Neil Marshall's flawed opus

Rating: 8/10 (11 June 2016)

I remember this movie quite well; partially, i remember it because myself and 2 others dropped ecstasy before going into the cinema (sidenote: unless you want to laugh your tits off watching an otherwise scary movie, i don't recommend that course of action. It's fun, but the rest of the audience will hate you).
The preliminary setup to the horrifying predicament that the characters find themselves in is formulaic. It's one of those setups that frustrates the audience with face-palm moments and sets up one of the ensemble as the unlikable outsider. It introduces the central character with an event that should be horrific in itself (albeit, as i was off my face, it was slightly startling, transitioning to comical:'that'll teach her to distract the driver!' said one of my friends). The human failure that leads to the horror will feel instantly familiar to anyone who has ever watched more than one standard horror film or read more than one horror novel. It isn't ineffective, it's just one of those moments that makes you think: 'oh, here we go...'
For me the problem was that the entire cast (coincidentally all female) ranged from indifferent to grating. You're clearly supposed to care about the consequences of the tragic opening sequence, as well as the conflict that results within the group from said tragedy; personally however, i found it relatively uninteresting and uninspired. Even as the horror began to unfold (and it is genuinely horrifying) i never felt truly invested in any of the characters. Clearly, Marshall's intention was to present a strong female character in the same vein as Siguerney Weavers Ellen Ripley, while at the same time exploring a new perspective to his movies by using a female ensemble, after having presented an almost all male ensemble in 'dog soldiers'. His cast in 'the descent' are intended to be shaped in very much the same mould, ergo they are strong, capable and confident until presented with a situation which they are completely unprepared for. The problem with 'dog soldiers' was that the cast were cartoonish stereotypes lifted from a 12 year old's fantasy, who managed, thanks to competent acting, to breathe life into the characters and overcome the insulting cliché (besides demonstrating absolutely appalling soldiery and breaking nearly every rule in the book); by comparison, the cast of 'the descent' do not look like stereotypes (albeit this could be the result of a lack of female ensemble casts in heroic roles); they seem very credible as can-do adventure athletes and adrenaline-junkies. They come across as relatively well constructed and considered characters and even their obvious character flaws add strength to their believability (something the 'dog soldiers'patently lacked in my opinion). Unfortunately i never found myself emotionally invested in any of them.
Marshall is genuinely capable of generating an effective, primal sense of horror, primarily through his use of the environment; this is possibly the best example of his skill. From almost the outset, darkness and claustrophobia produce a palpable sense of tension and dread that imposes on the audience even before the interaction with the actual horror element. Personally, i found the monstrosities of 'the descent' far more ominous than those of 'dog soldiers'. I mean, there is only so much believability to bipedal canines; evolved troglodytes however seem so much more disturbing conceptually, if only because they are unfamiliar to us and seem just a tiny bit more plausible. Crucially, the sense of horror is magnified by the sense of futility and inescapable doom, something that the situational environment enhances very well in this case. A good comparison is 'the cave', a Hollywood film with a much larger budget and better known cast, and which was released the same year. That film squandered what genuine opportunities it had generate authentic tension and horror and wasted its considerable resources to create an epic borefest. It was an example of essentially the same idea executed with 'all the gear, and no idea'.
Marshall is a self-confessed cinema geek, and this movie illustrates that trait better than possibly any of his portfolio before or since. The film presents a series of subtle references to other movies which, amazingly, work well both to stimulate the observant and relieve the tension. The references are subtle and well executed, and add a level of charm to the film as a whole. They are also largely unexpected in this sort of film, and although fan-service is much more standardised in mainstream cinema as of this point in time, it feels quite original when remembering that this film was released in '05.
The climax to this film is something i feel ambivalent about, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I personally don't ascribe the presumption of a dutiful, crowd-pleasing conclusion to a horror film, although some execute it better than others. Gut-punch endings in horror films can be both effective and satisfying (those who have seen darabonts 'the mist' know what i am talking about). This movie doesn't really come down in either camp. The ending feels inconclusive, which is possibly intentional; however, it doesn't entirely feel satisfying either. This is slightly galling because it seems to lead towards a conclusive closure and then leaves you with what feels like a strange species of cliff-hanger. Not quite the gut-punch, but not quite the rose garden either.
This movie is genuinely horrifying in a way that few are. It is telling to me that neil Marshall has floundered in trying to replicate the effectiveness of this film in his later outtings. It is not perfect, but as a pure horror film it is possibly the closest that Marshall will ever come and a lot closer than many better known director have ever or will ever come.