Alone in the Dark

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.

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!

I'm in no hurry to get in the boxing ring with director Uwe Boll, a man who has been known to use his pugilistic skills to silence his less favourable critics, but I have got to say that this horror/action film (apparently based on an Atari video game) is utterly diabolical—far worse than I ever expected (my opinion of Boll had been reasonably high after seeing Rampage, which was surprisingly effective).

The long-winded opening narration is the first clue that this is going to stink: ancient civilisations, evil creatures from another world, a secret organisation devoted to investigation of the paranormal, and a mad scientist experimenting on orphaned children are clumsily thrown together in an attempt to establish the background to the film, but they only succeed in confusing the viewer before things have even begun. Matters are made even more incomprehensible with a prologue that occurs '22 years ago' but which segues into the present day and proceeds to introduce even more mind-bogglingly random elements to ensure that even the most astute of viewers will be completely baffled.

As the film progresses, more and more nonsensical garbage is haphazardly thrown into the mix, Boll's pointless directorial stylisms making everything impossible to follow, with the occasional voice-over by Christian Slater (intended to help explain matters) only adding to the embarrassment factor. Ridiculous voice-overs aside, Slater's performance isn't all that bad, but his co-star Tara Reid is absolutely terrible and was clearly hired for her looks (yet she doesn't even have the decency to take off her bra during the obligatory sex scene!).

After much frenetic shooting, a smattering of reasonably fun gore, some choice snippets of lousy dialogue ('Some doors are meant to stay shut') and lots of naff CGI creature attacks, during which Boll throws in some lousy Indiana Jones-style adventure and a scene completely ripped off from James Cameron's Aliens (the Xenos—yes the monsters ARE called that—obliterate a team of soldiers, despite the use of automated sentry guns), the film wraps up leaving the viewer none the wiser about what they have witnessed.

Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you.

I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.

The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.

In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".

Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel.

Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.

And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.

Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.

Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more.