Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Sexylocher Masterful Movie

Manthast Absolutely amazing

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

hollyghilliard I loved the first one. This one had the challenge of no "reveal" of the monster, as we knew what was coming. For the most part, still lots of scares, and Juno showing up was cool. But for Sarah to sacrifice herself for the cop (which she knew was a mother), only for said cop to be hit in the head with the guy in the NY Yankees cap (which also didn't make sense...I dare you to find somebody in rural NC wearing a NY Yankees cap), and sacrificed to the dwellers...that just jacked up the ending. I thought the ending would have been better had the cop just gone home and not turned into food. I suppose it was a set up for a possible Decent 3, which has clearly never happened...probably for good reason. Story should have been done with this one. Still worth watching.

Ripshin Do you think it's a coincidence that this film is set in the Appalachian Mountains of the US? (Filmed in Britain.)That section of the country is the inbred/incest capital of the US. (And maybe the civilized world.)These creatures are the result of decades of hillbillies discarding the unwanted children in a cave - sometime in the past. They continue to breed, and multiply. They evolve into blind, deformed "humans."The old man at the end of the film, is a member of the "family," who drags the animals to the hole, to feed his "kin.""Surface humans" have only entered the cave a few times (thus the cave drawings, and old equipment in the first film, found by the women). The cave dwellers simply see invaders as more food.

DeonTYLY To me, this part is perfect as the first part. but something so much like Female power in here. and all male is the idiot here. Well, they did have the woman pride here in this movie.But still through I did agree with this movie not so bad as the first one and you needed to put all the best thing in the first movie to see through it. And every strategy here is the karma you pay for your stupidity.-----------------Finally get, why this movie gets the low rate. because of the ending. The ending more like want to get viewer curious for the next movies/book?this ending has been dropping my rate 10 stars to 4 stars. that's not what I am expecting.

sukanya-samy Ya I know, I am one of those who watches movies back to back. And I am going to keep this one very short.After my pleasant (nothing pleasant about it) viewing of Descent, I watched the sequel. For people who are interested, Descent released in 2005 had 2 different endings, both quite plausible and one of them which would have shut the chapter for a sequel. But they chose the ending which opened the doors for a sequel when it wasn't required.The movie opens just 2 days after the 6 women go missing and shows the sheriff and cave explorers trying to figure out where they were. In a parallel scene, Sarah who escaped gets saved and ends up in a hospital. The movie then continues to show the stupid sheriff, about 3 explorers and Sarah back again in the same cave system from which Sarah escaped. Now if you have gone through a traumatic experience, why would you force a survivor to face the same circumstances again and if you are the survivor, why would you go into the claustrophobic setting again? I just couldn't understand it.The movie then just goes from bad to worse with the same kind of scenes, jumps and gore which wasn't even required. Sarah played by Shauna Macdonald tries her best to save the movie but is left unsupported by the stupidity of the plot and irrational sequence of events.Some movies just don't need a sequence (even if they made tonnes of money to begin with). I give this a 'C-'.