Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Against the Dark

Genre - Horror/Action
Year Released - 2009
Running Time - 94 minutes
Directed by Richard Crudo (his directorial debut)
Written by Matthew Klickstein
Cast Includes:
Steven Seagal (Above the Law, Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, Out for Justice, Under Siege, The Glimmer Man, etc)
Tanoai Reed, Jenna Harrison, Emma Catherwood, Skye Bennett, Danny Midwinter, Daniel Perciva, and Stephen Hagan

Rating: 2 Skulls

Plot Summary:
After the face of the planet is overrun by bloodthirsty vampires (?) special ops squad leader Commander Tao must extinguish the menacing bloodsuckers and save the human race. But for those who have survived and taken refuge in an abandoned hospital, hope is running out - as well as supplies and food.

Review:
We all know that whoever decides to watch this movie, does so solely for the fact that Steven Seagal is in it. . .

He looks bored, doesn't he?

I'm sure by now you have all heard that Seagal is barely even in the movie, as well as the whole uproar over the fact that it's supposed to be Seagal vs. Vampires [turns out that the vampires are more zombie than vampire - the credits even state zombie, so I have no idea where the vampire aspect came from] 

Already having heard all of the above, I sat down and watched this one with an open mind [like I always do] at least hoping for the "so bad, it's good" Unfortunately, it's just pretty bad [though not near as bad as I was expecting it to be] It still does have Seagal in it, after all, and how can you go wrong with a line like, "We're not here to decide who's right or wrong. We're here to decide who lives and dies." Is that not a perfect Seagal line?!? :-)

I think that the filmmakers should have given the part of Tagart [played by Tanoai Reed - a "The Rock" look-a-like, if ever there was one!] to Seagal. Tagart was basically Seagal's #1 and he had way more fight scenes than Seagal did.
In fact, now that I am writing this, there shouldn't even have been a "team" of hunters - it should have just been Seagal, one-one-one!

Nah, even that wouldn't have saved this one. . .

Here's the trailer:


Let me leave you with the below chart showing Seagal's range of emotions:


Jason

11 comments:

Wings said...

And one to avoid adding to my queue. I have never been a Seagal fan, just don't see what appeal he has. Ah well, to each their own!

Sir Jorge said...

hey bro, your youtube code is all jacked up.

You gotta change the wdith's and heights to 425 and 344 to make it not overlap your sidebar.

Oh and yeah this movie is weird...not highly recommended.

Bearded Weirdo Reviews said...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
hahaha!!!!!!

...

...

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

...

...

heh.

wiec? said...

the range of emotions chart at the bottom of this post has to the funniest thing i'm going to see all week.

thanks for getting that out of the way:)

just got the wrestler from Netflicks. i'll check yer review after i watch it.

thebonebreaker said...

Wings, I enjoyed Seagal, back in the day [Out for Justice is probably my favorite, with Hard to Kill not too far behind]
His last good movie, in my opinion, was The Glimmer Man, and that was what, mid-90's?


Jorge,thank you for pointing out the YouTube fiasco [that's what I get for not paying attention to the trailer]
How do I go about changing the width & height?!?


William, you're leaving me hanging Bro! What's on your mind? :-)


wiec, glad that you enjoyed that chart - I saw that and just had to add it to my post! :-)
The Wrestler is a far superior film to this drivel - be sure to come back and let me know your thoughts on that one!

J

iMike said...

My my my... How the mighty have fallen:P

Poor Seagal... lol, I wonder what his check looked like for this one

thebonebreaker said...

Mike,

I can't imagine his check having been that much, being that he was maybe in the film for a whopping 20 minutes, if that! :-)

J

the jaded viewer said...

I got this for free and I keep avoiding watching it.

I mean the title has 3 words...totally Seagal-ish.

Can I even MST3K this?

the sneering (homo-phobic) snob said...

i truly believe "against the dark" to be steven seagals best film, let me explain why, as far as i can remember this is the first time he has made a film that has got something imaginitive going on in it, (as opposed to straightforward people against people, as it were) here he is up against monsters (vampires or zombies or whatever they are) and when you introduce the imaginitive element into what would have otherwise been a straightforward action movie it jazz`s things up quite magnificently and makes the film 10 times more entertaining, thats the reason "against the dark" might become a cult movie for me that i might watch quite a few times, where-as all of seagals other films (without exeption) are entertaining but i`ve only watched them once, (because they didn`t have that all important imaginitive science fiction, horror element that "against the dark" has got) its always so much better if the hero of an action movie has to do battle with monsters, robots, zombies, vampires, aliens, or evil supernatural entities of some kind rather than just having to fight against human beings like himself.

Bearded Weirdo Reviews said...

I was just teasin'. Steven Seagal movies. I can't believe they still make Steven Seagal movies. Y'know what's weird? I never liked his "good" movies, though I'll occasionally watch parts of Under Siege just for Tommy Lee Jones' performance (one of my favorites of his) and Erika Eleniak's awesome stripshow scene, but I find myself constantly dying to see his new "bad" movies. I saw some movie he did a while ago, Belly Of The Beast or something. It was supposed to be some kind of supernatural martial arts potboiler, but it was just... terrible. Beyond terrible. I haven't seen this flick, but I been dying to. Steven Seagal vs. vampires? That sounds like something you dream up with your friends when you're stoned. I don't expect it to be enjoyably bad, and I'm disappointed to hear how little he's in it and how little he actually fights the zombie-vamps, but I still want to give it a look. Mainly because I'm a masochist, apparently.

thebonebreaker said...

JV,

Really, it's not as bad as I thought it would be - the problem is that it just could've been so much better! [I'm assuming that Seagal is friends with the director or something, hence his even being in this one]

As for MST3King it - absolutely! :-)


Snob, you said, "i'ts always so much better if the hero of an action movie has to do battle with monsters, robots, zombies, vampires, aliens, or evil supernatural entities of some kind rather than just having to fight against human beings like himself"

I can agree with you on that much, as for the rest [Seagal's best flick?!?] I definitely have to disagree!


William, like I mentioned in an earlier comment - as a fan of Seagal, I feel that his last "good" movie was The Glimmer Man [mid 90's] I have caught a few of his others, here and there, on television, but have quickly lost interest, which is a shame, as I enjoy his earlier films.

I am curious as to how you will take the movie - be sure to let me know, after you have seen it!


Thanks gentlemen!

J