« Thundercats film trailer online | Filmstalker | The Birds remake continues »


Descent 2 reasoning revealed

TheDescent2.jpgIt's hard to understand, well from my point of view anyway, why anyone would want to do a sequel to The Descent (Filmstalker review), but the sequel goes forward none the less with Neil Marshall producing, Jon Harris (the editor from the first film) directing, and a script from James Watkins who wrote Eden Lake, a very promising sign.

Well that promising sign begins to ebb away a little when I read the words from the writer about the story and why they wanted to make it.

"What I think Jon and I wanted to pursue with the sequel, with D2, was we wanted to make a movie that kind of had all the best elements, or what we thought were the best elements of the first film. For us, it was the real primal fear."

A film that had all the best elements of the first film? I have to wonder just how many bad elements there were and what was the real need to remake the film to pull those good elements out.

I really don't think that Descent was bad enough to warrant a film that pulled out all the good bits and essentially remade it, that would be better suited to something like Death Race.

However to give him his dues in the comments he gives over at AITH he says:

"For example, the claustrophobia, the couple of scenes that we just said, 'Okay, we have that scene in the first film with claustrophobia. How can we take that and just make it a whole lot bigger and scarier?' There is one that involves water and it's just terrifying...

...you need the monsters and they are there and are terrific, we had a bit more money this time to really emphasis them and make them good. Obviously they're still in the shadows."

Well the best elements do seem to be getting captured there, and it does genuinely sound as though they are going for something bigger and better, even if Watkins doesn't reveal too much.

Maybe my faith in this sequel is being restored a little, but what it has to do above anything is that it has to deliver something different than the first, not just more of the same, even if it is bigger and better. So far we've only heard of more of the same and that's my concern.



I disagree. The first film was excellent, especially the first half, which brilliantly conveyed the clausterphobic nature of cave dwelling. I thought this was a terrific film from beginning to end. I'm curious as to what you consider good horror?

Jeff you've totally misunderstood - and you haven't read my linked review in the first paragraph - I loved The Descent, that's why I can't see there's a need for a sequel, the first works so well!


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34