The Rain

Dear Lord!! HOW have people reviewed and rated this so well?! Seriously, unless you want to slip into a mindcoma, do not touch this with a barge pole...

It's another low budget horror that could have done so well. A good idea in principle (a bawdy, ragged-toothed Native American curses some farmy people about something to do with rain) but fails on all levels. It's one of those horrors where the cast plod around a small set over and over again while nothing makes much sense. The acting is DIRE, in fact the plucky young lad from the bygone era was the only promising talent and he's in it all for 5 minutes. The rest of the cast look like they're practising their lines off camera in low effort mode and absolutely no- one adds anything to the silly storyline.

I cannot actually remember more of this because as well as losing the will to live soon in, my vital functions slowed down to a crawl making memory impossible. All I can recall is that there was a lot of wood panelling, a hat that kept reappearing and some black lines on everyone's skin. Oh and a bit of rain. Those were the highlights.

AVOID.

The plot: A cursed town holds a lottery to sacrifice three children from every generation to ensure rain.

I was kind of excited to see a movie starring some B movie legends (Richard Lynch, David Carradine, and Dee Wallace Stone), but none of them really has all that much screen time. In fact, the movie splits its time almost randomly between half a dozen characters, each of whom wander in and out of the main plot while telling their own story. A talented writer/director could have pulled this off, but it just ends up being annoying and confusing here.

The story is a bizarre mix of Dark Romanticism tropes that never really settles down into a coherent story. There's a cursed bloodline, a small town with a hideous secret, Faustian bargains with malevolent spirits, some kind of demon guy who comes out of nowhere, exploited Native Americans, Machiavellian adults, and innocent children. Throw all these things together, with a few modern horror clichés (such as a deus ex machina in the form of a friendly dog), and you get... well... to be honest, I'm not sure what you get. The movie was so erratic, random, and disorganized that I was constantly wondering exactly what I was supposed to be taking from each scene.

If the writer/director had just settled on telling one story without spreading the exposition through three vignettes that barely even interconnect, I think he could have had something that would be remembered fondly by B movie fans. Instead, he tries to pull off something like Pulp Fiction and fails miserably.

There are some scenes that worked well, but, overall, the movie was clumsy and amateurish. As far as Shirley Jackson ripoffs go, this wasn't the worst that I've seen. It was able to channel much of her pessimism about human nature while preserving her faith in children. It also hit all the right notes that a story inspired by The Lottery should hit, though it hit them in a haphazard, lazy way, burying them under a mountain of subplots and extraneous characters.

If you're into independent horror, then you're probably pretty forgiving of even the most egregious flaws. For you, this will probably seem like an enjoyable waste of time. If you're more into mainstream, big budget horror movies, I have to warn you away from this low budget mess.

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.

This movie had a well written script and outstanding special effects plus the cinematography was excellent. It also had several well known actors and they did an outstanding job along with the rest of the cast. Also on the DVD I watched there was an outstanding commentary track by the director along with animated storyboards,a deleted scene and behind the scenes footage which all worth watching.

Just watched this film on DVD alone in the dark and I think I jumped twice. It's very entertaining, mysterious even, but scary it isn't. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a pretty decent film. The bad: There were quite a few amateurish shots in some of the early scenes, but not bad enough to make me stop the movie, which I will do. And the acting was horrible, (lead actress' mom was awful,as well as the little boy playing David C.'s son in the 1800's, the room mate "and" her boyfriend.) but the "real" actors gave me a reason to stick around. Some scenes had lighting issues, continuity issues: someone forgot to wipe the blood off of the crystal ball before she hit her dad with it. And actors in different positions as the shot perspectives changed. But other than that, it was a good flick. I'd probably watch it again in maybe 4 or 5 years from now. Please checkout my films on Youtube: dreamboatmovies