User Reviews

A group of cavers with a sad history take an author on a 'hairy' adventure through an uncharted cave in Kazakhstan. In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File. I like to give every film the benefit of the doubt, but there were just too many little annoyances for me here. The camera work can give you a headache as they seem to constantly confuse which way is up. Not being a caver, it doesn't really matter to me whether the filming was realistic. There is entirely too much unnecessary PANNICK from supposedly experienced cavers, by the last half you're saying out loud one of two things – oh just shut up and concentrate on saving yourselves, or I hope you all die by the end. It must have been very tiring for these decent actors to make this film. A moderate amount of gore and nothing special in the dialog or characters. While you're pretty confident you know what's going on by the end, the last five minutes explain all the details. But I would have had a better opinion of the movie if they would have left the last minute on the cutting room floor. It just wasn't necessary. I suggest you hit eject immediately after your suspicions are confirmed and save yourself the setup for the sequel. I've long thought that the film industry should share a modified restaurant industry's checkout scheme. You pay for the materials to make the film before you go in, but any profits for the film come from the tips you give when you leave the cinema. I can't blame what I don't like about this film on its low budget.

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.

I love movies...and rarely do I see a movie that I hate...but this was the worst movie I have ever seen, or at least close to it. Any movie that ends with a rape scene is awful. Hands down... I cant believe I wasted 2 hours of my life watching this movie. I'm really mad, I want my money back and my time back. AWFUL! Do not go to see it, the cinematography is awful, the plot is awful, the ending is awful. I didn't know what was going on during half the movie cause I could not see it(and I was watching on a very nice, and big, TV) Rent saw, the hills have eyes, or house of wax...any of those are better if u want something scary.

Don't know which idea came first -- The Cave, Descent, The Cavern -- but I've got to say that The Cavern isn't half bad. In fact I enjoyed it allot. I don't go out of my way to watch horror movies, but I thought I'd check this one out. The camera work was beautiful, colorful. Was very surprised considering the fact that most of it takes place in a cave. There was a lot of shakiness, A lot, but I've got to say the filmmaker's have balls to go that far out. Blair Witch had a lot, but this takes it to a whole nother level in certain scenes. The acting was pretty damn good, considering we're not talking about a drama here. There was nothing Oscar award winning here, but they did a lot with what they were given. The script was descent, really moved fast, not a lot of fat. The end, I won't spoil anything, was rather uncomfortable. I found it difficult to watch and wonder what sick imagination it came out of. There was another twist before that that was a surprise, but I'm talking about the actual end, the last shot of the movie. Maybe that's what they were going for, and if it was, it worked. It's not an end I'm going to forget anytime soon. Over all though I'd recommend The Cavern to rent. Considering it had what looks like the smallest budget of the other three movies, I'd have to say it's a movie worth checking out.

"Dream it, build it, live it." House House

If I could give this excuse for a film a 0 or negative rating I would. I was stupid enough to pick this DVD up in the shop, read the blurb and think, that sounds quite good, I'll spend £10 and buy it. all I got at the end of it was a £10 coaster. Absolutely awful, I don't even know where to begin. I have no idea why anyone has given this more than 2 stars because I can't think of one good thing to say about it.

The plot is basically, 7 people go into an unexplored cave, one of them is a reporter. no-one else knows they are there. When they get in the cave, they can't get out and they get killed off one by one by a monster. There turns out to be no reason for the reporter. One of the characters has some past demons where his ex girlfriend drowns in a cave 2 years ago... there seems to be no relevance or reason for that either, just a rubbish attempt at character building I assume? Anyway, The monster turns out to be a guy that wandered into the cave as a normal little kid and has lived in there all his life. This for no reason makes him superhuman, able to glow, see in the dark, take bullets, breathe underwater, be in 2 places at once and have insane strength (able to move boulders, carry grown men as dead weight, etc).

In the end scene there are 2 women left alive, they wake up naked, just covered in some bit of rug or something. They then find a picture of a kid. The Monster then bursts in the door, wrapped in a carpet with some sort of animal skull over his head (says in the directors commentary it was a crow's skull, if so that would be the frekin biggest crow I have seen in my life) and quite literally goes "Raaahhh" like a kiddie on Halloween. I was watching it with my boyfriend and at that point he literally burst out laughing. The guy then sees a picture of himself as a kid and has a flashback to him sitting under a tree with his face all burnt and then getting up and wandering into the cave. That is the extent of the back story to why he mutilates people and it leaves you feeling a bit cheated for a story. The monster then kills one of the women and brutally rapes the other one, cut to end credits. I know the rape scene was designed to be shocking, but as a woman it just made me feel quite ill and was the thing that affected me the most in the whole film. He could have killed her and cut her into pieces and ate her and it would have been less horrific than the rape scene.

There are so many things that are left unanswered at the end. Aside from all this, the scenes where there was minutes at a time of just black and nothing else was annoying and the constant nauseating camera angles where it's all upside down and you can't see what's going on wound me up so much at one point I almost turned it off. An absolutely terrible film. You might as well get the money you were going to spend on it and set fire to it, it would be money better spent, as like some clever person posting above me said, once you've watched it, you can't un watch it.

Not only is this the worst horror film I've seen, its one of the worst films, period. The majority of the film is an abysmal assault on the senses, but the ugly, repugnant ending is what really seals the deal.

This is a "special" kind of movie in its badness. Its not so bad its good. Its not so bad it can be riffed on (seriously, try it and you'll be hard pressed to find anything to make fun of). Like other reviewers have stated, its just plain unwatchable. I seriously question the mental well-being of anyone who found The Cavern legitimately entertaining.

Let's start with the filmmaking and script, which are astonishingly poor. The film is set in Kazakhstan, even though its referred to as Russia in the movie itself and on the IMDb plot summary. I didn't know the Kazakhstani wilderness looked so much like the California desert. The characters are all bland and uninteresting, so we have no reason to care about them. Why would one of the characters go caving on the anniversary of the death of a loved one's death as a result of a caving accident? The lighting is just terrible; all the scenes in the cave are lit only with headlamps. This wouldn't be so bad if we could tell what's going on, but none of the light reflects off the cave walls since its always shining directly into the camera. The epileptic flash photography sequences don't help, either. This makes for a very disorienting experience. My best guess is they were attempting to recreate The Descent, a cave film that also used no studio lighting. Here's the difference: The Descent was made by competent filmmakers who knew how to utilize the low light levels to create suspense while still showing the audience what was going on. The blinding headlamps coupled with the frantic editing in The Cavern make the narrative almost incomprehensible. There were a couple dumb moments I was able to pick out, though. One of the characters suggests they douse their headlamps so the creature won't see them. That would do literally nothing since cave-dwelling animals are typically blind and rely entirely on their other senses. Another character suggests they split up. It may be a horror cliche, but splitting up is one of the worst things you can do in a situation like that!

So far the movie has been really bad. But the ending? You ain't seen nothing yet!

In the final scene, the two surviving girls wake up naked by an obviously fake CGI fire in the cave, wrapped in animal fur blankets. They find a picture from 1980 of what looks like a 10-year-old boy. Rather hilariously, they eat some cooked meat only to find its the charred remains of one of their friends. A caveman with a burnt face is revealed to be the attacker. In a confusing flashback, its revealed that the boy in the picture survived a plane crash and decided to become a caveman. How has this boy (who I assume had no survival experience at the time) survive more than a week? This raises so many more questions like how does a normal human move giant rocks by himself, see in the dark, and survive gunshots? The creatures in The Descent had abilities and weaknesses within reason, and the fact they evolved in caves was a believable excuse as to why they were so good at moving in the dark. The fact the monster is a normal human is absolutely stupid.

But wait, it gets worse...

Up to this point the film has been insultingly stupid and incompetent, but the last 20 seconds is where it goes from abysmal to morally reprehensible. The last 20 seconds is a blast of badly edited shaky cam and screaming. I had no idea what was happening, and I assumed he killed them. Then I looked up the plot summary on Wikipedia and it turns out that he killed one and raped the other. I went back through that final scene frame by frame and could (vaguely) make out that that was indeed what was happening.

Here's the problem: you can't end your movie mid-rape! Not only does it make for a deplorable, dissatisfying experience that leaves a sour taste in the viewer's mouth, but it simply doesn't work artistically. What do most movies have the The Cavern doesn't? The answer is elevation. I have no problem with unhappy or unsatisfying endings. Films like Se7en, John Carpenter's The Thing, Funny Games, and even The Descent may not have happy endings, but they all serve an artistic purpose and give the audience something to think about. The ending of The Cavern makes me think if a rape victim saw this, the last thing they'd see before the credits is a reminder of what is most likely the most traumatizing experience of their lives with no light at the end of the (both physical and metaphorical) tunnel. I have no problem with the inclusion of a rape scene as long as there's a point. Honestly, the fact that the rape scene is the ending is what bothers me so much. I wouldn't be so mad if there was more after the rape. If, for example, the scene suddenly cut to black and was followed by a sequence of killing the beast and finding a way out, it wouldn't be the greatest thing ever but it would have at least given this dumpster fire some kind of elevating resolution. Some connection between the main characters entering the cave (which looks vaguely like a vagina) and two of the characters having consensual sex early on in the film with a dweller of the cave having non-consensual sex may be intended, but you can't just end a movie there!

I rarely ever give a movie a 0 because to do so implies I can't understand how anyone could get anything positive out of the experience. However, The Cavern really is THAT BAD to me.

When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.

This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling "Did you see/hear that?" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.

The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.

No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.

Don't see it. Please.

First let me say that those of you that voted it "10" are only kidding yourselves and trying to get the votes to a respectable level... something that this movie doesn't deserve. (The only movies deserving a 10 IMO are the classics... Godfather, Shawshank, etc. Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave. Though I would have to agree with them on the surroundings, they simply aren't rating the movie as a whole... they are infatuated by the surroundings but miss the overall review. That would be like me voting a 10 for the movie "From Justin to Kelly" because I think that the beach scenes remind me of what it's like in the Florida Keys... though that may be true, it does not merit the film getting a 10 because the movie as a whole was rancid.

I wish I could tell you that something saved this movie, as usually if one thing stinks in a horror flick, something else picks up or makes up for the weakness. (Ex. - Bad actors are overshadowed by a great plot and/or great camera work and scenery.) We started the DVD and it all started out fairly normal. We jokingly started to pick out who would be the first to die... after a brief bit of driving and hiking, they set up camp for the night. At that moment, I keyed in on some things which really made me tune out the rest of the film. Two main problems I had: Bad effects and an even worse story line. The first thing that we all noticed was that the campfires weren't real... you can plainly see the "cgi" or fake flames that they were all sitting at. For a horror film to have such a blatant effect flaw should have told me what I was in for the next hour.

Only minutes later, I was shown how poorly written this film was. I don't remember exactly how they arrived at the point, but basically, we find out that the "token Nerd" is writing a book about exploring caves, etc. Another guy in the group wants to tell a story about an experience, but hesitates stating "I don't want this story in your book." The author convinces and coaxes the other that he will not put the story in his book and that he can trust him. (A direct quote: "If I tell you the story, you will definitely want it in your book.") At this point, I was fully expecting a nice 5+ minute story, complete with flashbacks and heartfelt acting. What I got was a short, poorly told (and acted) statement. I say statement because what he ended up telling was about 10 seconds and 5 sentences. I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: "We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown." You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.

Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for. (I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't. Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the "action" scenes.

The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing. Basically, two women are trapped in a room naked. The "monster" comes in to attack/kill the women... he is stopped when he sees a picture of a little boy. A flashback occurs where we find out that the "monster" was injured as a little boy, and spent his entire life in the cave. Cut back to present time, and he takes his "mask" (a large skeleton with what appears to be a deerskin shirt). He glances at the picture and the two women appear to have found the caveman's weakness/soft spot. At that point, he stabs and kills one girl, then proceeds to rape the other woman, rather graphically. After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.

Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.

Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off... if any of you had read up on how the director and writer ran the filming of Blair would realize how revolutionary it was... handing each cast member a script the day/night of filming without the other cast members knowing what the other actor was doing is genius.

If IMDb would let me, it would get a negative score... I don't understand how anyone in their right mind can recommend this movie.

The person who wrote the summary and rave review for this film is either an idiot or an avid fan of shitty movies. From the beginning, this just spoke of cheap-ass ripoff of "The Descent", a far superior film that definitely does NOT start off slow.

From the very first moments of "The Cavern", I was amazed at how bad it was, how uninspired and unoriginal it was, how badly written, badly acted and badly directed it was. This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life, and that's saying a lot, considering I recently suffered through "Pulse". I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.

The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.

Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.

If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole. This film is a crime against humanity.

when i sat down to watch this movie i thought that it might be slightly good. but no. it was a OK film, not good, but not bad for most of it but then you get to the ending and it losses all credibility. they should have just left then dead. they did not leave the last bit it did not make any sense. if they had something at they beginning about a plane crash yeah but we didn't so it didn't work. the first bit is OK and i give them credit for that but the rest is just plane bad and unnecessary if you are thinking about going and watching this movie DON"T it is awful go and rent something that is actually worth watching. i give it 2/10

I haven't laughed this much in a long time - or seen a film so ineptly made! Talk about so bad it made me laugh!

Firstly, I estimate that for about 40 percent of the film's length, I couldn't tell what was happening, or indeed even what I was seeing. I can only describe the camera work as frenetic meets LSD. There are whole segments, minutes long, where all you can see are blurred flashes and fragments of cave wall, people and various other unidentifiable stuff. I spent half the film asking my teenage daughters what was happening, but they couldn't follow it any better than me.

Then there are the "black" moments, when in an effort to scare us (woooooooo) everyone's lights go out and the screen turns pitch black - and I don't just mean for a few seconds. I think the longest lasted almost two minutes. I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...

I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.

There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them). 3/ There was one genuinely good scene - when the group are looking up the shaft they came down, after discovering their rope fallen to the bottom (saw THAT coming), a large boulder is pushed across the opening, sealing them in. I WASN'T expecting that, and it was genuinely chilling.

And what's with the early campfire scenes with the shot, after shot, after shot panning from behind the camp lights. I swear the director used almost the same shot about 20 times in 5 minutes.

And I'm positive that after the first kill, the EXACT same footage of blood on the cave floor is used twice in about 90 seconds.

All in all, a CRAP piece of film making. I'll watch almost anything, but this is close to where I'd draw the line.