Alone in the Dark

Whenever people think of Uwe Boll, they think of all of his films that can be considered bad. (If not terrible) And the film that most people point to as one of his worst is the 2005 release "Alone in the Dark." (Heck, it's the one I've seen many claim to be THE worst film he's made... and others claim it to be perhaps one of the worst films of all time.) It's the one that seems to get the most attention. The most publicity. And of course, the most hate.

I'm not in that camp, though. Oddly enough. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that despite being a fairly terrible film, "Alone in the Dark" to me is arguably one of his best video-game-to-film adaptations. Something about it comes off as borderline "So bad, it's good" to me. And I honestly found it to be perhaps the best-directed film in his entire filmography, at least from a visual/composition standpoint.

The film follows paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), as he struggles against various otherworldly threats, including deadly creatures, underground caverns, the delusions of a mad scientist, and other forces. At the same time, he reconnects with an old flame (Tara Reid) and comes to odds with government Bureau 713 and a former comrade. (Stephen Dorff.)

The acting is... well. You know. ...bad. Slater is trying and seems to be having a blast, but he's still quite wooden. Reid is amusingly-bad in her attempts to come off as smart and serious. Dorff is probably the best, giving the only performance that seems SLIGHTLY decent. (Though still both over-done and under-done depending on the scene.) And supporting characters are all around the level of "meh."

The script is a fairly incomprehensible mess. From scene to scene, you can't really grasp what's happening, what's relevant (or irrelevant), what character motivations are, etc. There's a lot of bizarre leaps in focus and there isn't really any clearly defined focus or main conflict. The film seems to be made up of various meandering subplots that don't quite fit together. In addition, the cinematography is bland. The music is sub-par. Effects range from "excellent" (some early bullet-time effects, while tacky, are very well-executed) to "awful." (Some of the creature effects being laugh-out-loud bad.) And there's a lot of little issues here and there throughout the production and presentation.

This SHOULD be a 1 out of 10 film for sure. But there's just something about it. I just can't bring myself to give it that score.

In part, it's because I do honestly believe that this is one of Boll's better films. And I believe that here, he shows off perhaps the best visual direction of his entire career. It actually has a few really cool shots that are well-composed, there's at least some creativity shown (even though it doesn't work) through attempts to be moody or exciting with key sequences, and it has the most style out of anything he's really done. Don't get me wrong... the film still isn't particularly well-directed. But it seems to have the most effort put in by Boll out of any of his films. It isn't cheap and rushed like "House of the Dead", nor overly "gritty" and sloppy like everything he's done lately. It looks the most like an actual decently-budgeted movie out of all of his films.

In addition, something about this movie strikes me very-much as a great example of "so bad, it's good." Whether it be chuckling at lazy attempts to make characters look smart (giving Tara Reid glasses, for example), or poorly-executed action beats... I find this film very likable and entertaining because of how bad it is. And that counts for something.

I think that this is definitely not Boll's worst film at all. I don't even think it's in his bottom-5. I found it amusingly bad, and with a surprising amount of style and effort. And that effort alone makes it better than much of his other work.

I give this a very-bad 3 out of 10. Fans of bad movies (like me) should definitely give it a shot. You just might find it entertaining!

The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.

The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks.

The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either.

Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.

Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.

The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.

I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though.