IMDb user comments for
Darkness (2002) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 34:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

336 comments in total

---

51 out of 73 people found the following comment useful :-
An acquired taste, 27 June 2005

Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere

Darkness was purchased for distribution in 2002 as what appears to be a tax write-off on the part of Dimension Films. It has yet to see so much as a straight-to-video release in Australia, and appearances suggest that in spite of Anna Paquin's minor stardom, it never will. This is a pity, because Jaume Balagueró's economical approach to making a horror film is something that we need more of in today's box office. Like Tobe Hooper before him, Balagueró gives the viewer short bursts of scenery for the imagination to use as a foundation. Everything that scares the viewer in this film is the product of their imagination, which might go some way to explain the poor reception it appears to have had on the IMDb. Trusting in the imagination of your audience is a risk, especially when a large part of that audience has been indoctrinated against using theirs by twenty or more years of eMpTyV. Put simply, the reception Darkness suffered in the US market can be attributed to a clash of cultures.

This is not to say the film is not without flaws. The first half hour in particular comes across as a collection of scenes without transition. This is something that occurs often in British television, where people are shown doing things in different places with nothing to explain how they got there. Those who have seen Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels or any of the Law & Order series will have some idea of what I am talking about. In comedies, this can help reduce the lag time between laughs. It can also help dramas function effectively in scope. In the case of Darkness, unfortunately, it can leave the viewer in some state of confusion as to what is meant to be happening, or the chronology of events. Subtitles are occasionally flashed across the screen to indicate what day of the week it is, but this leaves the events of the film seeming to not fit.

The acting, on the other hand, is top-notch. I am not ashamed to admit that the entire reason I bought the DVD is because of how prominently Anna Paquin was featured on the cover. The entire film rests on her slender shoulders, and she carries it heroically. Lena Olin and Iain Glen give Anna plenty to bounce off, and they all make it seem as though they thoroughly enjoyed working together. Stephan Enquist is, naturally, the weakest link in the main cast, but he holds up his end of the story with a grace you rarely see in one so young. Granted, the scenes he appears in are more or less specifically tailored to him, but this is only natural. This film is the only credit listed under his name on the IMDb, so it is possible that he never even had any plans to become an actor in the first place. He is more of a plot device than a character, but he fills that role very nicely. Giancarlo Giannini appears to have bounced back nicely from Hannibal, and proves that he can deliver a great performance when the script is right.

Rather than cover up the holes in the story or its execution with a hodge-podge of computerised graphical effects. Darkness, on the other hand, relies upon practical effects in order to deliver what some might call the money shots. Lights flicker on and off in predetermined sequences, subliminal images rocket across the screen to disorient the viewer, and sound is effectively placed or mixed in order to place the viewer in the scene. The only practical effect here I can seriously object to is the manner in which Jaume Balagueró shakes the camera during some of the scenes that are meant to be high-tension. This is the first time I have seen this despicable move during a European film, and Darkness in particular reminds me of how the technique throws me out of the picture. It reminds me that I am watching a film or DVD, not a family acting out a crisis before me. It's a shame that I have to even mention this, because the other effects in the film deliver far more punch.

As I tried to make clear, this film is very much an acquired taste. Fans of Paul Verhoeven's work in the Dutch film industry will have little trouble adjusting to the Spanish stylings of Darkness. Those who are only acquainted with the American film industry will have a little more trouble, in spite of the fact that in terms of content, Darkness differs little from most American fare. It is the little things, such as the casting or the ability to show things that America's attempts to appeal to everyone disallows, that make Darkness stand out. Sure, it is a standard horror formula, but the fact that it has not been attempted in this manner for some time is a bonus. The twist ending is hardly a surprise, but it does add an unusual edge to the proceedings. In spite of some very conventional material, the end result is anything but.

In all, I gave Darkness an eight out of ten. There is plenty that it does wrong, but there is also so much that it does right. While I don't recommend it for a look at foreign film industry, I do recommend it if you need to see that an effective horror film can be made for less than a hundred million dollars.

---

35 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Subtle yet truly frightening, 15 November 2006

Author: ailiaq from United States

This movie is not your typical American horror flick (which makes sense since it's a Spanish film). It's a far cry from the gory, cliché-ridden and painfully explained horror movies that American audiences are used to.

Darkness disturbed me on different levels. One of them was the family dynamics (notably the father's mental issues), and the suggested potential for violence. The other was the supernatural element, which was used in a subtle and truly frightening manner.

I've seen thousands of horror movies in my lifetime, and this is one of the best. However, if you are not one for nuances and feel that gore is a requisite from a horror movie, then stay away from this one.

---

59 out of 94 people found the following comment useful :-
The Writer Needs To Take A Cooking Class, 27 December 2004

Author: Bjamin (Bjamin@preterition.net) from California

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.

Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.

This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.

The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, "The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.

Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed.

-BJamin

---

47 out of 78 people found the following comment useful :-
Do not go gently into that dark night, 19 June 2005

Author: dwperdue from New Westminster, Canada

My friend Clio and I saw "Darkness" for the first time on DVD, and we both agreed that it's one of the more interesting entries in the horror/suspense genre in recent years. The lead actors - especially Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, and Giancarlo Gianinni - do stellar work, and the young boy who plays Paul could give Haley Joel Osment acting lessons.

I found the movie suspenseful right from the beginning, never knew what was going to happen next, and thought throughout, "I don't know who to trust!" with my suspicions flying back & forth between the dad - someone presented to us a a father with a history of mental illness, the 'obvious'villain; his wife, played by Lena Olin, who has a built-in mistrust factor thanks to her chilling ice-in-her-veins portrayal of Sidney's mom on "Alias"; the grandfather, played smoothly and charmingly by Giancarlo Gianinni; and even the boy friend.

This film was written and directed by an independent film-maker,and the combination of the suspenseful, tight script; the keen-edged performances by the actors; the director's use of editing within the camera, and using lighting, to achieve special effects;and his variable pacing, all contribute to make "Darkness" a worthy entry in the horror/suspense genre, and NOT AT ALL like the usual, big-budget American schlock.

I highly recommend this film, available on DVD.

---

37 out of 64 people found the following comment useful :-
Despite what you may hear, 21 June 2005

Author: jgemonic from United States

I had heard bad things from the few people I know who had seen this film. I was still curious though, I think Anna Paquin is a somewhat underestimated actress who is rarely given what you could call a leading roll. Other than that, I knew nothing that the back of the DVD case couldn't tell me. Anyways.

I really enjoyed this film. It was well made, it was tastefully done and yes I found it to be scarier than just about anything else I've seen lately. Plus it features a pretty good turn by Fele Martínez who also starred in 'Abre los ojos', the film Cameron Crowe dubbed in English and called Vanilla Sky.

---

25 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Somewhat predictable but good, 26 May 2005

Author: Wolfram-And-Hart from Fl.US

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The first act of the movie seemed a little stale, too similar to "The Shining", "Amityville Horror" or "Poltergiest" but it got better.

A family from America moves to a house in Spain, where a murder happened 40 years ago. The daughter and mother don't get along, the son has a "Sixth Sense"-like problem with the ghosts in the house and the father has a mental disorder that turns him into a raving lunatic. It turns out the house is a demonic temple built by Satanist, and 40 years ago a failed ritual murder of 7 kids to bring on the end of the world happened. The grandfather, one of the Satanists, has maneuvered his son to be killed on the next eclipse so the ritual can be completed. The father is choking and the daughter cuts his throat to try to save him, but he dies and the evil is unleashed.

The father's performance is good, but is to reminiscent of Jack Torrence.The mother is the most infuriating character in the movie, her denial and bitchiness about her husband's illness and treatment of her daughter is enough for anyone watching it to want to kill her. The first time I watched it, I thought that maybe she was working for the evil in the house, like the grandfather. I think everyone who saw this cheers when she turns off the light and the Darkness kills her.

The ending was good, I love movies where evil wins.

---

18 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Blimey! A film about TRUE evil. Fab!, 28 April 2005

Author: Hardylane from Manchester UK

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It comes as no surprise to me that so many teenage Americans find this so unsatisfying.

After all, some of the deeper meanings are NOT explained in a 5 minute commercial by Ronald McDonald. AND... to top it all off... a very dark ending.

SPOILERS FOLLOW>>>>>>>>> A fairly clear plot.....

Family move to Spain to old family house for various reasons, especially the father's instability. House has a history. House is haunted. House has secret rooms and odd things hidden.

House is actually temple for Satanist troupe who plan to slaughter their kids (bred for the purpose one would imagine) and release hell on earth, at the exact point of a total eclipse of the sun.

It goes wrong first time and they plan to complete the ritual at the next eclipse. Everything works towards this. The reasons they came back to the house, the manipulation of the father.etc.

I'd like to explain a few rather obvious things to the Pepsi generation...

1. The secret room is to store the things needed for the next eclipse.

2. The picture of the ghouls is a storage medium. A resting place for the ghouls. They are servants of Satan, and exist to help his return to earth. Hence the reason they leave the picture.

3. The ghouls are shapeshifters and can manipulate matter at will.

When the sacrifice is done, the deal is done and hell IS coming to earth.. from the house outwards. Hence the blood covered walls and cabbalistic symbols on the walls near the end. This is how the earth will look in a short time, I think.

A superb European film that makes no concessions to Hershey bars or Gatorade.

---

44 out of 82 people found the following comment useful :-
Lovecraftian horror returns to the screen in this interesting film., 9 January 2005

Author: Captain_Couth (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA

Darkness (2002) (International Version) is an intense horror film about creatures and other unspeakable horrors that dwell within the shadows of a decrepit house. The story is also about a phantasmagorical event that occurred in the same area forty years before. It happened during a solar eclipse, an unusual phenomenon that occurs in the region every forty years. An American family moves into the house full of secrets. This family, like so many others has secrets themselves. What seems like an ordinary unit is fragile within.

Anna Paquin stars as the daughter who has doubts about the longevity of this "happy" household. Lena Olin co-stars as the mother whilst the dude from the first Tomb Raider plays the father. He does a good job as a man who's frail psyche is on the verge of a total meltdown. Ms. Olin is great as the mother in total denial. Paquin takes the movie into her capable hands as the lead actress. I happen to like this movie after watching it a second time. A very layered film with many references and thematic overtones of one of my favorite writers H.P. Lovecraft. The filmmakers do a better job of portraying his work than most who try and do a straight forward presentation.

I haven't seen the edited American release (and I probably don't want to) but the international version is a visual treat for any true fan of horror. I have to recommend this film. The Lovecraft themes and the acting from the cast as well as the superb direction make this one a fun film to watch.

Highly recommended (International version only).

---

12 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
What Could It Be About The Darkness?, 14 April 2005

Author: fando

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is the most original horror movie I have seen in years, or maybe not considering that it shares much of the elements of Balaguero's previous movie, "The Nameless", which I am afraid will not make it to DVD anytime soon since it seems that "Darkness" was not all that well received here in the US. Could be that distributors took a big chunk out of the ending and nobody could make sense out of it, at least the way it should have, or could be that American audiences can't stand a foreign horror movie being more original than their output. I find the similarities that it supposedly has with American movies very ambiguous. The similarities that "Saw", or "The Ring", or even the "Boogeyman" which could be the best that American horror cinema have to offer in the last two years are more evident. It's even out of the question since the last two are nothing but remakes. There is no clear nor sustainable explanation why everybody hates this movie so much in the previous comments I've read. The clearer one is the ending, but since I saw the foreign version of this movie, I assume it's uncut, and for me everything is clear and it did the trick for me. A little spoiler here, but the good guys don't win here, and it's clear they don't at least when you see THE WHOLE THING. It looks like it's not clear what happened in the end because of the distributors. What I can't figure out is what they where trying to do cutting the most important chunk of the movie. At least there's what's supposed to be an unrated version out in the market for sale. Let's see if it's really complete.

I wonder what could have been the reaction of the audiences if this movie was put out as soon as the US distributors bought it. I really hope that it does better now that's out on DVD and they put out "The Nameless" out as well. UNCUT, of course. I'm not paying the price of the whole thing to get just the worst part of it.

---

12 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Can't believe you people, 21 March 2005

Author: angel-259 from UK

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I am at a loss. This was a good creepy film and was such largely because of the unexplained elements in it. Agreed a couple of things being slightly more tied up would possibly have helped but I didn't let it detract from what was a well made and different horror film.

*************SPOILERS*************

Some criticisms I've read and my take on them

Family didn't seem to know each other: Father had violent history due to brain disorder family relocated as part of an attempt to deal with this. I would suggest that any family with this set up might seem a little fractured.

Family seemed to ignore strange behaviour: Its called denial, mother doesn't want anything to be wrong ergo nothing is. Reggie notices the problem and is alone because of this.

Why did the grandfather do this: Who cares, he's a sick man, he wanted to see what would happen? He seemed to me to be so focused on the possibilities that he removed himself from the inevitable outcome of "Darkness" being released. This is supported by the admission that he didn't love his son. He was so focused on the science he abstracted himself out of human feeling.

Why did he let Reggie go: When she blubbered "no no, it can't happen I love him so much" he realised that "Darkness" didn't need his help and that Reggie was supposed to be there.

And on and on

*************SPOILERS*************

Please don't let the fact that you are too dumb to piece these clues together for yourself, lull you into a false impression of this films quality. Yes many things could have been done better but that would have required money and dumb-ass Hollywood studios watering it down so that you idiots could understand it.

---

---

Page 1 of 34:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history