Vashirdfel
Simply A Masterpiece
Acensbart
Excellent but underrated film
Cleveronix
A different way of telling a story
Alex
After watching this film I realized the definition of a "Nothing Movie" But before we get into the review, I think I'll go over a bit of what happened. OK we open to an old man, who I presume to be digging clay or other minerals, when he stumbles upon the hand of "The Creature" *cough*Vampire*cough* and he pulls the stake out of his heart which some how brings him back to life? (This movie IS NOT consistent with typical vampire lore/mythology by the way, so if you came for accuracy, back away now) Then we cut to an open road, but first, a few minutes of absolutely gorgeous cinematography...more on that laterAfter about 10 whole minutes we get our first piece of dialogue from the main characters(?), and really, there's not much besides this... Honestly... unless you count inaudible grunts, screaming, yelling, etc as dialogue. So anyways, the couple gets stuck and they try and find a house or whatever so they can get back to their vacation that they never mention besides the fact that there is one. Instead of just going back the road they took (the characters are poorly written to say the least) to searching for a house or other people to help them out. The mentally retarded Mark finds an abandoned house with the pre-mentioned old man who ,obviously, has gotten bitten by the vampire and is bleeding and screaming and whatever. Mark goes back to Female Character and tells her they need to help him. Pretty much after this is an inaccurate, inconsistent, dialog-free, intensely boring, continuous fight scene/ "plot" thing.Mark dies because he is useless, this was the best part of the film because his INTENSE STUPIDITY really built up a lot of hate in me. Now this is were the extreme inconsistency becomes unbelievably obvious. Mark is turned into a Vampire via scratch marks on his leg, then killed from being exposed to the light of an artificial light source. HOWEVER. The old man vampire had previously lit a wood stove to try an "smoke the couple out" How did the light of the fire not kill him? That was a huge plot hole. Then there are other things like, at the very end, Somehow Extremely Brave Female Character, tries to light the house on fire or something and the main vampire STEPS DIRECTLY INTO THE FIRE AND DOESN'T DIE EVEN THOUGH ANOTHER VAMPIRE WAS KILLED SIMPLY BY BEING EXPOSED TO IT. Or Female character repeatedly ripping off pieces of her shirt to cover wounds, only to have her shirt completely repaired in the next time the scene cuts. Just stupid, easy to correct stuff like that... was present through out the entirety of the film. So if you're picky, you won't like it.Also, there's no backstory whatsoever. And sooo many unanswered questions. Why is the vampire there? How did he get there? Why is the old man digging clay? Why does this film exist? Did anyone on production stop and think about the insane amount of plot holes for one second?And finally the cinematography. This is something the film could have done right. This probably could've made the film watchable. However, they decided to use it at completely unnecessary times. For example, in the car when Mark and Female Character are talking, we got all these weird angels and stuff. Like why? I guess they just realized they were good at something then OVER USED IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. As a quick side note, The Creature costume also sucked. The claw-hand glove things they used were straight out of the Halloween stores. The makeup though, was pretty okay-ishly done, too bad you can't see the creatures face except for on the DVD itself!In summary, the characters were weak, the story was full of plot holes, and the movie was pretty much the most boring thing I've ever watched.
jemz-03460
Contains spoilers: I absolutely hate it when I feel like I could have done a better job at writing and directing a movie. My first beef is that there's this random monster that is never really explained. It's just there randomly terrorizing people. I suppose we have to surmise that it's a vampire of sorts. Next, the female character chops of her freaking finger and takes it "like a man." Absolutely ridiculous. A man couldn't even take it like a man. Lol. Finally, the female was safe in a bright light, but decided turn them off to try to lure the monster I guess instead of remaining in the light until daybreak and getting the hell out of dodge. Nope. Apparently she wasn't that bright. Even if my logic wasn't applied, they could have found a better, less obviously stupid way of making her lose her well lit safety zone.
fedor8
I wish the movie had completed its initial thought: "From the Dark Come More Gollums". That way I'd know to avoid this dreary, utterly unoriginal dumb zombie flick which continues the useless gollumic trend set by the earlier gollum movies, such as the overrated "The Descent". It wasn't original then, and it's even less original now.Anybody else sick and tired of watching hairless, skinny, deformed Gollum-impersonating mutants? It seems every other horror film these days has to have creatures of this sort.There's nonsense, too, not just boring monsters. For example, the blonde chops off her own finger quite a while after she'd been bitten. So the zombie virus spreads a millimeter per hour through the bloodstream, does it? Not to mention that she already had a neck wound from a gollum. Once her boyfriend and then she get infected, the movie loses even the tiny bit of purpose it might have had. It's been a trend in horror films for decades now to have downer endings in zombapocalypse flicks, but all that does is make the movies even more pointless and predictable.The mutants are typical horror-film fare: they won't attack you if they think you're easy prey (because they know the movie must last at least an hour). They hunt for sports. That's why the gollums are so well-behaved while the couple is outside. A gollum circles the blonde while she's waiting in and around the car, but doesn't attack. And yet, the moment the couple gets INSIDE a house, the gollums go berserk. Something tells me the director and the gollums are in cahoots.I don't quite understand why the humans have to deal with only one gollum at a time. As soon as her boyfriend becomes a gollum the other pursuing gollum is nowhere in sight. But as soon as she gets rid of him, yet another gollum appears, or reappears. Are we to assume the gollums are anti-social creatures, or perhaps even hate each other's guts? Not on speaking terms? Grunting terms? Do they have an agreement only to attack one at a time? Do they take turns? If you're a fan of "gollum horror", rents this, downloads it, whatever. "We likes moronic filmsies, we do!" I bet you do.
toymatinee
Well, acted, taut and thoughtful, this Irish-made Nu-Horror piece has the makings of a ground-breaking entry into a tired and cynical field.The plot is largely told without dialogue which is a technique that should be used a lot more. The story revolves quite simply around a young Irish couple stranded and isolated as they are hunted by something hungry that rose from the peat bogs. Horror and pop-culture fans will recognize the antagonist instantly when seen in profile though in a Q&A, the director said he was only using portions of that trope despite the mimeographed physical resemblance.Both of the main actors give instinctual and layered performances particularly given the lack of substantive dialogue. This makes perfect sense as when one is running and hiding in fear for one's life, conversation might not be foremost on your mind. Grunts, groans screams and moans are used as often as words to convey their situation though I must admit it would have been more natural for one of them to freak out at the whole illogical and unnatural nature of their predicament. Think Blair Witch Project's many uses of hysterics in the face of an unseen, unknowable foe.Niamh Alger's turn as the can-do girl fighting for her and her boyfriend's life is a nice break from the standard male protagonist role, though in Horror, beautiful women DO seem to fare better than average in the post-Millennial world, still Algar's Sarah is a convincing and tenacious hero without the need to show us Sigourney Weaver levels of unstopability.Gore and cheap starts are not an issue here, though one of the characters does make a decision to hurt themselves for reasons which will be apparent once seen and while the idea is sound and shows the character to be quick-witted and tough, the special fx produced a pay off that was slightly Fangoria c.1975.The antagonist IS suitably mysterious and vague, avoiding the pitfall of the horror exposed to the light in all its tangible goriness and thus reduced to just another Saturday Matinée beastie.The movie does suffer from pacing problems as that much time without dialogue SHOULD give you some motion to the story rather than extended breaks of the characters catching their breath or tending to cuts, leaves one feeling the the director's choice to allow the scenes to breathe organically is less patience and more self-indulgent.Despite this, the film's great disappointment lies in its use of the camera. This is not like the aforementioned Blair Witch, wherein one gets Cops-style shaky cam on-the-run. Rather it seems to be quite infatuated by its own cleverness in creating claustrophobia even when outdoors or in large spaces, the camera is placed so close to the characters as to prevent you from seeing both sides of their face in some cases. The devotion to this sense of confusion and displacement carries through to wide-angle scenes where in many cases objects are left to intervene between viewer and subject. While the goal is clearly to leave the viewer unbalanced, the result is simply to leave one blinking and confused. Intended to be a mood-setter, the final product is instead the antithesis of film; it makes what you've seen LESS understandable and completely unrelatable. Add in the constant darkness from the title and your final product is more film strip than cinema. At no point was this author ever able to place himself into the scene and become a subject of the director's world, instead remaining in constant analysis mode which is just not that enjoyable and ultimately undoes all of the director's technique.Watching this movie is akin to buying a car with a bad transmission. All those wonderful parts that do work are completely over-matched by the nagging and constant problem that rides shotgun on every trip.
