Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with a person who felt compelled to write in and tell you folks that ALONE IN THE DARK from Dr. Uwe Boll is much better than all the reviews you've been reading here on AICN and other movie sites have said it is. But by much better he says it rates about 66% successful... Isn't that still failing?
I saw AITD back in November and I still stand by my review. The cinematography is a huge step up, the actors that can direct themselves are passable, those that can't are god-awful (I'm talking to you Ms. Reid), the effects are better, but the writing and direction... standard Boll. In short, it's still a turd sandwich, just not a soggy one. Anyway, enjoy the lukewarm (yet still massively more positive than mine) review, but remember one thing. "IRAK IS GONE! BOLL STAYS!"
Hey,
I wanted to chime in with my thoughts on Alone in the Dark since I feel a lot of people are probably going to be unfairly avoiding it after reading the handful of "worst movie ever" reviews posted on this site, not to mention Quint's other Uwe Boll diatribes.
As far as videogame movies go, I'm generally in the majority in thinking that Mortal Kombat was great, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was an embarrassing piece of shit, Tomb Raider was mediocre, Super Mario Brothers was hilarious in all the wrong ways, Street Fighter was *makes jacking-off hand gesture* and Resident Evil was "eh, alright". I'm sorry to say I haven't bothered seeing Double Dragon, Wing Commander, Final Fantasy, Tomb Raider 2, House of the Dead, or Resident Evil: Apocalypse and I don't ever plan on going out of my way to do so. Being a gamer, especially a fan of adventure games, I've always liked Alone in the Dark, and I've been looking forward to the movie adaptation. I was pleased to learn that unlike most videogame movies, it would actually follow the storyline of one of the games. I've heard complaints that it has nothing to do with the original game; well no shit, it's not based on that game. If it were, you'd have a middle-aged and moustached Edward Carnby wandering around a mansion fending off Lovecraftian monsters. No, the movie is instead (still somewhat loosely) based on the fifth game in the series, AITD: The New Nightmare, which was sort of a "reinvention" game, giving us a younger, "cooler" Carnby. (Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing a movie about an old guy in a mansion full of Lovecraftian monsters. Lovecraftian monsters are cool, and so are old people with weapons.)
I've read the reviews from people claiming Alone in the Dark is a massive piece of dung and "the worst movie I've ever seen". Surely they've never seen Mortal Kombat: Annihilation? Rollerball? Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever? Either of the Charlie's Angels flicks? I assume not because AITD isn't even remotely as horrifying as those disgusting sacks of wet shit that tried to pass for movies. It's not exactly a masterpiece but it's not really the masterpiece of shit people are making it out to be. Basically, AITD is a mildly enjoyable action flick. I think perhaps I mildly enjoyed it for the same reason I mildly enjoyed The Punisher; people kept telling me it was complete shit and I was expecting complete shit, yet what I got was a halfway decent action flick. Thinking back, it's probably also why Blade let me down a bit; I was constantly told how great it was, yet I got simply a halfway decent action flick. I enjoyed The Punisher (swap Thomas Jane for Bruce Willis and remove the Marvel license and you basically have Die Hard 4, and I likes me Die Hard), I enjoyed Blade, and I enjoyed Alone in the Dark. Take that however you like.
The music is alright, certainly better than Resident Evil's; an actual musical score is far preferable to having some nu-metal bullshit written by Marilyn Manson playing during every action scene. The CGI is good, which is saying something considering how difficult it apparently is to create decent CGI these days. (Case in point, the absolutely pathetic CGI in movies such as the first Spider-Man; Bob Hoskins interacted with Roger Rabbit better than that building interacted with an animated Peter Parker.) It's one of the few post-Matrix action movies that avoids using a bunch of ridiculous bullet-time, although the inappropriate slow motion is annoying. There's plenty of gratuitous action, and any fan of Schwarzenegger or Van Damme or John Doe Action Star will probably like what it has to offer. Frankly it boggles me as to how someone could enjoy movies like Timecop or The Crow and not get a kick out of Alone in the Dark. (I'm not going to comment on the direct-to-video sequels or TV shows those movies spawned since I haven't seen them.) Leave your girlfriend at home; she'll just be disappointed at the lack of a coherent story, and nothing's going to scare her into grabbing onto you. (But then again, ohmagawd, Christian Slater and Stephen Dorff are soooo dreamy.)
To break it down actor-by-actor, first you have Christian Slater, in his "comeback" role. Sure, Alone in the Dark is much less embarrassing than Hard Rain or 3000 Miles to Graceland, but his "comeback" role? Yeah, I'm sure this one's going to just tear up the box office and put him back on the A-list. Yes folks, ten years from now he won't be "the guy from Interview with the Vampire" or "the guy from True Romance" or "the guy from Heathers" or "the guy Kevin Costner shot in the hand with an arrow in Robin Hood" or even "the guy from Kuffs". No, he'll be forever remembered as "Edward Carnby, troubled investigator from Alone in the Dark, you memorable movie you". Whatever. He's good in this movie, and fortunately he hasn't gone back to the faux-Jack Nicholson persona he finally dropped in the mid-90s. Broken Arrow showed that he could make a good "I gotta stop that crazy motherfucker with a bomb" action hero and in AITD he makes a good "run from a monster then turn around and blindly shoot in its general direction" action hero.
Stephen Dorff is a good enough actor and gives a good performance, his only downfall being that he isn't convincing as a head of an organization. I don't buy anyone under the age of 40 as a head of an organization, and Dorff doesn't exactly fit the bill. He's 32 and looks 25. I think he's much more appropriate for a role as a member of an organization rather than the head of one; he'd make a perfect "agent with attitude", sort of like a male version of Michelle Rodriguez's character in Resident Evil. Then you have some actress...oh, it's Tara Reid. (Sorry, I didn't recognize her with both her tits covered.) If this woman has ever given a good performance in her life, it must have been in bed because it sure as hell hasn't been in any of her movies. Well, two out of three ain't bad, right? Actually, thinking about it, 66% is a good way to sum up this whole movie.
When I saw Terminator 3 in the theater I thought it was awesome, but when I saw it again later on TV, I was so bored I couldn't even finish watching it. I feel Alone in the Dark is in the same league of disposable action movies as T3 (and while we're at it, Blade and The Punisher) that are mildly enjoyable upon the first theatrical viewing, but have no life afterwards. They're "hooker movies" that you just want to have your way with for a couple hours then dump on the street. I think a lot of people will get a decent bang for their seven bucks if they walk in with the right expectations, but I doubt they'll want to waste fifteen on the DVD. I'm not entirely sure I'll ever really be satisfied with a movie adaptation of a survival horror game until we get George Romero's Resident Evil, but Uwe Boll has made a decent videogame movie here. (Just keep his ass away from Silent Hill. Give him Nightmare Creatures or something.)
-Blake
Well, there you go. Thanks for the alternate look, Blake. Don't say we never show both sides of the story!!!
