"Sanctum" review by Ben Kenber

“Sanctum” comes to us with James Cameron’s name screamed at us through all the credits, and it utilizes the same 3D photography techniques he used on “Avatar.” With all that put forth, it feels all the more exciting to go out and see this one. But know this, while it features one of his favorite past times (scuba diving), Cameron didn’t write or direct it. Now I know a lot of “Avatar” haters out there who may see that as a good thing, but it isn’t.

“Sanctum” is not all that exciting, and it is absolutely waterlogged with a wealth of clichés making it indistinguishable from so many other flicks we’ve seen. On top of that, it proves to be a perfectly good waste of an extra dimension, and makes you want to see the overuse of 3D become forever extinct. You’re probably not expecting a great movie out of this, but even lowered expectations will not make it all that more entertaining.

This is yet another one of those darn movies that was “inspired by true events” or “based on a true story.” OH COME ON, ENOUGH ALREADY!!! “Sanctum” would have seemed more effective were that not even mentioned. If you’ve been reading my reviews, then you know just how much I can’t stand the term “based on a true story” or any other resembling it. It is said that the story was based on co-writer Andrew Wight’s near-death experience leading a diving expedition into underwater caves, then having to find a way out when a freak storm collapsed the entrance. But everyone involved in that survived, and the story here is structured to where we know full well that won’t be the case.

But the real insult is when I sat through the end credits which stated that the events, characters, and places used were “fictitious” and that any similarity to persons living or dead is purely “coincidental. You don’t say! Once again, what’s the point of saying this is “inspired by true events”?!

Anyway, “Sanctum” revolves around a team of divers searching through an unexplored cave in Australia which is not particularly accessible. Leading the team is Frank McGuire (Richard Roxburgh), the master of all sea divers who is of course married more to his work than he is to his own family. With him are his estranged 17-year old son Josh (Rhys Wakefield), the cocky millionaire dude Carl (Ioan Gruffudd) and his very hot and no nonsense girlfriend Victoria (Alice Parkinson). There’s also a bunch of other divers and techies around to share their wisdom to the young Josh when his father appears emotionally absent.

Then suddenly a tropical storm descends right over them turning into a cyclone, and it floods the cave to where their way out is completely closed off. Their only option is to go deeper into the cave to find another way out.

Now with the way the characters are set up, you’ll have a very good idea of just how predictable this will all be. With Frank and Josh, you have the typical father, son relationship where the father is emotionally distant and the son is deeply resentful of the way he treats him. But you know that this disaster is only going to bring them closer together than before, and it’s a bitch that it takes as long as it does for the father to open up. The character of Frank is such a humorless bastard who treats his son like an employee more than anything else, and I kept waiting for Josh to punch him in the face. With all the other team members telling him to “give the kid a break,” you’d figure Frank would pick up on that a bit more quickly.

Richard Roxburgh who plays Frank is a terrific actor, but his work in movies like “Moulin Rouge” is a far better example of what he can pull off.

Ioan Gruffudd has the misfortune of playing the rich jerk that we all want to see die, and the script does nothing more than have him do all the stupid things a stereotypical jerk does. He’s the one who symbolizes how money can’t buy everything, especially safe passage through an underwater cave. All this presented to you by one of many film studios looking to make as big a profit off their releases as humanly possible.

Alice Parkinson’s character of Victoria is the most interesting one in this film. While the men seem bland in comparison, she holds her own and doesn’t back away from a challenge no matter how unprepared she is for it. Too bad her character is undone by dialogue that his her spitting out sound bytes more than speaking like a regular human being.

Actually, that’s the biggest problem I have with “Sanctum” overall; everyone speaks in banal clichés to where they barely register as humans we can relate to. I remember having this same issue with Wolfgang Petersen’s “Poseidon” when it came out. Both movies have strong premises that hold much promise, and each has the special effects to pull them off. But they end up becoming undone by screenplays filled with characters going through all too familiar situations which makes one wonder if history has taught us anything worth remembering. “Poseidon” ended up playing more like a sitcom than an adventure/disaster film whereas “Sanctum” plays more like an average episode of “Sea Quest.”

Also, there’s too much damn foreshadowing going on here. You can tell when someone is about to get killed, and this all but destroys what could have been a truly suspenseful motion picture. The underwater footage shot here does look pretty cool, but I never really felt any impending sense of danger these characters got caught up in. I wanted to feel that. Heck, I wanted to experience “Sanctum” more than just watch it.

Director Alister Grierson along with writers John Garvin and Andrew Wight should have taken a lot more pointers from James Cameron other than his method of 3D filmmaking. Look, Cameron’s dialogue shows him to be no Tarantino, but he still creates characters we come to care about and elicits excellent performances from each actor. With “The Abyss,” you got a real sense of the danger of scuba diving and of how easily things could go wrong. “Sanctum” should have felt like that too, but it never does.

Then there’s the issue of 3D I must address. With this film, I went in thinking that this would be one of the best examples of the format. It turned out to be the exact opposite as the extra dimension just made the images seem way too dark. I kept wanting to take my 3D glasses off because the darkness of the picture was really irritating the hell out of me. If there is a 2D version of “Sanctum” playing near you, then you’re better off watching it that way (assuming you still want to after reading this review). Heck, “Piranha 3D” looked much better than this, and that was converted into 3D after the fact!

Seriously, there’s no real reason for “Sanctum” to be in 3D. I can’t think of a single moment where the format was fully utilized, and I came out of it thinking that it was a waste of an extra dimension. This movie would have benefitted more from a strong surround sound mix than 3D, and it would have made it a slightly more immersive experience.

There’s not much else I can say about “Sanctum” other than it being a wasted opportunity to make an incredibly exciting underwater movie. You want to see an exciting movie about cave exploring? Check out Neil Marshall’s “The Descent.” The characters in that one don’t go underwater (not all of them anyway), but it’s kind of the same deal with monsters thrown in for good measure.

2D version: *½ out of ****

3D version: ½* out of ****