And in the distance, as the movie came to a close in an ending that ripped off the remains of “Evil Dead” so badly I gazed in wide eyed horror, a woman could be heard–laughing aloud. Is this ever a good sign to a good movie? No way, and that was a surefire indicator Uwe Boll had done it yet again, he’d made a movie that rivaled the sheer horror that was “House of the Dead,” a movie that will forever live in infamy as one of the worst horror movies ever made. Suffice it to say, if I made a drama or horror and spawned even the slightest of laughter, I’d duck out of the theater and hide in a cave. Too bad Boll didn’t do it.
I’ve read a bunch of reviews smashing this film to pieces, and I’ve read a bunch of interviews of the delusions of Boll who says this is superior in every way to “Blade” and “Underworld.” Now while both of those movies were clearly not masterpieces, they are in every way superior to this. If there was ever a man in need of a wake up call that he is clearly in the wrong profession, it’s Boll. But money can buy a lot, including a career which Boll has managed to wrangle with all his money. Only two words came to mind while watching this movie, and I couldn’t help but channel Brando in “Apocalypse Now”: The horror. The hor-ror! Of course it couldn’t have been a predicted smash, since it took Lions Gate four years to release this and then plant it on January, the dumping ground for films not good enough to show up on the real movie seasons. The Story behind “Alone in the Dark” is very confusing, and Boll seems to be aware of that by giving audiences an obscenely long opening scroll that explains every aspect of the story, and give our hero narration that explains to the audience what’s happening.
After explaining with a scroll, and a flashback, the hero goes on to explain yet again, and it’s still fucking confusing. It’s extremely lazy, and boring. And just to keep audiences attention, he enlists a car chase only fifteen minutes into the story set to seventies pop music. But that’s not the kicker. Boll enlists “Matrix” style fight scenes in which Carnby—dressed in his black trench coat and stubble—manages to enlist flips and kicks that he never uses again, and gives us a prolonged fight sequence that ends on a rather ridiculous note, and then we’re introduced to Reid’s character, who is quite possibly one of the most laughable aspect of the film. Tara’s character is only defined by cliché character traits: glasses and a bun to make her look smart and to help increase the intelligence she lacks. Because scientists are never good looking, no. Though its common knowledge Tara Reid’s career was never anything to begin with, Reid’s performance is quite possibly the worst of her film career.
She staggers around in a smokey whisper delivering dialogue with a clunky delivery. Meanwhile, we’re subjected to one of the most boring stories ever written for the big screen and many laughable moments that you can’t help give an embarrassed chuckle towards. In one sequence, as our two main characters are being chased by a thrashing monster in the halls, they hide in the room and Slater’s character yells “Lock the doors!” I wish I could find more humor in Boll’s product, but his film is just so insanely boring, and awful, that it goes beyond sarcasm. Boll’s film lulls you into such a state of confusion and sheer agony, it’s impossible to find humor. Can someone explain why suddenly Slater and Reid’s character have sex in the middle of the film? Why does Boll blast heavy metal music during the gun fight sequences? Let’s run down the list! Boring, cheesy, dumb, relentlessly idiotic, horrible direction, confusing plot, many plot holes, and acting so bad, you’ll eat rat poison to avert the pain, all of which make up an average Boll film. I’ve never seen a movie so bad that it nearly drew me to tears, but “Alone in the Dark” pulls that off.