Dark Storm : La Dernière Tempête

DARK STORM, a zero-budget TV movie from 2006 starring a down-on-his-luck Stephen Baldwin, has all the trappings of a dodgy disaster-cum-sci-fi movie: a scientist is accidentally exposed to dark matter and soon finds himself with the ability to control the elements.

About halfway through the running time, I somewhat incredulously realised that I was in fact watching a remake of a poverty row programmer called THE INDESTRUCTIBLE MAN, starring an equally down-on-his-luck Lon Chaney Jr., about a guy who finds himself with the power to control electricity. The two plots aren't exact, but they're similar enough to suppose that the writer must have seen the old Chaney flick.

In any case, DARK STORM is a poor excuse for a film. Half of it is a silly sci-fi outing, with random balaclava-wearing goons going around hassling pretty female scientists and extras getting killed. The other half is a disaster movie, with dark matter storms destroying buildings in Seattle and Romania, of all places. One of the storms destroys a high rise in scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks. Needless to say, the CGI effects are horrible and the acting equally bad, particularly from a slumming-it Baldwin, who really should know better...

eugh, this is not a very good film. There is simply nothing 'A'-grade about it; indeed even the 'A' that should have been on the back of Stephen Baldwin's 'R nge Rover' came out in sympathy, it seems.

Now I will own up to having watched some absolute stinkers in my time, and I've even derived some amusement from them; provided my expectations are set low enough ahead of time, any morsel of quality on offer is much appreciated.

But here, pickings are so thin that I found myself mulling over various inconsequential details, like why it is that the bad guy wears more lipstick than most of the female actors, why it is that some of the 'scientists' wear their obligatory white coats even when they are not at work, and why it is I kept thinking of 'Mr Potato Head' at intervals throughout the film.

Those steeped in this genre will doubtless be familiar with such equally whiffy titles as 'Stonehenge Apocalypse' in which various elements of this film are seemingly later recycled.

If you must watch this film, I suggest that you lower your expectations as much as you can manage, get your chums round with a few beers, and play a game where you drink some beer every time you see or hear some nonsense. Bring plenty of beer.

Remember folks, "it isn't so much a science, as a new way of life..."

I am always at a loss of words why so many terrible films are made...this film is no exception. In every single way, this is an embarrassment. Don't get me wrong I love good ol' fashioned GOOD Sci-Fi. (Alien, Aliens, Matrix Trilogy, so on and so forth) But this is embarrassing. The plot is terrible in the worst way, all the characters are cardboard cut-outs, and I would rather watch a High school student film than this piece of garbage. I don't know if the people involved are really trying, or it is all just one big inside joke, or if they get some kind of tax break for bringing in business. I remember when Stephen Baldwin was part of a great film called "The Usual Suspects." I always wonder when actors turn to films they must know are bad going in, and yet still are part of them! I can't imagine that he is paid very well doing this, or maybe the shooting schedule is so short it is worth the money, or if they even care that this So called "Movie" will permanently be on his resume forever. I thought "Bio-Dome" was bad, but at least it was bad in a good way. There is no excuse for this ludicrous waste of space. I shouldn't have watched it, and through most of the movie I felt bad for all of the actors involved. I know they have talent. Hell the General was the great bad guy (The Cigarette Smoking Man in the X-files for many years) and yet he chose to do this ridiculous obviously cheap film anyway. I don't know if it is just the paycheck, or the promise of a theatrical release, or good special effects, or if they just want to keep on working that makes these people do this. Please everyone who reads this (hopefully you don't bother the "Movie" is that bad) why don't you stick yourself w/needles under your fingernails instead; it's less painful. I know that here on IMDb they rate on a scale to 10, but I prefer out of 4 stars. I would give it 1/4 of one star it is that bad, and I only give it that because Stephen Baldwin was so good in "The Usual Suspects" and his brother Alec is so good on the show "30 Rock." Avoid at all costs, you will be glad you did.

I had to stay up with my young son last night and thought Dark Storm looked vaguely interesting compared to the other pap on offer.

No.

It was the aura of car crash TV that kept me watching. A fat Stephen Baldwin acting worse than my armchair does. My word, I've never seen anyone so bad in a film.

His scientist sidekick and the villain at least were professional and I could believe they were actors, but Mr. Baldwin gave the standout worst "acting performance" I have ever had the misfortune of sitting in front of. Whatever you do, do not waste an hour or two of your precious life on this utter shower of *&^%. Spend the time more fruitfully in staring at a blank wall, or cutting your toenails.

It doesn't get much sillier than this for the serious sci-fi buff, but as low-expectation, old fashioned "Saturday afternoon matinée" diversion, it's entertaining enough.

A slightly overweight Stephen Baldwin, in a follow-up to an even sillier 2006 sci-fi opus, "Earth Storm" about using bombs to put a crumbling moon back together, invents a weapon using "dark matter" (apparently a more photogenic, controllable version of anti-matter) and generatable thunderstorms. Naturally, things go awry, foolish military men make stupid, ill-considered snap judgements causing even greater problems, traitors steal the weapon and (reaching the heights of "Marvel Comic silliness") Baldwin absorbs some of the "dark matter", making himself a self-generating (but only defensive for some reason - until the villain does it) weapon! The big screen Spiderman films made as much scientific sense (why can't screenwriters give us entertainment with stories JUST as exciting that gets the science right and doesn't insult our intelligence!?) but had more consistent characters and motivations.

If you can ignore the basically incredible weapon which is the McGuffin which gets the plot rolling, the piece is fun on its own terms - no worse than Disney's 1979 "Black Hole" (which famously made its title dark star a glowing whirlpool). The Disney had firmer scientific underpinnings but worse acting and special effects, so it's sort of a fair trade off.

The always engaging Rob LaBelle makes a fine scientific sidekick (who actually does most of the work - not to mention acting), and Gardiner Millar as the chief villain is solid - even when the special effects have him reenacting the last scenes of the first Indiana Jones film.

Undemanding fun, but keep your expectations low.