Die Herrschaft der Schatten

This movie is really mysterious and starts with great promise - people disappearing in the darkness - well, this is frightening. It is not too logical - some things do happen but somehow contradicts the story logic (ie. small girl with solar powered flashlight somehow survives even if there is mentioned that the Sun rises only for a few hours, hardly to recharge the flashlight).

All right. I'm willing to accept even less logical movies like Japanese horror movies which often do not respect time or actual causality. However these movies usually do try to explain what his happening and why it is happening (with several theories how to resolve the situation, often wrong).

But there is hardly any explanation here, only "signs" which may be interpreted in many ways. The ending is sudden, hardly explains anything and left me unsatisfied. Is the happening local or global? Is it transitory or final? Is it demonic or end of the world caused by God? The movie focuses on (not too successful) attempts to survive but provides way too few answers. The feeling is depressing, which is good, but I really lack the climax. The ending was somehow abrupt and unsatisfactory. I like it, but it is only "good", not "great".

An unexplained blackout plunges the city of Detroit into total darkness, and by the time the sun rises, only a few people remain-surrounded by heaps of empty clothing, abandoned cars and lengthening shadows. A small handful of strangers that have survived the night each find their way to a rundown bar, whose gasoline-powered generator and stockpile of food and drink make it the last refuge in a deserted city. With daylight beginning to disappear completely and whispering shadows surrounding the survivors, they soon discover that the enemy is the darkness itself, and only the few remaining light sources can keep them safe. As time begins to run out for them, darkness closes in and they must face the ultimate terror. -- (C) Magnolia

I hate to use something from RUBBER, a film I loathed, but it fits so well here: VANISHING uses the plot of "no reason," a plot that raises many questions but doesn't answer them by the time the credits roll. It is this very reason why the film is disliked by many. Yet, films like THE HAPPENING, KNOWING, and THE FORGOTTEN get bashed because of the explanations of their plots. Go figure. Yes, as human beings, we often want to make sense of events that occur, especially in films, yet we need to realize things in life just happen. VANISHING may be low on explanation, but it's high on suspense due to the use of a common fear: the dark.

Let's take a moment to talk about why so many people fear the darkness: It's not the darkness itself that people are afraid of, but rather, the fear of the unknown. Just what is lurking in the darkness? VANISHING uses this fear and capitalizes on it which generates many of the films' unnerving moments. In fact, its resistance on explaining everything is what makes the film scary. And no, the film doesn't use any "pop out" scares. It's better than that. The film builds up its scares with a chilling atmosphere. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called suspense, and don't be surprised. Director Brad Anderson is in the chair. With films like TRANSIBBERIAN and THE MACHINEST already under his belt, Anderson knows how to make films that are thrilling.

The cast is good as well, but that's probably because I have a soft side for them. Haters of Hayden Christensen will find themselves unconvinced, but I thought he pulled off a good performance. Although their characters don't ask for much, John Leguizamo and the beautiful Thandie Newton do a great job providing sympathy to their roles. Jacob Latimore, the kid actor, plays quite an annoying character at first, which shouldn't be a surprise, but I got to eventually warm up to him in the middle point of the film.

Overall, VANISHING impressed me. While there may be some inconsistency in its high-concept premise, it really makes up for it on the scares. The actors are good as well and the production values are great for a small film like this. Give this film a chance.

OK - let me start by saying this isn't a BAD film. Its just that there's no pay-off at the end. You're left with a "So what WAS going on?" feeling. All successful stories have a start, a middle and an end. Vanishing on 7th Street is missing the 'end'.

The acting, direction and camera work all make the grade - but thats all. Its almost as if they've JUST managed to do enough to warrant getting paid. While there are a few nice touches during the film, there isn't anything here that you wont have seen before. Although I was surprised by one event close to the end which I wont ruin by revealing here.

Unless you have some reason to watch this film I wouldn't waste the time. There are 100s of 'fair/mediocre' films out there so choose one that at least has a proper 'end'.

5/10

Existentialist horror film from director Brad Anderson ("Session 9") and writer Anthony Jaswinski exploits the all too understandable human fear of the dark. It stars Hayden Christensen as Luke (a reporter), Thandie Newton as Rosemary (a physical therapist), John Leguizamo as Paul (a movie theatre employee), and newcomer Jacob Latimore as James (a 12 year old son of a barmaid). They're brought together in a bar when mysterious forces overwhelm the city of Detroit, turning daytime into the night time. Also, dark spirits seem to be everywhere, and the human population of the city has mostly disappeared (leaving only piles of clothes behind). These four people must ponder such questions as why this has happened and why it's the four of them that are left, in addition to struggling to survive.

Anderson creates such spooky atmosphere and tension that it's a shame that the film doesn't work better than it does. This viewer would agree with others that it does feel like an unfinished script, and it leaves people wanting to know what comes next. Obviously, Jaswinski and Anderson aren't about to really explain anything in this slim story, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but then our four main characters are never fleshed out that much. Therefore, it's hard to maintain much rooting interest in them, despite the best efforts of this cast. Still, you do feel for Rosemary and James to some degree since they don't know the fates of their son and mother (respectively). The film is very well shot in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio by Uta Briesewitz, with the lighting never revealing more than it should, and the visual effects are generally well done. One of the main problems is that the set-up is just too familiar to be that engaging. For one thing, the piles of clothes left behind automatically calls to mind "Night of the Comet" from 26 years previous.

Look for Andersons' filmmaking peer Larry Fessenden as a bike messenger.

Six out of 10.

Why nut burn stuff for light. They had a entire city full of wooden objects to burn for light. Even if this was set in a rural area, they could've collected wood to burn at night.