User Reviews (31)

  • fulcigore1 May 2007
    No story. No acting. No budget. TERRIFIC SPLATTER! all in all, A GOOD MOVIE!
    The title of this review sums up my opinion on this gore scale-tipping splatterfest. This is a movie made by gorehounds for gorehounds.

    The "story" follows a vampire outbreak in what looks like a small town. A few metalheads have to defend themselves against hordes of zompires (I call them this because even though the movie is about vampires, they are basically zombies who can't stand the sun). Gore ensues as some kids die, some carve the zompires up with chainsaws and other weapons, all leading up to the goriest meltdown that is one of the goriest scenes I have ever seen.

    Like I said, this movie is for gorehounds and basically no one else, but if you seek splatter, look no further than Leif Jonker's Darkness.
  • ravenlord66630 September 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    Yes, I know I'm one of the few people longing to trample this movie into the dust of oblivion.So let me me tell you why I feel this way. In truth,had it been advertized as a Zombie film or the like,I might have enjoyed it.But right now,I'm totally speechless.

    *SPOILER...Though I'm not sure what's to spoil* Let's start with the first HUGE flaw. If I did not know that the movie is called "Darkness - The VAMPIRE Version" and had I not seen some sequences where some individuals seem to be sucking blood, I would not have seen the connection with Vampires. I mean, FANGLESS???? Give me a break!!!

    Second bad point: what's with the Metal? It appears that all young people, but mainly those so-called "vampires", are into various kinds of Metal,judging mainly by their shirts! Don't get me wrong, I've been into the more extreme forms of music for almost 15 years, but nobody 's going to scare me by showing me some ridiculous teenagers in Iron Maiden (of all bands!!!) T-shirts running around,pretending to be Vampires! "Pathetic" is the only only word that I could use here.

    Third weakness: the actors. Wait a minute. WHAT actors?! You mean the director's wooden friends! Words would be a waste here.

    Yes, alright, the movie is very gory, but what difference does that make? It WOULD have been a strong point and something to enjoy if the "briliant" director had not chosen to create an ARTIFICIAL vampire topic in this movie. I wanted to see Vampires,but was treated to some stupid looking kids I would have loved to use my baseball bat on. The Film-makers should simply have advertized the movie saying "cheap B-grade horror with no plot but a lot of gore" !!!

    This movie is blasphemy against the whole concept of Vampirism. And it makes me sick.
  • RAMMHOFF19 February 1999
    They were young and needed the money
    When I borrowed this movie from a friend (thankfully I did not buy it) on the package (which truly looked bad and ugly) was printed "The ultimate vampire horror". After watching it I thought that the marketing campaign was probably more expensive than the film itself. The "story" begins when a teenager (surprise!) is chased by some vampire/zombie-creatures.

    Lighting, sound and everything reminded me of my first attempt to make a holiday-video on a ten year old VHS-system if not worse. I gave the movie a 2 out of 10 and only because the promo-T-shirts looked kind of cool. I don't want to dis' film-students or splatter-movies generally but I've seen Braindead and I've seen a 20-dollar-budget movie from students that was ten times better than this crap.
  • Tromafreak5 August 2008
    Apocalyptic Horror Vol. 3: Even The Dead Will Scream
    The only thing darker than darkness, is Leif Jonker's Darkness. If you haven't seen this and are frustrated by the fact that all the good low-budget horror movies were made before the 90's, then you are in for quite a treat. Darkness is raw, untampered with horror, in it's purest form, relying on only the necessary elements of horror, well, that and a few dozen gallons of blood. The result is nothing short of apocalyptic. If there's a better "shot on video" movie than this, anywhere, I'd love to see it.

    When this nightmarish masterpiece begins, we don't know where this takes place, or when, all we know is that there is something to run from and all we can see, other than some guy running, is Darkness. The rant we hear from this guy, when he arrives at the gas station, makes you think the world could be ending, nope, it's only a vampire. Liven soon invades the gas station, and he takes all their blood for himself, except the guys friend, Toby, who gets away. Getting away, only to stop some of the carnage by killing the ones, in his town that Liven has killed and converted, before it's too late. Toby meets up with some teenagers who have lost their families to all the pitch black madness. Together, they go out into the darkness to stop some of this, and maybe track down Liven and put an end to this, once and for all.

    If any of that sounds appealing at all, you'll be thrilled to know that Darkness is probably the third or fourth goriest film in history. Another thing Darkness has going for it is a chilling score that will literally make you shiver. This movie gives you a dismal, hopeless feeling, as if all is truly lost, that these people are fighting the vampires for nothing. The gun shots even sound like thunder. I assume very little lighting was used on purpose, because it adds so much to the horror quality, and never mind the movie is called Darkness. Darkness is a masterpiece of horror, B-horror, or just film-making all together.

    Now, on to the The Vampire Version. In my view, you can't fix what is not broke, swaying from the original vision is no way to treat a masterpiece. Although the Original Version is a masterpiece, the Vampire Version is still, at the very least, a damn fine horror movie. What truly makes the original so much better is the score, it's a much better fit, it adds that extra hopelessness, the new music belongs in something totally different. Are you serious? I don't want to know that it's 37 minutes till sunrise, this version lacks the aura of mystery that the original possessed. Also, the Vampire Version is too cleaned up, pristine, and colorful, whats good for Hollywood trash isn't necessarily good for indy horror, considering all that, I still give The Vampire Version 10/10.

    Now, back to The original Version. I love this movie, Leif Jonker's Darkness is my all-time favorite horror film, it's what so many others were always going for, but only one guy got it right. Hopefully, Jonker will get the sequels right, although, somehow I doubt it, a black diamond like this only comes around once in a lifetime, although Im sure Vampire Ferox & Vampire Apocalypse will be awesome. Frankly, I'm getting awfully impatient. I first heard abut the sequels 2 years ago, and still, nothing. I suppose I can see how someone could mistake some of the genius of Darkness as slow, or boring, there's certain parts that you just don't know what's going on, but, that's just part of the mystery. If your'e sick of the same old "normal", big-budget horror, then you might not hate Darkness. I give the darkest film in existence, The Original Version 10/10.
  • sketchyninja23 September 2003
    hastily made corpse on pole
    I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies infinitum. -infinity/10
  • EVOL66622 October 2005
    Low-Budget Leif Jonker Vampire Gore Film - (not the recently released U.S. film of the same name...)
    DARKNESS is a really entertaining, micro-budget vampire film. The story is about a kid named Toby and his friends who find that their town has been over-run by a vampire named Liven and his minions - and they intend to do something about it...

    DARKNESS is not a great film by any means, but for a low-budget production, I really have to give it credit. The acting is better than I would expect from something this cheap, the gore FX are very good (and plentiful...), and there are some genuinely tense moments in the film. The ending is really over-the-top on the gore scale, which is always a good thing. The major gripe I have is that DARKNESS really lives up to it's name - the night-time shots are typically SO dark that you can barely tell what the hell's happening. Even so, I think this is a strong film and would love to see a cleaned-up, legitimate DVD release. If you're a splatter fan, definitely check this one out. 8/10

    EDIT - This film is now available on a remastered DVD from BARRELL ENTERTAINMENT
  • TheRetardedVacuum3 October 2013
    Entertaining But Painfully Mediocre "Vampire" Movie Not Worthy of All The Hype
    Okay, before I start my review, I would like to make something unmistakably clear, DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT THIS MOVIE IS AS GORY OR GORIER THAN DEAD ALIVE AKA BRAINDEAD!!! The amount of gore in this movie was highly disappointing, save for one long vampire melting sequence near the end, there are some stabbings, some bitings, a lot of off-screen stuff, maybe two or three actual on screen deaths. There was actually so little gore in the movie that I stopped thinking of this movie as a gore film and started looking at it as an '80s style B-horror movie, and it actually was entertaining in that aspect. Nevertheless, there are still several other little things in this movie to bug you and/or get on your nerves. Including but not limited to:

    • The vampires... or zombies... or both,... Yah, I'm not really sure what they were.

    • In the first part of the movie, the film constantly cuts from "19 minutes to sunset" to "2 minutes to sunrise" to "23 minutes to sunset" and so on and so on and so on. It does this a LOT, sometimes with nothing happening in between.

    Cut to two minutes before sunset, guy sits in his car, cut to twenty minutes before sunrise.

    It's just really unnecessary.

    • There's one scene where a guy is being eaten by vampire-zombies in a car wash, while his girlfriend stands a couple feet away and screams "No!". We then see him being eaten for a while, and cut back to the girl still standing there, probably meaning she was just standing and watching the whole time.

    • The acting is really not that good to be honest, it didn't really bother me any, but there are probably a lot of people that will be bothered by it, so I thought I should bring that up.

    • Almost the entire soundtrack is heavy metal, whether that is a good or bad thing depends on the viewer. I personally liked it myself.

    Also, the movie is called "Darkness - The Vampire Version". OK, so there's another version? I thought it was just rough translation but according to the credits that list credits for "both versions" of the movie, I could be wrong. I wonder if the other version has more gore.

    There is apparently a VHS version and a digitally remastered DVD version with less gore but with some "spit and polish" applied to it like in the American unrated version of Dead Alive. I really don't know which one I watched, I don't think it would make much of a difference either way.

  • slayrrr6665 August 2008
    Far better vampire film than it should be
    Warning: Spoilers
    "Darkness" is a lot of fun and certainly enjoyable for a low-budget vampire film.


    In a small town, Tobe, (Gary Miller) manages to find that a vampire plague has overtaken the citizens, and continually runs into the deadly creatures wherever he goes. Finally managing to find survivors in Greg, (Michael Gisick) Kelly, (Cena Donham) Dianne, (Lisa Franz) Glenn, (Bill Hooper) and Steve, (Christopher Owen Michael) who have all had experiences with vampires as well. As they spend more time together and develop a way of dealing with the creatures, the confrontations with them slowly start dwindling their numbers as the vampires grow in size, strength and cunning. Holding out hope that his good friend, master vampire slayer Jodie, (Steve Brown) is still alive through it all they set out to find him and use his expertise to help them. Finally reaching his place, they realize that the vampire plague is spreading faster and must survive against the deadly threat.

    The Good News: There's some really nice stuff to this one. One of the greatest parts to this is that there's a large amount of graphic gore in here. This one is really littered with a lot of bloody gore and graphic violence in here, which is a big plus and really helps this one. The amount of gore comes from the really brutal deaths as well, and the ones here are really great. There's some that have the skin melt down completely from the exposure to the sunlight down to bubbling skin and torn flesh, a whole slew of gunshots to just about every single orifice capable of handling a bullet, a massive amount of bites to the neck, throat and arms, in most cases ripping skin away to get more blood to come out, a creature knocked to pieces after being run over by a truck, chopped to pieces with a chainsaw, a couple are repeatedly stabbed with knives and sharp objects and another has their arm sliced into with a machete and then sawed off, leaving a ton of blood to occur. There's a lot more in here, leaving a large amount of blood and gore to appear. That's a big reason for this one to be enjoyed. There's also a large amount of action in here, mainly because there's a rather large number of confrontations in here. That's also good as well, making it really hard to lose interest in the film since it's got plenty to enjoy about it. From the battle in the abandoned house, where a big brawl makes out a lot of excitement through the destruction of the house and the gore-filled finish, a big shootout with them on a deserted highway road, a confrontation in an alley way and the opening scene in the deli is a classic, for it's a fast and hard-hitting scene that really feels quite exciting and is definitely fun to watch. It also opens the film on the right note, as it's a gory, action-packed sequence that is a real shock to see so quickly in the film's running time. All of the film's action scenes are like that, really fun and big, which makes them so entertaining and are paced at just the right interval to keep from getting boring, so there's really no big lulls in the action to this one. The last big plus is the film's ability to hide the reason for the resurrection and the war that occurs here is kept unknown, making it just like a seeming onslaught that occurs for no reason, and that's always a fun reason for the film. These here are the film's best points.

    The Bad News: This one here didn't have too many flaws at all. One of the big ones is that the film's low-budget is quite apparent. Here, it sticks out mainly in the use of the blood and gore on display, which is mostly just colored water and not at all very realistic as well as the special effects used for the vampires. It's not that they're bad, but the fact that they're very obviously just plastic or prosthetics, which is quite easy to spot and pick up and makes for plenty of moments where it's hard to take the scene seriously as they take you right out of the film. The other flaw to this is the film's ability to take a ton of liberties with the vampire route and almost turn them into another creature altogether. The aversion to sunlight and holy water is kept, but here they are so bloodthirsty they don't mind spilling it all over the place or tearing open any place to get at it, they get taken down from gunshots anywhere on the body and they have a pack mentality like zombies, and all of these are very different from the usual vampire rules. These here are what's really wrong with the film.

    The Final Verdict: With a lot to really like about this one and only a couple really mild flaws that aren't too damaging, this one is a really worthwhile entry. Give it a shot if you're into the low-budget horror fare or a hardcore gore-hound, as well as vampire fanatics, while those who can't stand the budgetary issues should heed caution.

    Rated R: Extreme Graphic Violence and some Language
  • lovecraft2311 March 2008
    Energy & Enthusiasm Can't Save This No-Budget Splatterfest
    A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.

    Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.

    While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.

    In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.
  • DVD_Connoisseur31 December 2006
    One of the finest zero-budget horror movies I've had the pleasure of viewing
    "Darkness: The Vampire Version" is a terrifically ambitious zero-budget movie by first-time director Leif Jonker. Its high-octane, non-stop bloody action is gripping from the start and despite some less than perfect acting from the cast, this film succeeds with its large-scale portrayal of the effect that a master vampire (Randall Aviks) has on various towns in North America. Aviks' character manages to turn a seemingly endless number of townsfolk into fast moving, gut chomping vampires and there are some superbly dark scenes of carnage.

    This shot-on-film horror production puts much higher budget pictures to shame. The scenes of jugular-spurting bloodshed are numerous and intense - very impressive for a film of this independent nature.

    The excellent synthesiser produced score is very reminiscent of early John Carpenter tracks - very moody and foreboding. Director Leif Jonker also co-produced this music - is there no end to the man's talent?

    Speaking of John Carpenter, I've read that Carpenter was responsible for the editing of this cut of the film (the "Vampire Version"). If this is true, it would explain the extremely effective pace and editing of the movie.

    I've given "The Darkness" a 10 for sheer effort. Along with "Nekromantik" and Mendez's "Killers", this ranks as one of my favourite low-budget movies.

    Check out the Barrel 2 disc DVD edition if you can as it's a lovingly presented set.
  • mizziah7412 February 2000
    A stylish, yet uneven vampire film
    Leif Jonker's DARKNESS is a mixed bag.

    The nomadic vampire Liven (Randall Aviks) wanders from town to town, creating havoc (and vampires) wherever he goes. Hot on his trail is Toby (Gary Miller), a sole-survivor of one of Liven's murderous rampages. Hellbent on destroying him (as well as any other vampire he happens to come across), Toby bands together with a group of teens from the latest town to fall victim to Liven's carnage.

    That's about it for the plot, but that's not really the point of this film. It's more of an excuse for flashy camerawork and excessively gory effects. This is where the strength of this film lies.

    The biggest problem with this film is the lighting (or the lack thereof!). The film is aptly named DARKNESS, since most of the time you can't tell what's going on! There are numerous scenes where there's just enough light to make out the image on screen, but not much else. The film would've definitely benefited from a few extra lights!

    Although none of the youthful cast give spectacular performances (most of them seem to just be making up their lines as they scream frantically at each other), but within the context of the film, the actors do a decent enough job. Randall Aviks isn't as menacing as he tries to be. He looks more like a heavy-metal groupie than a vampire, but his scenes are minimal, so his presence isn't totally annoying.

    The main attraction in DARKNESS is the gore, and it spills by the gallon! They're impressively done and they're graphic, as well as plentiful!

    Jonker does his best to overcome his technical limitations to create a pretty cool little film, creating some memorable and haunting images - especially at the gruesome climax!

    I'd like to see Jonker do something else, but I guess he's fallen off the planet. I've read reports in Fangoria that he was working on a film entitled "The Demon Machine". Anybody know anything about this? Hopefully Jonker will put together another project soon. If DARKNESS is any indication of his talent, he may very well have a promising career (provided that he invests in some more light kits).
  • spacemonkey_fg10 June 2005
    An energetic and imaginative independent vampire flick
    Title: Leif Jonkers Darkness (1990)

    Director: Leif Jonker

    Review: I always admire creative people who even though they might not have any resources go out of their way to make their dreams come true. There's something to be admired in that type of passion and determination. And Leif Jonkers had that and a whole lot more when he made Darkness.

    The plot is about Toby, a young man whos whole family was murdered by a gang of vampires lead by an undead known as Liven. He joins forces with a bunch of other teenagers who upon returning from a Rock and Roll concert find that their parents have perished at the hands of Liven and his vampire gang as well.

    This movie impressed me in many ways. OK, first off the movie is a no budget flick that was shot by a few teenagers and their friends in their own home town, so lets get any hopes for this being a mega budgeted high production right out of the way. This is first and foremost a ultra low budget independent film. Now, lets get to the good stuff. This movie kicks ass! Its got a lot of imagination. It might have had no budget but that doesn't mean that Leif Jonker didn't think up imaginative ways of overcoming their obstacles in making this vampire Opus! This is the type of film that makes me want to get up from my ass, buy a digital camera and start making my own independent film. Its got that energy and spark that only new comers who are hungry can give to their project and it is very evident in every inch of film.

    First off the flick opens with a bang in a gas station. This whole sequence was designed to grab you by the throat in the first opening minutes, and that it does! The pace of the movie is very fast and energetic, right from the get go, the movie never stops. Its like a roller coaster ride of vampiric thrills.

    The movie has some well orchestrated moments spread evenly all through out. Starting with the gas station sequence, then the rading of a vampire layer which turns pretty bloody (chainsaws and all) the car wash sequence...the shoot out, I mean this movie has a bunch of interesting moments that keep the movie from being boring.

    The gore is plentiful! No budget? Screw it! Lets throwing as much blood as we can for shock value alone! And gosh darned it I loved the cheap thrill of seeing those sprays of blood exploding on my TV. The deaths don't shy away from the red stuff like in todays PG-13 filled world. No, no, here the blood splashes all over the place right down to the ultra bloody as hell finale.

    Speaking of the finale I loved the heck out of it. It had an Evil Dead vibe to it; though I'm sure that was intentional because the film feels like something Raimi and Campbell could have cooked up in their early years. Its got that bravado of showing things raw, no candy coating whatsoever. That ending has got to be one of the bloodiest ending I've ever seen. The special effects were fun, I couldn't get over the things these guys came up with on such a low budget (something like 5,000$) The only bad thing about the movie where its technical limitations. Its obvious that they lighted this movie the home made way, some scenes are too dark to make out, others where to bright. Still, you can tell that all Leif Jonker needed was a good lighting crew and a budget and the movie would have looked a heck of a lot more kick ass. But as it is, I let that slide because the movie was being so entertaining. Also some of the acting and dialog wasn't so hot. In other words, it has all the limitations of a no budget flick. But the fact that Leif Jonker could churn out such an entertaining flick with all these things against him speaks volumes of the talent that the guy has. I'm sure given the right budget this guy could be a very good horror director.

    In conclusion, Id say this is a fun movie to watch. Never boring, lots of energy and imagination. Hurray for Independent cinema and bring on Darkness 2! Rating: 4 out of 5
  • John austin27 July 2014
    Nice Effort!
    I found this movie hanging on the wall of a video store in Chicago in the mid-1990s. It's exactly what you expect- ultra low budget horror, heavy on the blood and light on everything else.

    Has the movie got problems? Tons- acting, script, pacing, etc. all could use improvement. But I like the fact that this is truly an independent effort that looks like it was conceived out of the minds (and pockets) of just a handful of people or maybe even just one person.

    Big Hollywood features are swell, but we should all have a soft spot for people out there who can put together a commercial feature literally out of thin air.
  • Backlash00713 August 2006
    "3 minutes till sunrise."
    Warning: Spoilers

    I first came upon Darkness many years ago at a local video store after hearing much about it. They were selling it for a paltry five dollars and I had left my wallet at home. A friend I was with refused to lend me the five knowing that I had it. A few days later I return with cash in hand and there is no Darkness to be found. Needless to say, the friend who wouldn't loan me the fiver is no longer with us. Just kidding. Years later the DVD is finally released, and it is a good thing that I waited (the clean-up comparison is pretty amazing). While watching the film I felt that same awareness that I got the first time I saw Deadbeat at Dawn and The Dead Next Door; the same feeling that I was seeing something tremendous shot for no money at all. I don't think it's quite as good as those two films, but it has the same spirit and ingenuity. Much like Jim Van Bebber, director Leif Jonker produced, created special effects, helped score, edited, wrote, and directed the film. That's a lot of hats for one man to wear, but when no one else is around you do it yourself. The film follows Tobe, who is a witness to a gas station massacre by the vampire Liven. When Tobe returns home he finds that his family has also been slaughtered by the vampire and sets out to find the bloodsucker and put him in the ground permanently. There are some nice set pieces to the film that will remain with you. The opening at the gas station for one, and a fantastic and tense run to the car wash for another. And lets not forget the ending; it's a very Evil Dead inspired bit of grue. Fans of gore-soaked cinema will not be disappointed. You've got to love those crude and oh-so-awesome effects done by Jonker and the film's star, Gary Miller. So Jonker wasn't the only one wearing many hats. I'd venture to guess that everyone did a little bit of everything on this film. I can't believe Jonker never did anything else! Someone give this guy some money. I'm up for a Darkness 2.
  • leetkurp15 June 2003
    Awesome independent horror film!
    Wow. This film is low budget, and shot on Super8, but is still a great horror film. I personally think this will be a cult classic eventually. Read the Plot Outline on IMDB for the story... but let me just tell you this, this movie is f***ing gory!
  • James Mcconnell29 November 2001
    A low budget gem
    A vampire movie like no other. Leif Jonker should be praised for his attempts to drag the vampire genre out of the terrible goth phase its currently lingering in.

    A well written plot combines with great gore and some genuinely terrifying scenes to make a great movie. The sense of menace and terror is never far from the screen, and the end is truly horrific
  • 90023 April 1999
    This is a REALLY gory movie
    if you are a hardgore fan this is a MUST for you, this is the goriest movie i have ever seen. (yes, i have seen braindead). the end of this movie almost tops braindead's lawnmower massacre.
  • Devin-213 April 1999
    Gory, Plotless, sounds like fun
    "Darkness" was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. "Bad Taste". It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out.
  • whammy66617 April 2005
    Not THAT gory...
    Yeah, this movie has some good gore but I expected more. Myself being a gore freak, I wanted more intestines, more blood, just more gore. This still delivered fairly well. This is a very low budget and if you get past the low, low, low budget you get a pretty good flick. You gotta give Leif Jonker credit for trying something different here, this is a lot different than most vampire movies. The The acting really sucks, and the storyline is weak, there is barely a storyline actually...just people running from vampires and gore flying places...yeah, still a fairly fun film. See this, but don't expect anything fut a fun time, and some good gore.
  • Coventry16 July 2006
    America's Goriest Home Movies
    Leif Jonker's micro-budgeted horror film "Darkness" has absolutely nothing new or special to offer, but it's still very much recommended to gorehounds because of the amazing enthusiasm and energy our director brings to the screen! This guy obviously is a big horror fanatic and he merely just wanted to express his passion by making his very own gory indie-flick! The story can be summarized in two lines: a bunch of young metal kids return home from a concert, only to discover that their entire community was killed by a ravenous vampire. They decide to stay to avenge their relatives and join forces with another teenager who saw his friends getting massacred in a convenience store. That's it! The rest simply involves extremely filthy set pieces and extraordinary gory make-up effects! Jonker occasionally brings genuine tension and there even are some truly ingenious camera shots to admire! The acting's pretty good, especially considering all the cast members are inexperienced friends of the director, and the OTT gruesome climax is particularly enjoyable. Really not that bad.
  • cool_cool_129 April 2006
    Darkness = low budget vampire gorefest classic!!!
    Darkness (1993) entertained me very much, it was ultra low budget but lots of fun and being a gore hound, i was IMPRESSED!!! It's about a vampire king called LAVIN who has invaded this small town, killing people and turning them into vampire/zombie hybrids.

    A young guy called Toby who's parents were also called by Lavin, decides it's time for the killing and carnage to stop, and sets out to hunt down and kill the fearless vampire.

    Along the way he comes into contact with some teenagers who have just come back home from a rock concert to discover the terrible goings on, Toby joins forces with the teenagers to try and rid the town of the evil once and for all.

    Darkness impressed me, it was fast moving and had a lot of creepy moments and atmosphere, i liked most of the characters and if you love gore then you will love this movie, it has loads of it, loads of blood, zombie meltings, heads being blown up, flesh being ripped off and loads more blood!!!!!! If you enjoy low budget horror movies and you're also a fan of gore then you must try and find this movie, you'll be happy you did, i give Darkness 8/10, well done Leif Jonker.
  • leetkurp12 June 2003
    Great indy horror!
    Wow, what a great indy film. The acting wasn't that bad at all, and didn't take away from the movie. The 'vampires chase humans' scenes were awesome and fun to watch. The outtakes at the end of my VHS are funny and interesting. Enough gore to fill 10 Scream movies. Great film and i hope to see more from Jonker soon. On a side note, my guitar teacher knows Leif Jonker and is actually listed in the 'special thanks' at the end!

An error has occured. Please try again.