This is going to be less of your typical mean-spirited internet movie review and generally, just more of a bluntly straightforward; "Hey now, listen up matey. Here's where you went wrong". I'll be explaining why this simply doesn't work, for a number of valid reasons. Never before have I ever seen any kind of movie fail so miserably at the art of filmmaking to such a dire degree, whether it be a theatrical release, made-for-TV or straight-to-video (or even a streaming thing). If only internet movie critics watched more stuff like this, then maybe they'd go a little easier on the real films made by seasoned Hollywood professionals.
#1 - WASTED POTENTIAL; like a lot of indie movies, this one's story had the potential for greatness. But too bad it falls short in so many ways as on a purely surface-level, it gives the impression of a truly horrendous Tremors (1990) rip-off. And now that I think about it, the concept of a giant mysterious creature lurking beneath the sand and waiting to strike for its unsuspecting prey also isn't very original, as it's literally the plot of a 2008 Primeval episode (which involved highly-advanced whip scorpions from prehistory). You see now, a well-paced story bundled together with tightly-edited scenes and expertly-crafted sequences of elaborate set-pieces are exactly the right kind things that this specific type of genre film needs. I know it seems like a real pain, but you've got to meticulously plan out all the tedious aspects of a screenplay beforehand and give your preparations a thorough think through while doing revisions on your scripting work. You also needed to hire a competent enough cinematographer who could've implemented some better techniques to achieve a more cinematic look by incorporating dynamic angles, rather than hiring a very inexperienced person who comes-off as very lazy with the way they decided to setup the pretty medium camera angles for all the dull static scenes (which I guess were kind of shot like how a soap opera operates behind-the-scenes, more for efficiency reasons rather than artistic intentions).
#2 - UNLIKABLE CHARACTERS; this is a problem that legitimately plagues almost every horror film out there today, and that's to do with all the young-adult characters being highly unlikeable! So much so that I honestly don't even care if any of them get killed-off or not, and sometimes I'll be actively rooting against the so-called "protagonists" (I know it's not very nice of me, but it's the movies' own fault for making me do that). Their display of performance is not compelling in the slightest, they have no discernible screen-presence, and they don't have that many distinguishable characteristics or personality traits other than wanting to get super drunk, partying hard, and frequently act like stupid brain-dead idiots to one another. And plus, none of them share any semblance of chemistry with each other (why should I be expected to care at all about this uncharismatic bunch of BAD actors?). No big surprise here, but their dialogue mostly consists of them saying swear words in a threateningly non-funny manner, which isn't all that entertaining to hear (it's only ever amusing when they're said in a more hilarious context). You urgently needed to polish up your script with several significant rewrites on the awful characters, and find much BETTER actors for those roles (not just to fill out the roles, but to actually give them the chance to show-off their acting-chops).
#3 - UNCONVINCING EFFECTS; the CG creature's interactions with its environment was handled poorly as it just doesn't mesh well with the real-world location that surrounds it. As much as I don't like the guy, I've got to admit that if there's anyone who can genuinely make CGI look convincing when composited into a real-world environment, it'd be Michael Bay on the first few Transformers films (from 2007 to 2011). The practical hands-on experience with him shooting and directing an on-location setup for some of his earlier works (instead of on a green-screened studio set) made him somewhat of a master at this craft, filming live-action shots so that the CG-created robots all appeared to be interacting with the actual world around them (like kicking up dusty dirt when they walked on the ground, or moving tree branches when brushing past the foliage). Those truly seamless scenes have honestly stood the test of time, unlike this trite. The lousy integration of computer-generated visuals into the live-action setting was a total mess in The Sand. They could've at least remembered to evenly-balance it all out with the use of some animatronic puppets and other physical props of that nature, for the close-up camera shots of actual interaction with the cast.
#4 - UNINSPIRED SOUND; and of course not leaving out the sound-design side of things (something most people hardly ever give a single thought to), which is another pivotal aspect that plays quite a large part in the substantial workings of all this. Oh what a shocker, the sound-effects were of course stock-sounding and just felt inserted at random times which makes certain moments feel super awkward (and the shift in audio quality was all over the place, as well). You could've invested in having a REAL sound-team to work on the movie's audio-effects. Jurassic Park (1993) has hands-down some of the all-time BEST sound-editing ever, with each one of the individual species feeling even more real when given their own uniquely created set of distinctive vocalisations to plausibly emulate how those extinct creatures may have sounded in life, while also filling out other areas where audio is needed (such as rustling trees, heavy footsteps and other organic noises found in nature). Unlike the functionality of it in The Sand, it's done in an inventive way in the Jurassic Park franchise, with those clever sound-engineers mixing together a combination from bits and pieces of different modern animals' noises and calls to create something new and fresh (heck, even the Godzilla series has nicer sound-design).
#5 - RUBBISH MUSIC; now then, music can occasionally help to cover-up any mistakes in the sound-deign and enhance the overall mood of the supposedly atmospheric scenes in horror films nowadays (I say "supposedly" because a lot of what you hear in scary flicks today is forgettably bland). The Sand's soundtrack can't even accomplish this basic goal, as it all just sounds like your generic throwaway stock-music you'd easily find on any old archival website that exclusively specialises in providing stock-music. Danny Elfman's beautifully conducted musical score (along with some operatic vocalist accompaniments) for the original two Spider-Man films was actually what got me into being interested in listening to good music in the first place, with the majority of his pieces being simultaneously heart-wrenching and optimistically-gratifying all in one (not ashamed to admit that at points, it even made me shed a few tears). Whether it be a full-on orchestral score or just a simple instrumental tune, it emotionally resonated with me and genuinely solidified my love of listening to background music in both movies and TV shows alike, with Ben Bartlett's phenomenal tracks for the Walking With... documentaries also being another truly great standout example for me.
Final thoughts; I think that if you're truly a dedicated filmmaking director, then I believe it'd be reasonable for you to want to listen and take in a bit of fairly honest, well-articulated constructive-criticism. So then, you can take what you've learned and apply that newfound wealth of knowledge to your next project, in order to produce a proper movie that's competently made (and not to mention, one that's actually decent). Sometimes home-truths can really hurt but they must be said, otherwise no one would ever learn anything helpful to progress their way forward in a tough career that requires you to have serious nerves-of-steel (a real backbone, you need). Never forget, good movies are always attributed to careful planning ahead of time and being an assertive coordinating leader in your position (not a timid, nervous wreck).
#1 - WASTED POTENTIAL; like a lot of indie movies, this one's story had the potential for greatness. But too bad it falls short in so many ways as on a purely surface-level, it gives the impression of a truly horrendous Tremors (1990) rip-off. And now that I think about it, the concept of a giant mysterious creature lurking beneath the sand and waiting to strike for its unsuspecting prey also isn't very original, as it's literally the plot of a 2008 Primeval episode (which involved highly-advanced whip scorpions from prehistory). You see now, a well-paced story bundled together with tightly-edited scenes and expertly-crafted sequences of elaborate set-pieces are exactly the right kind things that this specific type of genre film needs. I know it seems like a real pain, but you've got to meticulously plan out all the tedious aspects of a screenplay beforehand and give your preparations a thorough think through while doing revisions on your scripting work. You also needed to hire a competent enough cinematographer who could've implemented some better techniques to achieve a more cinematic look by incorporating dynamic angles, rather than hiring a very inexperienced person who comes-off as very lazy with the way they decided to setup the pretty medium camera angles for all the dull static scenes (which I guess were kind of shot like how a soap opera operates behind-the-scenes, more for efficiency reasons rather than artistic intentions).
#2 - UNLIKABLE CHARACTERS; this is a problem that legitimately plagues almost every horror film out there today, and that's to do with all the young-adult characters being highly unlikeable! So much so that I honestly don't even care if any of them get killed-off or not, and sometimes I'll be actively rooting against the so-called "protagonists" (I know it's not very nice of me, but it's the movies' own fault for making me do that). Their display of performance is not compelling in the slightest, they have no discernible screen-presence, and they don't have that many distinguishable characteristics or personality traits other than wanting to get super drunk, partying hard, and frequently act like stupid brain-dead idiots to one another. And plus, none of them share any semblance of chemistry with each other (why should I be expected to care at all about this uncharismatic bunch of BAD actors?). No big surprise here, but their dialogue mostly consists of them saying swear words in a threateningly non-funny manner, which isn't all that entertaining to hear (it's only ever amusing when they're said in a more hilarious context). You urgently needed to polish up your script with several significant rewrites on the awful characters, and find much BETTER actors for those roles (not just to fill out the roles, but to actually give them the chance to show-off their acting-chops).
#3 - UNCONVINCING EFFECTS; the CG creature's interactions with its environment was handled poorly as it just doesn't mesh well with the real-world location that surrounds it. As much as I don't like the guy, I've got to admit that if there's anyone who can genuinely make CGI look convincing when composited into a real-world environment, it'd be Michael Bay on the first few Transformers films (from 2007 to 2011). The practical hands-on experience with him shooting and directing an on-location setup for some of his earlier works (instead of on a green-screened studio set) made him somewhat of a master at this craft, filming live-action shots so that the CG-created robots all appeared to be interacting with the actual world around them (like kicking up dusty dirt when they walked on the ground, or moving tree branches when brushing past the foliage). Those truly seamless scenes have honestly stood the test of time, unlike this trite. The lousy integration of computer-generated visuals into the live-action setting was a total mess in The Sand. They could've at least remembered to evenly-balance it all out with the use of some animatronic puppets and other physical props of that nature, for the close-up camera shots of actual interaction with the cast.
#4 - UNINSPIRED SOUND; and of course not leaving out the sound-design side of things (something most people hardly ever give a single thought to), which is another pivotal aspect that plays quite a large part in the substantial workings of all this. Oh what a shocker, the sound-effects were of course stock-sounding and just felt inserted at random times which makes certain moments feel super awkward (and the shift in audio quality was all over the place, as well). You could've invested in having a REAL sound-team to work on the movie's audio-effects. Jurassic Park (1993) has hands-down some of the all-time BEST sound-editing ever, with each one of the individual species feeling even more real when given their own uniquely created set of distinctive vocalisations to plausibly emulate how those extinct creatures may have sounded in life, while also filling out other areas where audio is needed (such as rustling trees, heavy footsteps and other organic noises found in nature). Unlike the functionality of it in The Sand, it's done in an inventive way in the Jurassic Park franchise, with those clever sound-engineers mixing together a combination from bits and pieces of different modern animals' noises and calls to create something new and fresh (heck, even the Godzilla series has nicer sound-design).
#5 - RUBBISH MUSIC; now then, music can occasionally help to cover-up any mistakes in the sound-deign and enhance the overall mood of the supposedly atmospheric scenes in horror films nowadays (I say "supposedly" because a lot of what you hear in scary flicks today is forgettably bland). The Sand's soundtrack can't even accomplish this basic goal, as it all just sounds like your generic throwaway stock-music you'd easily find on any old archival website that exclusively specialises in providing stock-music. Danny Elfman's beautifully conducted musical score (along with some operatic vocalist accompaniments) for the original two Spider-Man films was actually what got me into being interested in listening to good music in the first place, with the majority of his pieces being simultaneously heart-wrenching and optimistically-gratifying all in one (not ashamed to admit that at points, it even made me shed a few tears). Whether it be a full-on orchestral score or just a simple instrumental tune, it emotionally resonated with me and genuinely solidified my love of listening to background music in both movies and TV shows alike, with Ben Bartlett's phenomenal tracks for the Walking With... documentaries also being another truly great standout example for me.
Final thoughts; I think that if you're truly a dedicated filmmaking director, then I believe it'd be reasonable for you to want to listen and take in a bit of fairly honest, well-articulated constructive-criticism. So then, you can take what you've learned and apply that newfound wealth of knowledge to your next project, in order to produce a proper movie that's competently made (and not to mention, one that's actually decent). Sometimes home-truths can really hurt but they must be said, otherwise no one would ever learn anything helpful to progress their way forward in a tough career that requires you to have serious nerves-of-steel (a real backbone, you need). Never forget, good movies are always attributed to careful planning ahead of time and being an assertive coordinating leader in your position (not a timid, nervous wreck).