Movie Review
Darkness Falls: Hmmm...well, this was one of those plus-and-minus movies. 
necrobutcher and I were talking about this last night...the movie had potential, and it had it's good points, but overall, it was disappointing.
Story: For a change, the first few minutes were a detailed history of the backstory of the movie. This I really appreciated, because I'm tired of these horror films that give plot exposition in the same boring ways: someone's doing a research project...or a town history...or planning a party, and wants to know about a remote location, or someone mentions something, with the expected response of 'you've never heard about so-and-so?', or something equally contrived, so that someone can then spell out the backstory. Boring and overdone...this just gave you the background, and then got on with the film...nice touch. However, there were some glaring inconsistencies in the rest of the story, and some things that just didn't make a lot of sense (as in why this creature was doing what she did anyway...sorta was skimmed over, but not really explained). Hell, for that matter, I started wondering how the film would be resolved (It's an American film, it WILL be resolved), because nowhere in the story or anything had there been any mention of defeating or appeasing the creature...and the ending was contrived, disappointing, and obvious...and of course, made room for the hero to yell out a pithy line as he did it (just as you would expect). Overall, it just seemed like they didn't really put enough work into the story...it really did have some potential, and it wasn't realized.
Cinematography: This wavered. A lot of the stuff going on has to do with the idea that staying in the light is safe, getting in the darkness is, well, NOT. Thus, you'd expect a lot of creative lighting work. There was a set of scenes, closing on the end, where the characters are trying to escape a hospital, nothing but emergency lights, and Di and I agreed on the fact that THAT was shot beautifully, but a lot of the rest could have been better done.
Acting: Not impressed, not that I expected to be. Relative unknowns, for the most part (though I'm sure some of you would recognize Emma Caulfield from 'Buffy'). None of them did that great a job. Plus, I don't think any character in the flick looked the age they were supposed to be: the 10-year-old kid in the beginning looked about 14, and the 22-year-olds later looked about 30, while the 9-year-old looked (and sounded) about 5. Made it hard to get your head around.
Effects: This is where the movie made up for most of it's shortcomings...the creature was BEAUTIFUL and VERY well done. Go figure: Stan Winston created it. I was impressed, especially considering most of what you saw of it was a mask and a flowing, tattered shroud. When the mask came off, it wasn't as believable, but it was still well done...it looked like what it was supposed to be, without getting too "monsterized". Stan kicks ass.
Overall: Eh, I'll rip the DivX of it, just to keep around. Would I buy it? Probably not. Did it, as the box cover copy claims, "run rings around 'The Ring'"? Not even close, not the same ballpark, not even the same fuckin' sport.
necrobutcher and I were talking about this last night...the movie had potential, and it had it's good points, but overall, it was disappointing.Story: For a change, the first few minutes were a detailed history of the backstory of the movie. This I really appreciated, because I'm tired of these horror films that give plot exposition in the same boring ways: someone's doing a research project...or a town history...or planning a party, and wants to know about a remote location, or someone mentions something, with the expected response of 'you've never heard about so-and-so?', or something equally contrived, so that someone can then spell out the backstory. Boring and overdone...this just gave you the background, and then got on with the film...nice touch. However, there were some glaring inconsistencies in the rest of the story, and some things that just didn't make a lot of sense (as in why this creature was doing what she did anyway...sorta was skimmed over, but not really explained). Hell, for that matter, I started wondering how the film would be resolved (It's an American film, it WILL be resolved), because nowhere in the story or anything had there been any mention of defeating or appeasing the creature...and the ending was contrived, disappointing, and obvious...and of course, made room for the hero to yell out a pithy line as he did it (just as you would expect). Overall, it just seemed like they didn't really put enough work into the story...it really did have some potential, and it wasn't realized.
Cinematography: This wavered. A lot of the stuff going on has to do with the idea that staying in the light is safe, getting in the darkness is, well, NOT. Thus, you'd expect a lot of creative lighting work. There was a set of scenes, closing on the end, where the characters are trying to escape a hospital, nothing but emergency lights, and Di and I agreed on the fact that THAT was shot beautifully, but a lot of the rest could have been better done.
Acting: Not impressed, not that I expected to be. Relative unknowns, for the most part (though I'm sure some of you would recognize Emma Caulfield from 'Buffy'). None of them did that great a job. Plus, I don't think any character in the flick looked the age they were supposed to be: the 10-year-old kid in the beginning looked about 14, and the 22-year-olds later looked about 30, while the 9-year-old looked (and sounded) about 5. Made it hard to get your head around.
Effects: This is where the movie made up for most of it's shortcomings...the creature was BEAUTIFUL and VERY well done. Go figure: Stan Winston created it. I was impressed, especially considering most of what you saw of it was a mask and a flowing, tattered shroud. When the mask came off, it wasn't as believable, but it was still well done...it looked like what it was supposed to be, without getting too "monsterized". Stan kicks ass.
Overall: Eh, I'll rip the DivX of it, just to keep around. Would I buy it? Probably not. Did it, as the box cover copy claims, "run rings around 'The Ring'"? Not even close, not the same ballpark, not even the same fuckin' sport.