GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Unlimitedia Sick Product of a Sick System

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

U.N. Owen So said this character in this cheese-ball from hell.'Yes, my dear,' MUCH worse - if you sit and waste ANY time watching this poorly acted. Ridiculously plotted nightmare.There's no words to describe how dreadful this is.In a nutshell: Town has poor (pun?) rain.So, they sacrifice kids. Evil spirit, then more rain probs, then the current residents of this rain-challenged place has the rain - and evil - probs themselves.One simple idea that's NEVER thought of: MOVE!!!This is one move where the sound-cues - so important, but, so rarely noticed in most films - are on prominent display - and I'm not saying that in a kind way.The only way you 'sense' bad things, are from the 'ominous' music: creepy tinkling on a piano, or 'jug-bottle whistling sounds - all the cliché's are on PROMINENT display in this muck.Not ONE of the people in this (other than Keith Carradine) , has any sort of a career - before they made this, and, I'd seriously doubt, if they ever would.It's like the director went and got...friends-of-friends-of-friends together, and said; 'hey! You ever thought about being in a movie?' A typical scene of 'ominous approaching bad;' the girl, who only moments earlier was sweet, fun, wearing white, shows up all in black - eye makeup, et al. Then, her mobile rings. Tight close-up of mobile, while 'ominous chord' plays. I'm only guessing here, but, I think I found the TRUE reason Mr. Carradine passed away - this was coming out.

e-Liza1 The makers of this film had difficulties during its production. David Carradine's death from "accidental asphyxiation" in Thailand, during the making of this movie, and money difficulties, meant that this movie could have been better than it was. So when I discovered this, I feel a bit sorry for it! But I still found it absorbing viewing - much better than a lot of movies.This movie is very convoluted, and yet, for all of the flashbacks and flash-forwards, it wasn't very COMPLEX. I was reminded, somewhat, of "National Velvet" - if a weirder, homespun, hometown struggling rural family-values version than the early sixties B&W TV series, but still "National Velvet"!I couldn't be sure whether to give it a 4/10 or a 5/10 - and when I checked the IMDb ratings stats, what do you know!: I found it had a "weighted average" of 4.5! So there you are - I suppose that's how a lot of other people feel about it, too!What really irritated me, much, much, more than the constant flash-forwards, and flash-backs - the movie is set in the town of "Perseverence" in three different time periods and alternates between three time-periods throughout - was the failure of the protagonists to do something that I could clearly see was a LOGICAL thing to do - to kill "The Saw Man", the demon with the sharp teeth, or destroy "The Hat": At one point there was, for example, the perfect opportunity to run the Hat over with a car, and then an even BETTER opportunity to run down the demon AND to flatten The Hat - at the same time. But I suppose the girl at the wheel of the car took pity on the demon, and just couldn't find it in her heart to do it! i.e. "National Velvet Time"!!!There were so many missed opportunities - and isn't that what we REALLY hate in a horror movie, those dumb people who don't think of doing something like jumping up and down on a hat and FLATTENING the curs'ed thing, for example??? (I think, maybe so!?) ... At least to TRY to do it, and see what happens?!!!I thought the special effects at the end were very good - and I liked the ending! And the ending, at least, is logical!In consideration of a possible deeper meaning to the film, I did think the way in which The Hat was carried reverentially, at heart-height, as a symbol of community-authority, was a serious commentary upon the way in which social "authority" is seen as divorced from human beings, and a powerful metaphor for the way in which people will commit any manner of evil whatsoever when a so-called "AUTHORITY" of some kind to commit those acts of evil removes, in THEIR eyes, their own responsibility for those act of evil that THEY - without ANY ambiguity ARE committing! And in this film, these people all KNOW they are doing harm to others; and, as in this movie, they club together in Churches and behave, as though they are the victims, self-righteously in doing so; and, as in this movie they invoke God and will sacrifice anything, including their own children, "for the survival of this family" - for God, the family, and the community! After a little way into the movie, I just kept wondering, why don't they just put a gun to their heads? Wouldn't it be easier than having the perennial fear of dying in horror and torment and agony, and rather than, apparently, having to kill their children in horrifying ways? And aren't there more HUMANE ways to kill them?! These are all HOLES in the story, from what I could see, and these numerous unexplored, seemingly logical inconsistencies, irritated me greatly.But still, somewhat profoundly, this movie is about patriarchal society, people owning their children and abusing them, and it is about small communities that hide and cover-up their crimes, which they commit in the sight of their God. It's American Gothic - and this movie, if nothing else, wants to indict these people, to hold them responsible for all the evil they have done, and all the evil they do, and, in the end, to PUNISH them! And that is what happens to them in this movie - not in real life, but at least in this movie!

StTerence It's a beautifully shot and composed indie horror film which strays from the standard, boring slasher and/or torture porn elements so prevalent in the genre and actually delivers a story! With characters and plot! It is at the end of the day a low budget film so it's not perfect but it's still a lot better than most of the crap released direct to DVD in order to keep a steady stream of new arrivals on the shelves.Best Parts: the cinematography, score, production design and Richard Lynch and Ellen Sandweiss' acting Least Impressive Parts: Some of the CG effects aren't great, story is kinda slow and some of the other acting is a bit stiff Overall it has some flaws but makes up for them by being a tremendously ambitious and interesting classic style horror film.

Hedocrity It's said that horror fans aren't a very discriminating bunch. And given the volume of crap horror movies out there, I can't argue that. But I also take offense to it. I'm a life-long horror fan, and I regularly bypass the uncreative slashers and nauseatingly unoriginal remakes that populate the field these days. I like a quality, original horror film. And "Dark Fields" fits that bill.Inspired by Shirley Jackson's short story, "The Lottery", the film's story interweaves three narratives, each taking place in the aptly named town of Perseverance, each in a different time period – the 1880's, the 1950's, and the present day. The residents of Perseverance are oppressed with a curse. Each year they suffer an affliction to their bodies and a drought to their land, the only cure for which is to sacrifice three of their children.Three things make this movie rock.First, director Doug Schulze's visual flair, accomplished through a knack for unique and effective composition, creepy art direction, and occasionally gruesome special effects – both of the practical and CGI variety. Schulze displays an inventiveness here that belies a great effort not usually seen in films at this budget level; in all instances above he regularly puts original ideas on the screen. I found his concept for the physical affliction of the curse to be especially satisfying, especially in its final form on female lead Sasha Higgins, and in the grisly teeth-pulling scene (which I watched from between my fingers). Cinematographer Lon Stratton's dark, moody photography – utilizing both Super 35 and the then-new Red One 4K digital camera -- effectively augments the layered visuals. Second, the cast. Icons David Carradine and Dee Wallace Stone deliver. Both have faces you could watch read a phone book, and Schulze uses their gravitas to anchor their segments. Richard Lynch, too, is a standout as a tortured father witnessing his daughter succumb to her initial affliction of the town's curse.And third, the story. I went into "Dark Fields" with trepidation, knowing it was an anthology piece. Anthologies always leave me dissatisfied – I'm not a short film fan and they always feel like a string of shorts to me. But "Dark Fields" employs a unique structure, in which the three stories unfold simultaneously, climaxing in the resolution of the curse in the present day. They interwoven narratives build towards this common end, along the way each telling a unique story with a common theme. It gets a little confusing sometimes -- and it demands your attention -- but it works."Dark Fields" is low-budget indie horror, and like most entries in that populous sub-genre, the seams occasionally show. But the trade-off is its originality. Not Hollywood product, this. I'll call it a thinking person's horror film, in that it's not for the mentally lazy. There isn't a lot that's spelled out in simple terms, and little immediate satisfaction; things generally come to fruition at a deliberate pace. But you do get the feeling that you're in the hands of a storyteller who knows his craft and will deliver. Go into it knowing that and you'll be a (discriminating) fan.