"Dark Was The Night" (2014)

The plot to this film is really quite simple: the sheriff (played by Kevin Durand) of a small isolated town in upper New York state investigates a series of strange deaths and disappearances in the surrounding forests  by what looks to be some unknown animal.  He quickly comes to the conclusion that this creature is stalking the outskirts of town, but may soon make its way into the heart of it and start killing more townspeople after a blizzard moves in and shuts everything down.

In truth, I went into this expecting nothing since this is the kind of film that has been done to death and often times not told very well.  Honestly though, I found myself drawn into it, mostly because the director, Jack Heller (who also directed the terrific low budget thriller, “Enter Nowhere”), takes the material seriously, which I appreciated.  Typically in these kinds of films we’re treated to the usual stock characters, but a lot of this film feels more like a character study with Durand’s character having to cope with his son’s recent accidental death and the after effects it’s had on his family.  Durand (a Canadian character actor who usually is known for playing villains) does an admirable job here in creating a very vulnerable and down to earth protagonist who is trying to keep it all together, while at the same time protect his town from this seemingly unstoppable creature.  Lukas Haas (who famously played the little Amish boy in 1985’s “Witness”) is also quite good as Durand’s deputy recently transplanted from New York City.  He and Durand share some good chemistry together and come off as two men who feel quite real, facing something completely unreal.  And rounding the cast out is another character actor who seems to be making a name for himself in the horror genre (and one I’ve become a big fan of), and that of course is Nick Damici, who plays a local bartender who regales everyone with Native American legends that seem to fit their current circumstance.   Having Damici in your cast, no matter how big or small his part, always adds a touch of class to any film he’s in.

Now, I’m not saying the film is anything earth shattering or is in any way going to create new trends, but for what this film is, I found it to be a top notch, low budget monster film.  It certainly feels like something in the vein of Stephen King during the 80’s (think “Cycle of the Werewolf” with a touch of “The Mist”), which in itself was instantly appealing to me having grown up reading King heavily during that period.  I also appreciated the way Heller wisely keeps the creature in the shadows and out of view for most of the film, much in the same way Spielberg famously did in “Jaws” or even like M. Night Shyamalan did with the aliens in “Signs”.  It’s much more suspenseful that way as it adds a lot more life to the creature, given that as an audience member your allowed to project your own image of it in your mind, as opposed to seeing it fully throughout.  And too, most of the effects for it are practical, save towards the end, which is always a plus in my book.

If I do have any complaints (other than the blue filtered, desaturated look that is used all the external scenes, I suppose to give it a feel of winter, but in reality it becomes a little distracting), my biggest would the very abrupt ending.  Without getting into spoiler territory, I’ll just say that it felt like it should’ve gone on further, but under the obvious budgetary constraints it stops short, which was very disappointing. 

That said though, it’s well worth checking out, especially if you like a solid monster movie told with a straight face.  It’s nothing you haven’t seen before, believe me, but at least the actors are given a chance to do more with it than would normally be permitted.  It’s not too often a monster film will allow for some back story for it’s characters so that you might actually care for them when they head into peril.  Plus, for me it felt like a breath of fresh air when you consider all the deliberately bad, “made-for SyFy” type of low budget monster fare we seem to be getting so much of lately.   7 out of 10 for me.

"Children of the Corn: Genesis" (2011)

I have to confess something.  Ever since the late 80's, I have held a deep dislike for all "direct-to-video" sequels, as most of them feel as if they are nothing more than watered down remakes of the originals, or as is most often the case, have very little to do with the films whose name they bear.  Case in point: the "Children of the Corn" franchise.  After "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" (the last of the series to hit theaters), I passed on parts 4 - 8, as well as the 2009 made-for-SyFy remake.

A few years back though, I happened upon a set of all the "Children of the Corn" films on DVD in the $5 bin at Walmart and thought, "Eh, what the hell?"  Figuring someday I might actually sit down and finally watch them, I went ahead and bought the set.  Notice how I said, "a few years back"?  Well, it's taken that long to finally muster up the courage and/or willpower to sit through these (and, I might add, the "Hellraiser" direct-to-video sequels as well, also put out by Dimension, that's been sitting on my shelf next to it's sister series, unopened all this time and collecting dust too).  Parts 4-7 all felt very bland in their execution with their wayward plots, consisting of mostly padded moments to try and make it to the 80 minute feature mark.  I can guarantee that in another five years or so, all of them will be like a vague memory and I'll be lucky to be able to differentiate one from the other.

Which brings me to part 8, the last and most recent of the series, that drops the roman numeral and simply goes by the subtitle, "Genesis".  The only problem is, this is in no way a "prequel" as the title might suggest, but then again, none of the "Corn" sequels seem to follow any kind of continuity or canonized storyline stemming from the first movie.  The basic ingredients to a "Corn" film are simply corn, kids, a possible sickle and maybe the entity known as "He Who Walks Behind the Rows".  That's it.

"Genesis" starts off with yet another couple, Allie (Kelen Coleman) and Tim (Tim Rock) stranded on a remote country highway in what obviously is southern California, but I believe is supposed to be Nebraska.  They decide to see if they can find someone willing to let them use their phone, and happen upon an isolated farmhouse, owned by a man simply called "Preacher" (played by the wild-eyed Billy Drago) and his Russian mail order bride, Helen (Barbara Nedeljakova).  It's apparent Preacher wants nothing to do with this couple on his doorstep...that is until he finds out Allie is pregnant.

Once inside, Preacher tells Allie & Tim they are welcome to stay until morning (when they can get a lift into town to the mechanic's), but warns them not to go places they "ain't invited".  So naturally what's the first thing Allie does?  She wanders off to the barn at night where she hears strange noises and sees what she believes to be a child locked away, then rushes back to tell Tim they need to leave.  Only as they try to leave, an invisible force prevents them from leaving the house, throwing them to the ground.  Is this force being manifested by Preacher, or is it "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"?  Is the boy locked up in the barn Helen's son or "He Who Walks behind the Rows"?  Is Allie's unborn baby connected to all this or is it "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"?  Who knows?  Maybe "He Walks Behind the Rows" knows because I sure couldn't make heads or tails of this muddled mess of a script.

This film to me completely exemplifies everything that is wrong with most direct-to-video sequels.  It tries to throw a connection out to the original film with an opening scene set in the town of Gatlin (which was where the original film and Stephen King's short story took place), but as is usually the case, it has no real relevance to the overall film itself.  The rest of the film could've been a completely original horror film having nothing to do with "Children of the Corn" (and knowing Dimension, it probably was an original script they bought which they doctored up to shoehorn it into the franchise, as they did so often on the "Hellraiser" sequels), and would've been better for it.

If I have any thing positive to say about the film, I'll note that watching Billy Drago be Billy Drago is always fun no matter what the film is.  Here though, he seems much more subdued than his normal frantic self.  Whether it was an attempt to approach this character a little differently or just purely out of boredom with being in these kinds of films, the overall result is pretty effective.  He manages to come off very creepy, especially with those piercing eyes of his, which was enough to keep me guessing as to what his true intentions were?  Once it's revealed though, it elicited a big yawn from me.

Overall, it's an obvious attempt at trying to cash in just one more time on the Stephen King name.  It's amazing to me that his simple 10 page short story could've spawned 9 films (with more to come I'm sure), all of which have about ten pages worth of screenplay material and the rest is always pure padding (including, oddly enough, borrowed action scenes from "Bad Boys II", as was the case with this one).  Let's hope there's a drought of "Corn" films for a while, as after sitting through a marathon of 8 of these, I've had all I can take of "He Who Walks Behind the Rows"!

3 out of 10 for me

* One observation I made was that "Children of the Corn: Genesis" came out on DVD by Dimension at the same time they released "Hellraiser: Revelations", and oddly enough they chose to subtitle both of these films with the first & last books of the Bible.  Is that a coincidence (as neither subtitle has anything to do with either film) or was someone in marketing at Dimension thumbing through the Bible for subtitles?