So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to "The Cavern" just in case "WIthIn"s reputation had preceded it.
After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.
The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.
The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.
To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.
For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.
FIN
ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.
Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?
The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.
After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.
The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.
The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.
To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.
For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.
FIN
ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.
Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?
The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.