Dark Fields (2009)

Set across three generations of inhabitants of the small town of Perseverance, comes a story not done justice by the flimsy direction and wooden acting. This eerie and suspenseful tale about a village haunted and cursed by wickedness contaminating their rain, ends up ringing hollow despite some good cast choices. Rain the purifier becomes the touch of death. The whole event is initiated in the late 1900s, as the village, led by Clive Jonis (played by the ever-charismatic genre old-timer David Carradine) enters into a pact with a devilish shaman. This in turns has bloody repercussions many years in the future as human sacrifices are necessitated by the need for rain.Inside the story lurks some great potential with a creepy top-hat taking centre stage, while Tiren Jhames as the ominous Mr Saul brings the beast delivering a superb character. However, most screen times is wasted on some truly appalling child acting, who one-by-one spiral the movie into oblivion, leaving just singular moments and short-lived spine-crawling elements. Surprisingly disjointed it also features superior technical qualities depending on specific sub-stories, with acting, lighting and overall feel superior during the turn of the century story thread.The story also becomes undone by the basic premise, which suggests that longing for life would corrupt the soul to such an extent, that mothers and fathers would willing dispose of their own kin. The concept itself seems so far-flung, thus only underlining the low production qualities, probably forced by budget limitations.

There is something i don't understand about this film - it appears as if a good film is interspersed with scenes from a bad film, and by that i mean not good and bad writing together; allow me to explain.The Rain is a film which contains three parallel stories, in three different times, all concerning the same plot element; the first one, in the early 1900s (with David Carradine lead) is nicer, better direction, better lighting, nice post-prod and altogether a decent production, while the second, seems to have been shot at a later date, when the funds ran out, and the production values are much worse. The female lead in the second story is also much worse than any of the supporting.But on with the review.The Rain (or Dark Fields, as i know it) is the story of a curse, brought about by the magic of an Indian shaman when he is asked to provide rainfall for a drought-stricken town... human sacrifice is a necessity of course, and thus the curse, and the three stories - the first drought and the pact with the shaman, the curse later in the years and the revelation of the need of sacrifices to a daughter by her cursed parents, and the continuation in the present day. The curse is personified by the shaman's top'hat, which is a nice touch, and The Rain doesn't lack a good many nice psychological touches.This film has many good points, the first of which is a very creepy story and some decent acting; there is also a modicum of special effects, but again, some good, some truly abysmal, but its best feature is the writing. Though it is unrelated, there is a lot in this film that screams "cthulhu mythos", and in my book that is a good thing. In the end, what let down this film is not the effort, or the talent, but the money - of which i must assume they didn't have enough of, as The Rain would have truly benefited a lot from better production, casting and photography; however, my opinion is still that a vote of four is way too low - sure, the end result isn't stellar, mostly from the project being too ambitious (at almost two hours long, the film still feels as if it should have been made longer - perhaps as a two part TV production), but as a nice Gothic-horror story, and with it being very watchable, i say ..Final vote 6/10 - too ambitious, could have been lots better, but horror lovers (and mythos fans) shouldn't miss it

It's a beautifully shot and composed indie horror film which strays from the standard, boring slasher and/or torture porn elements so prevalent in the genre and actually delivers a story! With characters and plot! It is at the end of the day a low budget film so it's not perfect but it's still a lot better than most of the crap released direct to DVD in order to keep a steady stream of new arrivals on the shelves.Best Parts: the cinematography, score, production design and Richard Lynch and Ellen Sandweiss' acting Least Impressive Parts: Some of the CG effects aren't great, story is kinda slow and some of the other acting is a bit stiff Overall it has some flaws but makes up for them by being a tremendously ambitious and interesting classic style horror film.

It's said that horror fans aren't a very discriminating bunch. And given the volume of crap horror movies out there, I can't argue that. But I also take offense to it. I'm a life-long horror fan, and I regularly bypass the uncreative slashers and nauseatingly unoriginal remakes that populate the field these days. I like a quality, original horror film. And "Dark Fields" fits that bill.Inspired by Shirley Jackson's short story, "The Lottery", the film's story interweaves three narratives, each taking place in the aptly named town of Perseverance, each in a different time period – the 1880's, the 1950's, and the present day. The residents of Perseverance are oppressed with a curse. Each year they suffer an affliction to their bodies and a drought to their land, the only cure for which is to sacrifice three of their children.Three things make this movie rock.First, director Doug Schulze's visual flair, accomplished through a knack for unique and effective composition, creepy art direction, and occasionally gruesome special effects – both of the practical and CGI variety. Schulze displays an inventiveness here that belies a great effort not usually seen in films at this budget level; in all instances above he regularly puts original ideas on the screen. I found his concept for the physical affliction of the curse to be especially satisfying, especially in its final form on female lead Sasha Higgins, and in the grisly teeth-pulling scene (which I watched from between my fingers). Cinematographer Lon Stratton's dark, moody photography – utilizing both Super 35 and the then-new Red One 4K digital camera -- effectively augments the layered visuals. Second, the cast. Icons David Carradine and Dee Wallace Stone deliver. Both have faces you could watch read a phone book, and Schulze uses their gravitas to anchor their segments. Richard Lynch, too, is a standout as a tortured father witnessing his daughter succumb to her initial affliction of the town's curse.And third, the story. I went into "Dark Fields" with trepidation, knowing it was an anthology piece. Anthologies always leave me dissatisfied – I'm not a short film fan and they always feel like a string of shorts to me. But "Dark Fields" employs a unique structure, in which the three stories unfold simultaneously, climaxing in the resolution of the curse in the present day. They interwoven narratives build towards this common end, along the way each telling a unique story with a common theme. It gets a little confusing sometimes -- and it demands your attention -- but it works."Dark Fields" is low-budget indie horror, and like most entries in that populous sub-genre, the seams occasionally show. But the trade-off is its originality. Not Hollywood product, this. I'll call it a thinking person's horror film, in that it's not for the mentally lazy. There isn't a lot that's spelled out in simple terms, and little immediate satisfaction; things generally come to fruition at a deliberate pace. But you do get the feeling that you're in the hands of a storyteller who knows his craft and will deliver. Go into it knowing that and you'll be a (discriminating) fan.