Quote:
Originally posted by joshaube
Hm.
Can you really count The Descent as a 2006 film? I wouldn't. It definately is in the top of 2005 though.
I wouldn't say it was GORIER then The Hills Have Eyes (unrated) either. Definately not.
Orginal, well... I don't know. Probably. There is The Cave. And I have heard that there was a similiar movie made a few years back also. Not 1:1 similiar, but neither is THHE 1:1 to the original.
Better might fit. But I liked both very much, and I'd have a problem picking between the two, personally.
Of course the plots for either aren't THAT complex. The Descent does win by a bit by giving us a sense of background on the characters. But both are, underneath, just paths so characters can die.
Direction wise, both are pretty superior to most directors. I really, definately, couldn't pick between the two.
I'd say if you're a more "mature", "intellectual" watcher... you'd probably prefer The Descent.
This is just my opinion, as everyone has theirs.
|
A) In America, where I live, The Descent wasn't released until 2006. Therefore, I consider it a 2006 movie.
B) It was gorier than 'Hills'. They gouge a thing's eyes out in 'Descent'.
C) It was original. At least more original than 'Hills', which was a remake, for chrissake.