I stay wondering why so many directors and screenplay writers of wannabe-horror movies ruin the good ideas they have in the beginning. This movie starts really good, it seems to deal with hobby mountain-climbing and interpersonal tensions. Indeed, mountain-climbing can turn out to be real horror if you are not particularly good at it and if you take a closed (certainly not without a reason) path. In the first 1/2 hour of the movie, nice camera shots and great landscapes convey a feeling of vertigo and a vague sense of danger - which is very, very credible in the given situation. Things can go wrong, ropes can tear, vertigo can drive you to madness, you can get lost in the mountains, there can be a tempest - all that is horror, because it is likely to happen in real life. So WHY the hell is there any need for "boosting" a life-like situation with some maniac moron hunting the characters? WHY do they always turn a real horror situation into a stereotyped, paper-thin, seen-over-a-thousand-of-times slasher? It is the same with "The Descent" which had excellent premises to get really scary (in the end, there are not many things as gruesome as being trapped in some huge subterranean labyrinth of holes without any map) but instead, decided to put in some stupid monsters which ruined the whole suspense and the sense of horror. Horrific are only things which seem realistic or in some way convey the sense of the possibility to get realistic. There is no need for additional "boost"! Folks, show me a horror movie based on completely natural premises and the appropriate development of characters in the given situation - and I will sing you a love song. But it seems easier to get some mad hunter or monsters in than to develop real tensions and real situations.
