is?

What does this all add up to? A fantastic stylish horror film that makes the influx of PG-13 tripe look adolescent. And the performances in this film are strong, particularly from MacDonald and Mendoza. With great character development to boot.

Posted: **Tue Sep 05, 2006 3:47 pm**

Just adding a couple of elements to d1ye's roundup of facts supporting the schizo interpretation...

Spoiler

Point Two - as I recall, Sarah's medication was definitely left in the cabin, as I recall a lingering shot of the bottle sitting on her nightstand as the girls left.

Point Seven - there was also a jump cut "morph" at the moment of Sarah/the Crawler's scream where Sarah's head turned into a crawler's. I believe it's the same screen mentioned in d1ye's post (round about the 58:50 mark on the UK PAL dvd).

Also, as they were hiking to the cave, the med student sister (name?) ticked off a litany of possible psychological problems that can arise while caving, from anxiety and claustrophobia all the way to full-on hallucinations and psychosis. At this point, Sarah's weakened psychological state is foremost in our minds, and we already know from the scenes at the hospital that she's susceptible to hallucinations.

Finally, when Sarah "awakens" from her dream of escape, she is on her belly in a crawling sorta stance with one limb twisted oddly behind her back in a way that calls to mind the movements of the crawlers. I believe the director alludes to this in the commentary.

criterionforum.org

The Descent (Neil Marshall, 2005)