En la oscuridad

Okay, I admit this may not be a great movie, but I don't think it is the worst either. However, I do think I'm only saying that because I loved it as a kid. Honestly, it was always the choice of scary film for me and my friends at sleepovers etc. It was scary, the tooth-fairy character is my idea of a worst nightmare, and believe me she gave me plenty in the years that followed. I haven't seen it in a few years and while it may not haunt me anymore I suspect it would give me an intermediate shiver if I watched it again today.

Usually I bash films like this. There are probably better horror films out there that I've given worse reviews too, but this one holds sentimental value for me and I genuinely believe that it's not THAT bad. The acting isn't wonderful and the story plays out a bit predictably... I still quite like the premise though and the legend behind Matilda the tooth-fairy.

If you scare easily, I wouldn't recommend you watch this alone. The movie might not be top, but it is full of jumps and the villain is horrifying. Enjoy (with the lights on).

I saw this movie in the theaters when it came out in 2003 with my then-boyfriend, now husband. My husband is a pretty stoic guy, and because I love and have seen so many horror movies at this point, I'm afraid I'm a little jaded, and have frequently been disappointed when it comes to horror movies that have come out past 1983.

"Darkness Falls" delivered the goods. The movie has just enough supernatural to it to be weird and freaky, and the acting, while not terribly good, isn't horrible. I think they showed the monster a little too early, but that's just me.

We were terrified. Neither of us would go anywhere in my house without the lights on, and certainly not alone! The sets, lighting and sound effects were so creepy it made my skin crawl.

Certainly better fare than some other pathetic excuses for horror movies that rely solely on special effects for creep.

* out of ****

I find it rather hard to believe that in the past year, we've had five movies dealing with vengeful supernatural spirits and/or curses. It began with Feardotcom, then Below, The Ring (easily the best of the bunch), Ghost Ship, and now Darkness Falls, which could very well be the worst. In the latest example of PG-13 horror, there's nothing here that's the slightest bit scary or thrilling. The atmosphere is non-existent, the premise really isn't very promising, and the execution is even more lackluster.

The film has a very simple premise: old lady killed over a hundred years ago is now a restless spirit who goes around murdering children who've lost their first tooth (they also have to see her face first, or something like that, not like the movie was holding my attention). Anyway, after the film dispenses with TWO prologues which takes up nearly fourteen minutes of running time, we settle with our protagonist, Kyle Walsh (Chaney Kley), who encountered this evil tooth fairy as a child and wants to help his former girlfriend's (Emma Caulfield) younger brother through the same ordeal. Naturally, no one believes Walsh and they'll live (well, not for long) to regret it.

Horror is probably my favorite genre, and while last year did give us The Ring (simply one of the scariest films I've ever seen) and Below (an excellent "ghost ship" thriller that's much better than Ghost Ship), most of these big studio genre offerings don't seem to realize what it is that makes horror films so fun to watch. They don't have to be bone-chillers, they just have to be easy entertainment, which is what Darkness Falls strives for, but fails at almost miserably.

First, I'd like to mention the preposterously short running time. Without the end credits, this puppy runs for seventy-four minutes, shorter than your average TV movie sans commercials. Then knock off the prologues, and we've got approximately an hour of material that focuses on the lead actors and their plight. This is obviously a movie that doesn't have much in the way of plot, but you probably figured that when you saw the town's name was Darkness Falls (groan).

The Ring worked because of its chilling atmosphere, engaging mystery, and fine performances. To a lesser but still formidable extent, the same goes for Below. Darkness Falls doesn't have the look and feel of a horror/thriller, it certainly doesn't have enough plot (and what story it has is peppered with plot holes)(you'd think a town this cursed would have almost a minute population, but it's a rather bustling little place), and the acting is subpar. Director Jonathan Liebesman seems perfectly content with trying to give us boo scares (which aren't the slightest bit effective), loud noises, lots of fast camera movements, and lots of running and chasing.

Running and chasing is exactly what fills up the movie's last twenty minutes, when it suddenly opts for thrill ride mode, but even that is as completely unengaging as all the material that came before it. Part of this has to do with how predictable the film is. You just know who's going to live and who's going to die. And even worse, because it's PG-13, you can't even be tantalized by the promise of gore and gratuitous nudity, two staples of 80's horror, which I'm starting to miss more and more.

The major studios are still capable of making effective horror thrillers, as evidenced by The Ring and Below, and let's not forget the superb Jeepers Creepers or Joy Ride. Watch any of those films instead of this steaming pile.

Darkness Falls follows a somewhat similar plot line as the previous year's entry in the genre,They,with a few differences.One,Darkness Falls has a fairly well fleshed out back story.Two,the acting is generally fairly good.three,the monster has a reason for being,a motivation for its actions.also,the monster has a weakness,which can be exploited.the core storyline is descent for this genre.the movie is better paced and much better edited.the monster itself is however,not so great.the look of the creature isn't the problem.the problem are its movements,which do not look authentic in some scenes.now,the characters themselves--very little in the form of character development.pretty much your stock horror characters.none too bright and reacting in ways which real people(hopefully)would not.yet,strangely likable somehow.you kind of take pity on them.suspense--there were some tense moments.there was a fair amount of action.however,at times the film became chaotic--lots of sounds and sights all at once,including the music.the purpose,to pretend to entertain the viewer,well hiding the movie's shortcomings.in essence disguising the fact that the movie isn't achieving its intended purpose.in this case,frightening the viewer or at least heightening his or her anxiety.and now the ending.it does nicely resolve things.no cheap setup for a sequel here.i think it's a better movie than They.is it a good movie?yes.it has some tense moments with a few decent action sequences and a decent,straightforward ending without the usual unexpected(but really expected))twist.for me,Darkness Falls is a 6.5/10

Darkness Falls follows closely in style to films like John Carpenter's "The Fog". The modest budget of the film is offset by an imaginative use of style, lighting and sound.

All the negative reviews on this film have me wondering if today's horror film aficionados are so jaded that they have forgotten that sometimes a visit to a fun house can be as much fun as spending an hour or two with Hannibal Lector. If you can give up your concept of needing to be hit over the head with shock, you can have a good time with the film. It's not a dog by any measure.

This is an old fashioned scary movie. It's a "Popcorn Film". It does not pretend to be high art. The tight running time is a credit the director. In short...it was not great, it was not bad, it was a fun little ride.