I've found the best way to search for movie threads is to go to advanced search, type the name of the movie within quotes, and click the "Search Titles Only" option. Always works for me.

Yep, three seconds and all 20 'red dragon' threads show up.

Basic internet search defaults fail Lemmy.

I never heard of this movie until I blind bought it at Best Buy when it came out on DVD.

It wasn't exactly a blockbuster being an English horror flick. It made $26M in the U.S. But yeah those who did see it mostly enjoyed it including myself.

I've known about it since...well since I saw the trailer around the time it was close to release. It's not unbelievable to not have heard of the film or to see it late. I'm not a horror fan...there's a lot of crap in it, genre wise. I never paid attention to it till some of you guys talked about it, in a thead I was roaming around in, in October I think. And well it was cheap on Amazon so I bought it. And I really enjoyed it.

I thought the film was great until the beast people showed up...Overall, still a good horror flick.

The Descent is an excellent horror movie.
Why the hell isn't the sequel available on Blu-Ray? That's what I wanna know.

My post from the other thread:

I bought the UK DVD when it first came out and really regretted the decision. Dead Set is Britain's true horror achievement from the 2000's.

It's probably for the best. Although it had a few cool moments (mainly because they echoed the first film), the sequel was a terrible film, with all-around uninteresting characters, and added nothing of value. I still love the first film though.

Like I posted, better late than never. Horror is no different from anything else when it comes to the amount of crap within though. Every genre there is has a ton of crap films.

Same here. It's not very often that a movie makes me actually feel something, and I was genuinely uncomfortable throughout the first part. Once the monsters showed up, it turned into every other horror movie, for me. I still enjoyed the rest, but wasn't near as happy as I was at the beginning.

Love this film.

My girlfriend and I got to see it in theaters. Lucky for us the entire audience seemed to love it.

I think it's one of the best horror films of the last decade, and certainly the best of its year. Marshall has an obvious love for all things Carpenter, and this film is a perfect homage to my favorite film, The Thing. Even some of the music cues have a distinctly similar feel. And the sense of claustrophobia he creates feels much like early Carpenter.

That's why you gotta put the title in italics. That'll give you the 20 threads.

And now back to The Descent.

Just watched this for the first time. Totally sucked ass.

I couldn't tell the characters apart. I didn't give a shit about any of them. Every character mumbled and I only caught every third word (nothing to do with the accents). 95% of it was too dark and I couldn't see anything. The ADHD cuts and editing just made me mad by the end. The creatures were stupid and boring. Every horror cliche known to man was in this movie. Relied almost entirely on "jump scares" and it was the same jump scare over and over. I honestly can't believe the "bat jump scare" was used twice in less than 5 minutes. And the "creature hanging upside down waiting to grab somebody" scare? Come on. I could go on and on but what's the point. Why is this piece of shit so highly regarded?

Hint: the "scares" aren't why it's so highly regarded.

Why is it so highly regarded?

The claustrophobic elements are the only things that completely worked for me. Granted, it was competently directed, but the characters were forgettable, the film didn't resonate with me and the whole affair was just kind of 'eh'. Not a bad film, but certainly not worthy of the over the top praise it received.

To be fair, it's been a few years...perhaps I need to revisit this.

It's been a while since I watched it as well, but it seemed like a lot of the attention the film received revolved around the psychological aspects of the story, and the fact that pretty much all of the characters are women.

I can tell you that the film has already become a staple of any scholarly criticism or university courses that focus in any way on women in horror films, particularly the "final girl" tradition.

I'd seen this DVD in the bargain bin at Walmart for quite awhile but held off buying it because I don't typically blind buy movies. Based on positive reviews I finally picked it up (not at Walmart) and somehow got ahold of a 2-disc SE of the Original Unrated Cut. My wife & I watched it one evening and both of us were pleasantly creeped out by it. I love horror movies that are well done, and this movie was definitely well done. Claustrophobic, creepy, ugly creatures, it all came together for us to create a genuinely horrific movie.

4 out of 5 stars from me... -kd5-

watch it on BD.

In other words: "If it was a different movie, then people would see it my way."

Do people who come up with these "hypotheticals" that "explain" why they didn't like a film as much as other people think they've actually said something revealing or intelligent about the film or its fans? They make statements like "if this had been directed by someone else" or "if the lead actor had been different" or "if it were a big blockbuster" then "no one would have liked it as much." I think the implication is supposed to be that the fans of the film were too biased or "blinded" by a specific element to notice the film's "problems." It's condescending to the fans, who, unlike the person making the claim, are unable to see the film objectively and "as it really is." Of course, such statements are really just meaningless - because all they're really saying is "if it weren't for certain defining elements that make the film what it is then people would have reacted differently to it." Which is completely obvious, and therefore kind of a pointless observation.

For the record, I was fairly ambivalent about "The Descent," but that doesn't change the fact that such "what if" scenarios are really stupid.