The Absence of Light

I recently had the privilege of watching this film in Cleaveland at twisted nightmare weekend Aug 5 - 7 2005. I was highly impressed with the action sequences and surprised by the number of guest appearances in the film. The visual effects were quite good, especially when I found out that the director did all of the CGI at his home. This would be the third version of the film I have seen. I have been monitoring this movie from its infancy and I can say that the final cut is nearly perfect. The cast and crew have worked a long time to create this wonderful film.

I would definitely recommend this movie to others.

I am sorry to say that this film is indeed bad. It reminds me of a c-grade porn movie with one major difference: no porn.

The story and dialogue needs a complete overhaul. Maybe then the bad acting would not have been as noticeable. At the very least, the pacing should have been picked up.

While I accept that this had a low budget and the director did a good job visually given what little resources he had, he should have spent more time on the story or better yet, get someone else to write it. Many of the action scenes were just pointless.

It was a complete waste of my time.

I had the "privilege" of attending a special screening of 'The Absence of Light' at a horror convention in Ohio.

First off, you know you're in trouble when the director introduces a film, saying: "Now keep in mind, we didn't have much money..." Not that no-budget films are bad, but when a filmmaker uses this as an excuse, the results are always poor. And there is no better example than this unwatchable sleep-fest.

Actually, 'Absence of Light' marks a first in the world of underground cinema: It's the only time I've seen a dream-cast of talented genre vets actually bore me. Charismatic actors like David Hess, Tony Todd and Reggie Banister randomly enter and exit the movie and prove to be every bit as uninteresting as the amateurish no-names. Who are their characters? What are they talking about? Who cares? It's all so dull, you'll cease to care about anything or anyone.

After thirty minutes of this endurance test, I gave up and walked out of the theater. Not surprisingly, so did most of the cast members in attendance.

Any curious genre fans would do well to stay away from this. With a little luck, this movie won't ever see the "light" of day.

Now I don't hate cheap movies. I just don't see why you should waste any money for a movie you could shoot with your dad's camcorder. If I rent a movie, I want it to be a MOVIE, not a bunch of people thinking it would be a good idea to waste some MiniDV - Tapes.

Maybe I hate this one so much because the guy in the video store said it was great, and it wasn't. Maybe I hate it because it's cheap, has the dumbest plot EVER, the most unrealistic characters EVER and the really, really, really WORST SHOWDOWN in the history of films EVER. Even Tom Savini can't save this.

Seriously, this one is a complete waste of time.

"The Absence of Light" is told from the point of view of an unscrupulous killer who's got a job to do and doesn't care how many people he'll have to kill. In this case, a senator wants to be re-elected and witnesses of his countless mistakes have to be removed permanently. It's the point of view which makes the movie different from the average TV crime story, doing the devil's work adds some refreshing political incorrectness. And violence. Also it's a nice touch that several veteran actors were involved: Tom Savini plays the killer's boss, modestly named Higher Power, David Hess is his equivalent on the other side, Caroline Munro just has to sit in a chair and speak a few lines, and Michael Berryman appears as an almost supernatural weirdo. On the other hand, "The Absence of Light" has quite a few problems. Taking the crime story into the science fiction area with a genetic experiment, illustrated with home-made computer effects, damages the professional look seriously. The soundtrack sounds very direct-to-video and lacks good background music. The characterization isn't interesting enough as the dialog often tends to turn in a kind of "we've got to do what we've got to do" circle. A final remark to the reviews I've read. Either personal friends of the director shout "masterpiece!" and give ten stars, or frustrated buyers cry "worst movie of all time" and click the lowest possible mark. Isn't the truth usually somewhere in the middle? Just my two cents, therefore.