Dark Fields (2009) User Reviews (13)

A complicated but not a very complex movie - it passes as "entertaining"!

[e-Liza1 · 5/10 · 1 May 2011]

The makers of this film had difficulties during its production. David Carradine's death from "accidental asphyxiation" in Thailand, during the making of this movie, and money difficulties, meant that this movie could have been better than it was. So when I discovered this, I feel a bit sorry for it! But I still found it absorbing viewing - much better than a lot of movies.

This movie is very convoluted, and yet, for all of the flashbacks and flash-forwards, it wasn't very COMPLEX. I was reminded, somewhat, of "National Velvet" - if a weirder, homespun, hometown struggling rural family-values version than the early sixties B&W TV series, but still "National Velvet"!

I couldn't be sure whether to give it a 4/10 or a 5/10 - and when I checked the IMDb ratings stats, what do you know!: I found it had a "weighted average" of 4.5! So there you are - I suppose that's how a lot of other people feel about it, too!

What really irritated me, much, much, more than the constant flash-forwards, and flash-backs - the movie is set in the town of "Perseverence" in three different time periods and alternates between three time-periods throughout - was the failure of the protagonists to do something that I could clearly see was a LOGICAL thing to do - to kill "The Saw Man", the demon with the sharp teeth, or destroy "The Hat": At one point there was, for example, the perfect opportunity to run the Hat over with a car, and then an even BETTER opportunity to run down the demon AND to flatten The Hat - at the same time. But I suppose the girl at the wheel of the car took pity on the demon, and just couldn't find it in her heart to do it! i.e. "National Velvet Time"!!!

There were so many missed opportunities - and isn't that what we REALLY hate in a horror movie, those dumb people who don't think of doing something like jumping up and down on a hat and FLATTENING the curs'ed thing, for example??? (I think, maybe so!?) ... At least to TRY to do it, and see what happens?!!!

I thought the special effects at the end were very good - and I liked the ending! And the ending, at least, is logical!

In consideration of a possible deeper meaning to the film, I did think the way in which The Hat was carried reverentially, at heart-height, as a symbol of community-authority, was a serious commentary upon the way in which social "authority" is seen as divorced from human beings, and a powerful metaphor for the way in which people will commit any manner of evil whatsoever when a so-called "AUTHORITY" of some kind to commit those acts of evil removes, in THEIR eyes, their own responsibility for those act of evil that THEY - without ANY ambiguity ARE committing! And in this film, these people all KNOW they are doing harm to others; and, as in this movie, they club together in Churches and behave, as though they are the victims, self-righteously in doing so; and, as in this movie they invoke God and will sacrifice anything, including their own children, "for the survival of this family" - for God, the family, and the community! After a little way into the movie, I just kept wondering, why don't they just put a gun to their heads? Wouldn't it be easier than having the perennial fear of dying in horror and torment and agony, and rather than, apparently, having to kill their children in horrifying ways? And aren't there more HUMANE ways to kill them?! These are all HOLES in the story, from what I could see, and these numerous unexplored, seemingly logical inconsistencies, irritated me greatly.

But still, somewhat profoundly, this movie is about patriarchal society, people owning their children and abusing them, and it is about small communities that hide and cover-up their crimes, which they commit in the sight of their God. It's American Gothic - and this movie, if nothing else, wants to indict these people, to hold them responsible for all the evil they have done, and all the evil they do, and, in the end, to PUNISH them! And that is what happens to them in this movie - not in real life, but at least in this movie!

Overcomplicated mess inspired by The Lottery

[krachtm · 4/10 · 2 March 2013]

The plot: A cursed town holds a lottery to sacrifice three children from every generation to ensure rain.

I was kind of excited to see a movie starring some B movie legends (Richard Lynch, David Carradine, and Dee Wallace Stone), but none of them really has all that much screen time. In fact, the movie splits its time almost randomly between half a dozen characters, each of whom wander in and out of the main plot while telling their own story. A talented writer/director could have pulled this off, but it just ends up being annoying and confusing here.

The story is a bizarre mix of Dark Romanticism tropes that never really settles down into a coherent story. There's a cursed bloodline, a small town with a hideous secret, Faustian bargains with malevolent spirits, some kind of demon guy who comes out of nowhere, exploited Native Americans, Machiavellian adults, and innocent children. Throw all these things together, with a few modern horror clichés (such as a deus ex machina in the form of a friendly dog), and you get... well... to be honest, I'm not sure what you get. The movie was so erratic, random, and disorganized that I was constantly wondering exactly what I was supposed to be taking from each scene.

If the writer/director had just settled on telling one story without spreading the exposition through three vignettes that barely even interconnect, I think he could have had something that would be remembered fondly by B movie fans. Instead, he tries to pull off something like Pulp Fiction and fails miserably.

There are some scenes that worked well, but, overall, the movie was clumsy and amateurish. As far as Shirley Jackson ripoffs go, this wasn't the worst that I've seen. It was able to channel much of her pessimism about human nature while preserving her faith in children. It also hit all the right notes that a story inspired by The Lottery should hit, though it hit them in a haphazard, lazy way, burying them under a mountain of subplots and extraneous characters.

If you're into independent horror, then you're probably pretty forgiving of even the most egregious flaws. For you, this will probably seem like an enjoyable waste of time. If you're more into mainstream, big budget horror movies, I have to warn you away from this low budget mess.

One redeeming quality--only one

[ForVirg · 5/10 · 16 May 2013]

Passable to waste time. I was sick, so have an excuse for sitting through the whole film.

This film's premise is a promising one, but as other reviewers have noted, the promise isn't paid off, in part due to poor script and worse acting at times.

However, being always the optimist, I did find one redeeming quality. And herein lie the spoilers: The heroine character ultimately opts to save her brother over saving her parents or other relatives. As a student of evolutionary altruism, this is one of the few films to get it right--though I seriously doubt anyone involved actually thought of this.

IF there is such a thing as innate altruism, it would tie strongly to the preservation of shared genes. And because, in reality, the sister and brother share more genes than either one shares with their parents, it makes more sense from an evolutionary viewpoint for her to sacrifice herself for a brother than to sacrifice her brother for her parents.

Especially since brothers are much more likely, biologically, to spread their genes than any female is. It's simply biology at work.

So there you have it. The one and only redeeming quality of this otherwise useless film. Too bad. The premise, with 3 different times periods involved, could have been done so well as to make an outstanding suspense. Alas, that was not to be.

'Can this day get any worse?'

[UNOhwen · 30 June 2012]

So said this character in this cheese-ball from hell.

'Yes, my dear,' MUCH worse - if you sit and waste ANY time watching this poorly acted. Ridiculously plotted nightmare.

There's no words to describe how dreadful this is.

In a nutshell: Town has poor (pun?) rain.

So, they sacrifice kids. Evil spirit, then more rain probs, then the current residents of this rain-challenged place has the rain - and evil - probs themselves.

One simple idea that's NEVER thought of: MOVE!!!

This is one move where the sound-cues - so important, but, so rarely noticed in most films - are on prominent display - and I'm not saying that in a kind way.

The only way you 'sense' bad things, are from the 'ominous' music: creepy tinkling on a piano, or 'jug-bottle whistling sounds - all the cliché's are on PROMINENT display in this muck.

Not ONE of the people in this (other than Keith Carradine) , has any sort of a career - before they made this, and, I'd seriously doubt, if they ever would.

It's like the director went and got...friends-of-friends-of-friends together, and said; 'hey! You ever thought about being in a movie?'

A typical scene of 'ominous approaching bad;' the girl, who only moments earlier was sweet, fun, wearing white, shows up all in black - eye makeup, et al. Then, her mobile rings. Tight close-up of mobile, while 'ominous chord' plays.

I'm only guessing here, but, I think I found the TRUE reason Mr. Carradine passed away - this was coming out.

Totally stupid

[screwluce48 · 1/10 · 25 February 2012]

Dear Lord!! HOW have people reviewed and rated this so well?! Seriously, unless you want to slip into a mindcoma, do not touch this with a barge pole...

It's another low budget horror that could have done so well. A good idea in principle (a bawdy, ragged-toothed Native American curses some farmy people about something to do with rain) but fails on all levels. It's one of those horrors where the cast plod around a small set over and over again while nothing makes much sense. The acting is DIRE, in fact the plucky young lad from the bygone era was the only promising talent and he's in it all for 5 minutes. The rest of the cast look like they're practising their lines off camera in low effort mode and absolutely no- one adds anything to the silly storyline.

I cannot actually remember more of this because as well as losing the will to live soon in, my vital functions slowed down to a crawl making memory impossible. All I can recall is that there was a lot of wood panelling, a hat that kept reappearing and some black lines on everyone's skin. Oh and a bit of rain. Those were the highlights.

AVOID.

Story better than the bite

[p-stepien · 2/10 · 27 May 2013]

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.

Spirited Low-Budget Horror

[LeonLouisRicci · 6/10 · 21 May 2013]

There is a very good Horror/Supernatural Movie in here somewhere. It has excellent Cinematography, some eerie Make-Up effects, and a feel of the unreal. But in its ambitious attempt to tell a Story spanning three Generations of a cursed Community, something got submerged.

It is unnecessarily muddled and confusing and with some attentive Editing and a different structure, this one could have been a real Sleeper. Presented here, it is laborious, much too long, and the pacing is just too slow.

It is worth a watch for Fans of Horror and low budget experiments. There is some real Talent at work here behind the Camera, but its the Composition and flow that defeats this good try. This is some heavy going and is intriguing, but could be more homogenized.

Dark Fields delivers

[Hedocrity · 10/10 · 24 March 2011]

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.

Weird film, not bad

[digdog-785-717538 · 6/10 · 17 April 2011]

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

WHAT WOULD YOU SACRIFICE FOR A REALLY GOOD CROP OF WHEAT?

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 19 April 2019]

The movie takes place in Perseverance, Kansas; a town plagued by drought and the inability to make rain barrels. The movie jumps to 3 different time frames, 1866 (David Carradine), 1956 (Dee Wallace), and present day. The people are cursed by "the man (Indian) in the top hat" with hereditary severe plaque psoriasis, that can only be cured by exposure to a special annual rain (Hence the 2009 title "The Rain"). This forces young girls to doff their clothes and go out into the rain. (nudity) Now the real problem is to ensure that the rain happens. This requires "sacrifice" on the part of the community. Sasha Higgins plays our mousy heroine in need of rain water and acting lessons.

Note: In the beginning a child is tied to an X frame and has his neck chewed on. His name is Samuel Mueller. Later in the movie his name is Simon Wheeler. OOPS!

A New Approach to Old School Horror

[StTerence · 8/10 · 30 March 2011]

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.

Better As A Suspense Film Than Horror

[Jamiecvstrong · 6/10 · 31 January 2021]

Just watched this film on DVD alone in the dark and I think I jumped twice. It's very entertaining, mysterious even, but scary it isn't. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a pretty decent film. The bad: There were quite a few amateurish shots in some of the early scenes, but not bad enough to make me stop the movie, which I will do. And the acting was horrible, (lead actress' mom was awful,as well as the little boy playing David C.'s son in the 1800's, the room mate "and" her boyfriend.) but the "real" actors gave me a reason to stick around. Some scenes had lighting issues, continuity issues: someone forgot to wipe the blood off of the crystal ball before she hit her dad with it. And actors in different positions as the shot perspectives changed. But other than that, it was a good flick. I'd probably watch it again in maybe 4 or 5 years from now. Please checkout my films on Youtube: dreamboatmovies

A Different Kind Of Horror Movie

[loveablejohn-46629 · 10/10 · 17 March 2019]

This movie had a well written script and outstanding special effects plus the cinematography was excellent. It also had several well known actors and they did an outstanding job along with the rest of the cast. Also on the DVD I watched there was an outstanding commentary track by the director along with animated storyboards,a deleted scene and behind the scenes footage which all worth watching.