James Cameron's Sanctum always proves that the ex-Canadian and now Hollywood director was involved in the project. The movie focuses on beautiful and breathtaking landscapes, a lot of special and light effects and dramatic survival action. But it also contains the negative elements of his movies. The lack of originality, the complete assimilation to Hollywood standards, the extremely superficial characters and the lack of depth.

Concerning the actors, this movie might easily be his worst. The first thirty minutes of this movie were painful. The high amount of superficial, childish and predictable characters may even be too much for the thirteen year old fast food cinema maniac which explains the low rating on this site. To anybody that knows something about the history of cinema, the dialogues of the first thirty minutes or so are pretty much the worst thing I have ever read or heard since the last Ed Wood movies and they still had a certain charm, bad actors and a lack of budget. In here, all the money seems to be put into special effects but no money at all in the actors. They all should get banned from the film industry.

Why do I still give a couple of points to the movie? That's because after the thirty most horrible minutes in contemporary cinema, the story finally kicks off and delivers an entertaining survival drama. The acting gets slightly better and many dramatic events focus our interest on something else and accelerate the pace of the movie. It surely is no "Cliffhanger" but not that far away from it in the end. Technically taken, this flick is indeed very well executed in the end and kept me in front of the screen until the end. The ending of the movie is surprisingly not rubbish and stereotypical and rather short and sweet which was a positive surprise to me. Now, if they had done the same thing for the beginning, we would have had an excellent action drama with a running time around seventy-five minutes which would have risen the quality of this flick by far. As you can read, there is some potential in here as in many Cameron movies but the cheesy opening just already kills it for me.

I really suggest you watching this flick in the cinemas or in a high quality definition for the great sounds and effects and it won't work as well with the normal standards. This movie is simply focused on the honestly said superficial appearances rather than on something intellectual, profound or original.

I know that this movie has some similarities to the "Die Hard" and "Speed" classics, but that's the only negative point that I can find about this movie.

Let's talk about the great things now. The movie shows us an interesting but not overlong introduction to introduce the characters and what leads to the main story. After this, the movie doesn't take any prisoners and gives you no more break. This movie is filled with extreme action, extreme tension, extreme missions, extreme characters, extreme effects and extreme situations. Each one of the twelve rounds presents a new crazy idea and next to the action, the movie doesn't forget about the characters that are also well developed for such a kind of movie. In the end, you even have a very special twist and huge surprise and that isn't the case in many other action movies. You begin to analyze the movie from a new point of view and realize that this film is not only for the adrenaline junkies but also intellectual people.

In fact, this spectacular and intense movie is way better than recent overrated and gore adrenaline movies without any true story like "Crank". Everyone who likes action movies in general, shall not dislike this stuff.

I really have a lot of difficulties to appreciate modern movies about vampires as the "Underworld" saga, the "Nochnoy dozor: Night watch" and its sequels or the Blade saga. I'm a fan of old and sometimes even modern horror movies ("30 days of night" is a nice modern film about vampires for example) and I leak to read horror literature too, but this movie is not convincing me at all.

Wesley Sinpes plays a cool and tough guy and is doing a quite well job even though he is maybe a little bit too "gangsta" for such a movie, there are also some nice fighting and gore scenes, but this film has an important lack of horror elements, of an interesting and suspenseful story and a horrifying atmosphere.

The movie is much more an action movie with some surprising lengths in the middle of the movie (while movies as "Dead snow" or parts of the "Underworld" saga still have much more adrenaline) rather than a horror movie. I would compare this movie to the first "Matrix" movie, this one being also a wanna-be cool action movie with a pseudo science-fiction background instead of a horror background like in this one.

I give the four points for the acceptable first thirty minutes, the action effects, the style of the actors and the special acting of Wesley Snipes. I haven't seen the sequels but this one didn't give me the state of euphoria to head for the other ones at all.

I can't understand the brilliant and positive critics all around this movie. Has anyone seen the Asian action movies which Tarantion want to honour? Or is everybody thinking that one can't give an bad review to a film that has been directed by someone who has created so well received cult movies as "Reservoir dogs" or "Pulp Fiction" or who has been involved in "From dusk 'til dawn"? Well, I think that the whole story of this film is just very superficial (simple story of vengeance), has many lacks of logic (as the main actress escapes from the hospital after having been in a coma)and is mostly focused on some gore effects and exaggerated fight scenes without any Asian elegance or philosophy (the almost endless fight scene around the fountain of blood). Sometimes, I think that an aggressive teenager who likes some gore and splatter horror movies and some fight movies in the key of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jean-Claude van Damme rather that Ti Lung or David Chiang had the idea of such a movie, but not a adult who knows the whole genre and has an IQ of 160.

To really evaluate this film you might have seen the original Asian movies that inspired Quentin Tarantino. This kind of filming was an art for itself, while "Kill Bill" is just a superficial gore movie with a lot of dead people, fight scenes and wanna-be cool dialogues.

Give those Asian films a chance and forget about this silly opera of violence from a director who has done a few nice movies in the past and lives from its reputation...

First of all, I was a huge fan of the first movie of the series and the second one was much weaker, but still a quite nice and entertaining movie to me.

But this third one is just disappointing. This movie lives only from the great acting of the charismatic Johnny Depp. All other actors look really poor, silly, limited, ordinary and unnecessary next to him.

The story is quite weak, the movie way too long and it all seems to be too forced on some action elements and a showdown with some visual effects, but this is all destroying the charm of the first two movies and the originality of the first one.

I've read somewhere that there would be a fourth part. Maybe the studios want to make some money, because the fans and critics can't be happy about a new film after having watched this soulless and superficial movie. My three stars are for Johnny Depp, forget about the rest...