locatordave

I didn't care much for Gone Girl -- maybe it was Ben Affleck -- but I was drawn to this movie despite that. Maybe it was Charlize Theron, maybe it was Nicholas Hoult, whom I have enjoyed watching grow into a first rate actor since his days in Skins. In any case, whatever reservations I had at first rapidly dissolved into a distant memory as the first ten minutes passed.

Usually I roll my eyes at flashback-driven efforts, but not so with Dark Places. Each switch back to 1985 is like the tumblers on a lock giving that satisfying click as you pick it, breeding anticipation and certainty that there is a rich reward at the end for your efforts, every scene evoking a subtle revelation that drives the story onward.

Well cast, well scored, well directed, Dark Places deserves more recognition than it has garnered. If I had to point out one flaw, it would be a forgivable one; MISFITS swag was not that easy to come by in 1985.

I'm so ashamed that I actually sat through this movie that as punishment to myself I created an IMDb account and forced myself to review it so that everyone would know. The real injustice here is that the money spent to produce this movie could have been used instead to get a genocidal child-raping Eco-terrorist a decent lawyer. The painful dialogue was reminiscent of being trapped on a school bus full of eight year-old boys on a sugar rush. The camera work -- mostly on its side -- redefined the words "disjointed", "nausea-inducing", and "sub-amateur". The acting was slightly better, but the actors must have been pranked by their agents into taking the roles. Comparing this to "Cabin in the Woods" is only accurate insofar as there is a cabin in the movie, and it is in the woods. Its only redeeming feature is that it is only 80 minutes long. I am hoping the planned sequel is -80 minutes so I can get my time back.