Customer Reviews

Against the Dark

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(20)

 

 

As if he was a rather large and sweaty product on the Generation Game, The Fat Lord returns on his own personal conveyor belt of mediocrity with this new direct to video stinker. Anyone still reeling from the sheer lunacy of his last effort ''Kill Switch'' (which to be fair I actually enjoyed in a ''what the hell?'' kind of way) will come down to earth with a fast, large thud as Seagal's latest is nothing more than an overly long dull pseudo horror flick which barely has any running time with our favorite pony tailed video master.

The story has the world (well, Bulgaria or some other non american location) engulfed by a plague which has turned us humans into low rent extras from '28 Days Later'. The rest of humanity are huddled into small groups attempting survival and escaping the marauding vampire/zombie combo. Into the fray, comes our leather jacketed hero, brandishing a sword which would normally take 3 blokes to carry and ''swooshing'' everything in sight. The Fat Lord's acting style consists of two levels of expression: Silent grimace as if he was stuck on the toilet or a quick piff paff puff - he's swooshed his sword again. Then, back to grimace.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the story. Our hero The Fat Lord leads a team of hunters who travel with him across the scorched landscape taking out the undead and trying to help the remaining survivors and bring them to safety. Across another part of the city, a team of survivors have banded together in a disused hospital where they attempt to make their way out and survive the night, dodging being attacked by the undead and trying to emote any form of emotion out of a one note script which asks nothing more of them except to look attractive whilst screaming or run away from a stunt man covered in blood with large rubber fangs. To be fair to the cast, they all do try to make the best of their roles (lead Jenna Harrison is really good in her role and you do at points want to follow her character), its just that the script is so 'been there, done that' and very sneakily for us fans - The Fat Lord is hardly in the movie! I counted his sporadic running time only adding up to a total 10 minutes - the rest of the movie is split between the human survivors caught in the hospital and a pointless military base sequence with a bored Linden Ashby and a pay cheque cashing Keith David squabbling over who to bomb first. (Note to the film makers; you missed a trick. You should have had the Fat Lord 'swooshing' the bomb away with his sword. Might have made a rather amusing ending. Just a thought).

All in all, another direct to video dud which will surely disappoint his legion of fans. Granted, The Lord is hardly in this one so I guess we can't fully blame him again - but, he did produce the thing and those damn distributor's trade off his name stating he is indeed the star whereas in reality, it's merely an extended cameo. So, to sum up: The cast are quite good for this kind of thing, the script is pedestrian and Richard Crudo's direction is slick but obviously hampered by a dollar ninety five budget and another dull, uninspired location.

Obviously, if you are a fan - you will have no choice but to watch The Lord's latest epic, but for casual viewers drawn in by the horror/action style scenario depicted on the cover (looking like a 'Blade' for the middle aged, if you will) then maybe its wise if you approach with caution. Or, just rent 'Out for Justice'. Again.

Steven Segal is one of my favorite action stars , i loved him in "Marked For Death " & " Hard To Kill " and all of his old movies , and i really proud of him that he is still acting and to be honest i still buy any new movie that he reales ............ but the last four or five movie including this one are BAD some are very BAD i really disappointed from these movies ..... the acting is bad the story is bad there is no cool martial arts movments that you expect from steven .... but i still have a hope that he will realse a new movie like the old ones ....

Some may not even be as generous to call Stephen Seagal an action legend. Let me start by saying this, I am very forgiving when it comes to b-rate action/sci-fi movies. I enjoy that genre, even in all of its corny and unbelieveable antics. It is one thing to be a b-movie, and shunned by the masses, they are definetly not for everybody. It is quite another to be so bad that not even fans of this type of movie can't stand it. For all intents and purposes, for people like me, this film should have been an easy slam dunk. A matial arts star (albiet washed up) and vampires. No one watching a movie like this is expecting an oscar-worthy script, or even good acting. Rather, they are looking for some redeeming quality, even if an over-the-top action sequence, or creative carnage, or in some way making light of itself (i.e. Bruce Campbell movies).

If there is one B-movie killer, it is the 'b' word. Boring. There are a myriad of bad movies out there, each bad for its own reason, but at least they are not boring, and thus have a select audience. Against the Dark couldn't be more boring. They do not even attempt to get you connected to any one of the characters. The biggest miss here is also the most obvious-Stephen. An Aikido master, we should have seen some action. His character is supposed to be a sword master, yet despite that, we see NO martial arts, and for a sword master, he barely touches it. Even with a big, cool sword, he opts to just shoot the vampires with no flash at all. The vampires, by the way, are less vampires, and more like zombies, except they can be stopped easily.

Even though the story is primarily based in one spot, the hospital, the director decides to insult the viewer by showing the front of the hospital every single time we go back to them, probably no less than 8 times. As if we've forgotten where they are every 5 minutes.

I really think it is difficult to mess up this kind of movie for the people like me who enjoy them, but Against the Dark really went out of it's way to be terrible in every way.

I can't imagine what circumstances led to Mr Seagal doing this film, but he has really hit rock bottom. The only consulation I can muster is that from here, at least he really can't do any worse...I hope...

What is the opposite of Bravo? (Insert answer here).

Steven Seagal brings us a vampire slasher film that has more holes than Swiss cheese--and I'm not talking about puncture wounds. Disjointed action sequences, nonsensical character development, minimalist and repetitive dialogue, as well as illogical plot advancement will make every viewer wish they'd rented the vampire movie that sat next to this one on the Blockbuster shelf.

I'm a Seagal fan--a HUGE one--so I trusted New Orleans Reserve Chief Deputy Sheriff Seagal to bring me some entertainment this fine evening. After all, he not only starred in the show, but produced it as well. But, to my sad chagrin, our `star' had maybe sixty seconds of face time the first 60 minutes of the movie. Later, the last thirty agonizing ticks of the clock, we saw him more often, but he was forced (by the script I hope) to deliver the same lines over and over.

Uttered at least four times each: "Make a clean sweep of the place." and "Let's go."

Fifty minutes in, he told us his name.
Little girl, Charlie: "Who are you?"
Seagal, "My name is Tao."
End scene.

The dialogue gods were no better to the protagonist Dorothy. She was forced to say ridiculous things like, "all these hallways lead to the same place..." and "all these tunnels lead to the same place..." (which I found incredibly odd unless the building was round, which according to the many aerial shots, it was not.)

And on and on.

Vampire fans, a word for you. There was a ton of neck-biting in this film, but you also have to put up with zombies-eating-flesh sequences (equipped with up close shots of intestines-for-dinner more than a dozen times) which are not sexy at all. In fact none of the vampire shots are even the least bit alluring. The vampires are actually simply mutants that fell victim to a virus that plagued the entire globe (I am Legend, anyone?). This movie will thrill those people who like bloody, gory, dripping-red internal organs zombie movies, not those who enjoy Twilight, The Lost Boys or Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula.

The obviously generous with his time Keith David stopped over for the afternoon to shoot his few scenes. He played a hard-nosed military general of uncertain personality and conviction who was forced to utter silly and trite lines throughout the show. And his decisions made no sense (which fit right in to the rest of the movie, now that I mention it). The director cut David's scenes into the rest of the vampire-hunting footage in such a way hoping to build suspense but unfortunately they all came off irritating and distracting to the flow of the film. (There was a flow???)

Long story short (too late), Against the Dark was only pretending to be a movie. It's really just a video game that you cannot stop playing until you get every last survivor and hunter out of the hospital. So crack your knuckles and grab up your game controller. We gots us some vampire's to chop up! Whoo-hoo!

My advice...watch the movie. Just don't expect too much.

Ellen C Maze, author
A debut novel with FIFTY 5-Star Reviews: WATCH OUT TWILIGHT! PHENOMENON! LIGHTNING-PACED! CAN'T PUT IT DOWN! CHALLENGES THE RELIGIOUS CROWD! RIVALS...DAN BROWN & STEPHEN KING! and much more. HOP on the bandwagon and check it out my friend!

Since August is officially Put Down Steven Seagal month, I guess I'll go ahead and do my part. It should be noted that I'm only reviewing AGAINST THE DARK because the priest at my last confession said I have to watch it as penance. I hung out with my shiftless, out of work neighbor Tony who, after 15 minutes of watching this, went out looking for a job.

Creatures who rend flesh and suck blood face off against Steven Seagal, whose films tend to sap your will to live. I figure it's a wash. Nowadays, putting Seagal in a horror film is just being redundant. I was told, perhaps erroneously, that AGAINST THE DARK, a.k.a. LAST NIGHT, actually debuted in Direct-to-Betamax format in participating Bed, Bath & Beyond locales. That's because Tower Records took the easy way out.

This film is established early on as one of those grim post-apocalyptic deals where, in a depressing fizzle of originality, an unstoppable virus had swept across the globe and rendered those infected into blood-ravenous cannibalistic mutant things, part vampire, part zombie. The situation is dire for what's left of humanity. The vampires are everywhere, medication is scarce, food is running out, although, gazing at Seagal's unhaggard physique, dude's probably got a cache of Snickers bars stashed somewhere on that fancy leather duster.

There are two story arcs going down. One arc tracks a group of panicky (yet good looking) people trapped in a hospital, and if these folks were in a Star Trek flick, most of them'd be sporting that red Please-Kill-Me-Now Starfleet uniform. The other plot centers around Steven Seagal's civilian team of vampire hunters (all clad in spiffy black leathers because they're cool like that). These two groups eventually run into each other, and we get a bit of that "Oh, um, hey..." bit of dialogue going on. There's a frantic flight to amscray out of there, what with what's left of the military planning an aerial strike at dawn on the sector encompassing the hospital. And, all along, vampires occasionally pop out of the woodwork and try to snack on our cast. Steven Seagal mutters incoherently, his legs (or stunt legs?) spend lots of camera time trudging thru hallways, and he indulges in a bit of unimpressive sword fighty fight and a hint of aikido. Remembering the bounty of cool he used to produce (MARKED FOR DEATH, HARD TO KILL, UNDER SIEGE, heck, even THE GLIMMER MAN), watching Seagal nowadays is some painful shi...

Somewhere, Jean-Claude Van Damme is wiping his brow and saying, "There, but for the grace of Dieu." Gone are the days when Steven Seagal was an honest-to-criminy exciting action star making bone crunching action movies. The only thing crunching nowadays is when he's biting into a caramel apple. You got tricked again, if you thought this was a Steven Seagal feature. The once lean but now gravy-filled former action star isn't in this film as much as you'd think. And his acting? Again, in lots of scenes, ol' puffy face is simply walking and walking thru hallways. And, honestly, for a guy walking thru hallways, I don't know that he's that believable a character.

The production values? Please. The film's biggest special effects is to make Steven Seagal look mobile. There was one scene of him in slo-mo, and guy exudes such listlessness I half-thought that maybe it was him in real time all along. The budget is so woeful I actually suspect my jobless neighbor Tony of bankrolling the thing. The creature f/x consists basically of splattering red syrup on the vampires' mouth regions. It can't help but go downhill when you also factor in the crapalicious sreenplay, the dreadful pace, the unappealing action sequences, the sluggish scares, and the unabsorbing characters and the no-name cast which plays them (okay, Keith David is in it - or maybe David Keith?).

Horror 101: When surrounded by the stalking undead, never ever split up. Keep a hand near your weapons. In fact, HAVE SOME FRIGGIN' WEAPONS!! When entering a room occupied by a ghoul and a cowering figure with her back turned towards you, don't assume that the cowering figure is some helpless chick (they rarely are). And, one more time, never split up. I'm just sayin'. Having said that, these are some of the wimpiest, easiest to take out bunch of vampires I've seen on cinema.

This DVD also comes with "Fighting the Shadows: Behind the Scenes of AGAINST THE DARK (10 minutes long). If you thought Seagal's face was doughy and damp with meat sweats before, brother, just check him out without the magic of make-up. Steven Seagal, master of aikido, never could fend off the Pizza Hut delivery guy.

But there's a rainbow over the horizon for Steven Seagal. Seems like he's slated to co-star in the upcoming theatrical release MACHETE. That may be his last chance to revive a film career and get the eff out of Bucharest, Romania, which just declared a national food shortage. Thanks, Steven.

I also watched AGAINST THE DARK with my girlfriend, and she broke up with me.

If your thinking of renting/buying this video because it looks like Stevie has done a horror movie well he has.....but that is just because how bad this film is. First-not scary. Second-Bad acting (worse than you would expect, I should say). Third-Seagal is hardly in the movie. The only time we see him is as he and his "entourage' walk through this bldg easily striking down these creatures as they `step' out one at a time to be sliced and diced!! No thought put into any of these scenes.....it must have taken Stevie a cool 30 minutes on the set to come in and film his whopping < 8 minutes total and then go to another set to start another bad movie. Worst of all how do you have all these creatures running around and the movie is still boring? I was even having a beer and it was still bad........... DO NOT BE DECEIVED!!! THIS MOVIE REEKS!!!!

I am so disappointed in this movie, and in Steven Seagal for even making it and allowing his name to be attached to it! And to think I wasted good money on it. He has sunk to an all time new low. I wish he would just get back to the honest/stong-arm cop movies that made him admired and famous to start with. This gore-filled stinker wasn't even worth watching all the way through. What a waste of time, film, effort, and money (mostly mine!) C'mon Steven--your fans are speaking and we're still out here. Why aren't you listening????

QUESTION: What is more unstoppable that Steven Seagal? ANSWER: Steven Seagal with a sword..

The main reason I have not watched any Steven Seagal movies in many years is because his character is always untouchable. How many times can we watch Seagal slice through the biggest and baddest villians like a hot knife through butter and never even get a single scratch? It's a boring formula, and drains all suspense from the movie.. because you know our hero will never even get touched by anyone of anything.

I bought Against The Dark hoping it would be a little bit different. After all, it was a total change up for Steven Seagal as far as movie type. He wouldn't be that dumb as to bring the same old untouchableness into a horror movie would he???? But he did... and right before I put the movie in I said laughingly, "I'll bet Seagal has the same look he always has in every movie.. He will be invincible and never even break a sweat. He will always be in total control and never have a finger laid on him." And I was so right...

Even in a world where an unknown virus has turned most of the population into vampire like creatures, Stevie wears his same old hide kicking grimace and obliterates everything in his path with ease. He never gets scared, never flinches and has the whole situation by the short hairs.

The acting is bad in this movie as well.. When Stevie delivers his lines he sounds like he is trying to be a gangsta.. other times he sounds like Fog Horn Leg Horn doing a Steven Seagal impression. And yet sometimes, he reminds me of my Uncle Louie when he was a bit younger and had teeth. Stevies moves were bad, was he injured or something????? All he did was the same few swish, swish, swishes with his sword and slash the vampires necks.. either that, or he shot them. And he swung a couple around by the arm and threw them through a wall or window. AND might I ad here, that these vampires could be killed just like any normal human being.

The story was badly written, because we see a group of survivors enter an abandoned hospital through a broken window.. Then later, Stevie and his crew enter through a broken door.. Then everyone has to trek through the largest hospital in the world to find a security door before the generator goes out and seals all the doors and windows. I guess it was to difficult to turn around and exit the building through that broken window or door that people climbed in through in the first place?????

So before you think of purchasing this movie.. do this simple visualization first; Close your eyes, envision Stevie Seagal walking through dark streets and a dark abandoned hospital.. See Stevie flawlessly kicking the snot out of everyone and wearing his trade mark grimace at all times.. Now see Stevie save the day and walk into the sunrise victorious over everything.

Did you do that short little visualization??? Good!!!! You just watched Against The Dark.. and now you can save your hard earned money. Because this movie blows serious chunks.

For some reason, Against the Dark is ashamed of its zombies. We can only assume this was a miscalculation on the part of the producer who must have believed vampires would sell better. Make no mistake, Against the Dark is about a zombie apocalypse. That's a shame, because if the movie was termed zombie survival horror it might have had a chance.

In the apocalyptic landscape vampires - I mean zombies - outnumber humans. The few survivors whisper of Tau-ffy (Steven Seagal) the Zombie Slayer and his legendary band of hunters. He and his black leather hotties are renowned for their zombie-killing skill. Which is too bad, because they aren't on screen for more than ten minutes.

Instead, we watch two different groups: the military, who is still fully functional despite the apocalypse, and a bunch of idiots in a creepy hospital. One of these groups talks endlessly about sanitizing the area with a nuclear bomb to contain the infection. The other group wanders around aimlessly, getting high and moaning about their plight. Can you guess which is which?

There are three plots, but two are extraneous because they've been copied and pasted from other films. The all-powerful military, which has no place in a collapsed society, is a staple of zombie survival movies set in the modern day. The katana-wielding zombie slayer is a different genre entirely. And the fact that the zombies are evolving doesn't amount to much other than to make you feel a little bad for all the zombies Tau keeps slaying.

Somewhere in this mess there's an actual movie, but it doesn't involve Seagal's team of pouty zombie-bashers or tortured military commanders waffling about blowing things up. Against the Dark wants to be better than it is. Part of the reason it insists the undead are vampires is because the various survivors repeatedly insist that "humans are the monsters." This is the plot of the book that spawned the genre, I Am Legend, where the vampire-slaying hero turns out to be the villain. You might have seen this plot in such films as The Last Man on Earth (1964), The Omega Man (1971) or I Am Legend (2007).

Against the Dark is no I Am Legend.

Perhaps "Against the Dark" is the worst Steven Seagal film, this side of incredibly terrible "Attack Force." Trust me, this is really bad. And what is worse, boring.

Steven Seagal is Tao, a sword-wielding zombie hunter dressed in black leather coat. Actually, he doesn't use the weapon very much, let alone his (once trademark) martial arts skills. What he does in this post-Apocalyptic world where most humans turned into zombies, is just roaming in a dilapidated hospital at midnight, mumbling something forgettable occasionally.

There are other characters trapped in this deserted building, some trying to find medicine, some just to survive. In this awfully ineffective story, all they have to do is look worried, keep talking and walking. Actions? None. Scares? None. Unintentional laughter? None, again. The editing and photography is below average, so poor and dark that sometimes you cannot tell what is going on. The film is just boring, a total waste of time.

Keith David appears as a military officer who must make a tough decision. He deserves much better films than this.