It is not like there is not enough of him to go around no matter how the dark and claustrophobic scenes try to cover it. The story focuses on the survival of six people trying to escape a hospital filled with the infected. The only thing vampiric about these monsters is they stay out of the sun light and occasionally try to reason (a total of three times in 94 minutes), otherwise they are pretty much running zombies. Seagal and his group of hunters are only out to kill these confused undead and they show up every now and then, but by no means are they truly intricate to the plot especially since our protagonist never decides to stick with the bad asses.
Why did critics ever knock Don Bluth for only offering 80 minute movies? Any short cuts to the ending would have been great in this film that seems to be nothing more than Seagal's acceptance that he is over the hill and fat.
Yes, swordplay is expected when one is dealing with paranormal opponents, but Seagal’s main appeal is him throwing bad guys to horrid deaths. The audience has to wait 90 minutes for that, and all he does is throw a few of them through walls. Most of the other action is provided by Tanoai Reed (stunt double/part-time actor) along with the only joke in the picture. The limited screen time leaves me with the assumption that Seagal cannot physically cut it anymore. Nothing about Seagal’s character is explored making this picture the ultimate bait and switch especially since David and Ashby are not kicking any ass.
"Against the Dark" knows that it wanted to have the nocturnal undead and that is all. It could not decide what it wanted to do with them. It is not “Marked for Death with Vampires,” and it is not “Under Siege with Vampires.” Either of those plots could have been improved with the homonus-nocturna, but without Seagal willingness to fulfill the needs of these premises, it ends up being a bad B-movie without a sense of humor.
 |
| /9gag.com |
No comments:
Post a Comment