Diagonaldi Very well executed

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

caitlinthompson-03016 I got half way through this and knew I wasn't going to finish. The plot was very weak and proposterous at times. They are told by an otherwordly being named Mr. Jones played by Sam Neill that they need to throw two stones into a volcano to save the world.They should have not turned this book into a movie because if the film is following the book well it's a rather lame story.Sam Neill was good as he is a good actor but even he could do nothing about the plot. After all he's just following a script The twins played by Sophie McBride and Tom Cameron were good enough actors but the acting wasn't the problem.Some other viewers found this boring. I didn't find it exactly that as I felt the pace of the movie was good and the direction, acting etc., it was just the awful plot.I said it was more for kids maybe but maybe I'm selling them too short.

rzajac Wonderful production values, but ultimately brought down by poor conception, scenario, and scripting, for which adequate acting, well-intentioned direction, and skillful editing couldn't compensate.My experience was interesting: At first, the flick was just sort of ridiculous; lots of disconnected emoting/apparent motivation and a welter of vague, disconnected scariness that was just senseless, hence funny.And then we come to the bit where Neill's character lays the premise bare. I appreciate the idea of hoping to keep us on pins and needles, awaiting the payload of dawning comprehension of the Big Picture. The problem was that the scenario work and scripting doesn't know when to hold the cards close to the chest... so it just looks silly, especially to the same degree that we're expected to be relating to/identifying with the protagonists.So, I think, OK: I can sort of forgive the foregoing, now that I see that there's actually sort of an engaging premise/backstory. Can the story management straighten up and fly right for the rest of the movie?No. There's just a non-stop cavalcade of (again) disconnected emotional ebbs and flows (e.g., the boy twin breaks character to "go it alone" after the mentor had clearly established its futility; interfaces between the supernatural and "real" world characters are laughable), ridiculous close calls (e.g., the girl "almost" dies, twice), gratuitous stock creepiness (e.g., Lots of ET mucous, way, way over the top grotesquerie)... which pretty much sum up the varieties of narrative/scenario mismanagement. Now, just imagine these things coming at you a mile-a-minute.Nonetheless, it was sort of fascinating to watch, if only for the reason that it never lets you down: There was a guaranteed disbelieving head-shake at least every minute!The reason I watched it was because a Trivial Pursuit teammate said she was under the impression it was made under Peter Jackson's direction, so I jumped on in. Tho a Kiwi production, it _wasn't_ directed by Peter Jackson.Don't waste your time, unless you're a film student and are curious as to how close-to-the-mark I am.

simon-trek I really liked this movie. It is thrilling, scary and has brilliant visual effects! I really liked the theme of this movie. Teenage fraternal twins Theo and Rachel who seem like ordinary teenagers but they turn out to be very significant. Also Theo and Rachel have recently suffered a terrible tragedy the death of their mother, which causes a rift in the bound between the twins. So throughout the film the twins not only have to discover their true destiny, they also have to rediscover themselves. Sam Neil is brilliant in his role as the mysterious and benevolent Mr Jones who becomes the twins mentor. Sam is brilliant in just about every role I've seen him in. Now the main antagonists of the film the Wilberforces, they are scary in every way; slimy, grotesque and terrifyingly powerful. They are something out of your worst nightmare!I liked the fact that this terrifying adventure takes place in the beautiful landscapes of New Zealand. It makes this movie look somewhat majestic in the scene of location. So overall this is a great movie. I don't see many Australian or New Zealand films that are this good.

MBunge Well, whatever else you might want to say about this New Zealand product, you've got to acknowledge one thing. In fantasy films where it's up to a young hero or heroes to save the day, it's fairly standard to give them an older or aged mentor to help them fulfill their destiny. Under The Mountain is the only such movie I know of which faces up to the pedophilic smell of such a relationship. I mean, an old guy pulling up in a van and telling a kid "Come with me. It's up to you to save the world" is probably how a lot of children go missing. The wizards and seers of fantasy look, in the clear light of day, like the molesters of the real world. This movie doesn't shy away from that, though I'm not sure it's a good thing.Rachel and Theo (Sophie McBride and Tom Cameron) are red headed twins who can communicate with a garbled telepathy. After their mom is killed in an accident, they're sent to live in the city with their aunt, uncle and cousin. Theo is hit hard by his mother's death, creating a rift between the twins as he pushes Rachel away every chance he can. But when Rachel and Theo discover the creepy people who live across the lake aren't really people, the seemingly immortal Mr. Jones (Sam Neill) reveals that the twins are the only ones who can save the world from alien invaders. Not by letting Mr. Jones take naked pictures of them, but by using their power of "twinness" to throw two magical stones into a volcano. As long as Theo continues to distance himself from Rachel, however, their "twinness" will never be strong enough to succeed.Under The Mountain is based on a novel but follows an entirely generic pattern for these kind of films. In the first half, we're introduced to our heroes and a bunch of foreshadowing and supposedly mysterious stuff happens. Then at the midway point, there's a huge info dump where literally everything is explained to the audience to the point where anyone with half a brain knows exactly what's going to happen in the second half of the movie, which is then nothing more than a dash to get to an obvious ending. As these things go, the first half is pretty good, the info dump is especially blatant and the second half is much lighter on plot than usual.The worst thing about the film is an extremely overbearing and intrusive soundtrack. In every scene where there's even the least bit of drama, tension or threat, dour and gloomy instrumental music is blared at the audience. It's like these filmmakers were so convinced viewers would not know when the film was supposed to be scary, they did the audio equivalent of flashing subtitles on the screen that say "This is frightening." Making it worse is that the musical cues are so strong from the very start, the audience is emotionally inured by the time the scary stuff actually happens. When the music is thundering at you while it's just a weird looking dude staring at our heroes, there's nowhere for the soundtrack to go when the genuine monsters attack.It's also a little odd that the heroes of Under The Mountain are both clearly teenagers while the tone and tenor of their adventure is as clearly geared for tweens. It feels like these kids should be 11 or 12 years old, not 15 or 16.All in all, this isn't a terrible piece of family entertainment but unless you're going to use it to teach your children about "stranger danger", Under The Mountain is not something your family needs to see.