When Darkness Falls

Why does this movie have so many stars??

The only reason my friends and I kept watching after the first 10 minutes is because we thought it just might get better but NOPE!!!

It turned into a joke! The scenery was the best thing in this hot pile of garbage.

The people that made this movie and edited it and thought it was good enough to put in front of audiences should choke on their own vomit.

Acting= horrible Plot= horrible Scenery= awesome Script= horrible Action= horrible Special FX= horrible Acting= horrible (I know I said acting twice but it was actually so bad I had to say it again.)

My eyes and brain have cancer after watching this movie.

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!!

(Watched as part of an early press screening)

Although I sat through the whole film, I felt it was an unfinished film. Nothing about it was good enough for home entertainment. It felt like a student film, although a student film would be better.

The narrative idea had a decent amount of potential, but Nathan Shepka executed it poorly. The quality was horrifc, acting just as bad.

The film poster i'd seen (Michaela Longdon looking in the mirror) was decent, proper thriller-esque poster. But looking at the poster on IMDB told me enough about how the film would play out.

Give it a huge miss is my advice, harsh but justifiable.

Two girls from America go hiking across the Scottish Highlands. Meanwhile two ne'er do wells are travelling across, robbing remote mansions and roofying local ladies. Of course both pairings will meet. Something about the immovable object meeting an unstoppable force? Starting with shades of American Werewolf without the werewolf, this then ventures into And Soon the Darkness meets Vanishing, before descending into a twist filled 90's cable thriller (in the best possible way). All it needed was Eric Roberts.

Despite a low budget, the film achieves its goals. A lot of micro budget cinema tends to feel very non-descript with their locations, often confining the action to a few cheap places and feeling like you could be anywhere. Not so here, as When Darkness Falls slowly builds, displaying sprawling Scottish backdrops (a rare abundance of drone shots which don't feel unnecessary) that are sparse and rugged. When Andrea disappears, Jess must find her in a landscape near devoid of people (and the few she meets are less than friendly). I won't say too much as the second act kicks off into a twisty turny pot boiler. Michaela Longden does a great job, as does Emma O'Hara. Director/producer/actor/editor/caterer? Nathan Shepka checks every role off with flying colours. The film looks great, the score is pleasingly Carpenter-esque, and despite the kind of rough edges that are unavoidable on something that was apparently shot for 25k (though looks substantially more), this really did entertain. The artwork and trailer intrigued me and I'm glad I took the punt.

People have got to remember that this is an extremely low budget B movie. It's not going to have Hollywood-style production, directing and acting. You can count the production staff listed at the end almost on both hands, with some of them (eg Nathan Shepka - writer, actor, producer, director) doing more than one role.

People have already pointed out the strengths and weaknesses. The scenery was great (but then it's hard to get that wrong in the Scottish Highlands!). The music deserves recognition too. Some of the actors were better than others and they all had their good moments and bad moments. I think you've got to be prepared for some weak acting in places and just live with it.

The plot deserves more recognition as well. Yes, it had a few plot holes, but the vast majority of movies do. Most movies require us to suspend disbelief in the occasional moment. However, otherwise the plot actually had some exciting and gripping moments, with a few twists, and we are kept on edge and kept guessing.

A serious fault in the movie is the sound production and foley. Sorry to whoever did it, but it was just awful. There were moments where the editor tried to style it out by overlaying music or skipping the 'sound' in order to avoid the bad effects. The dialogue volume was inconsistent in some areas. The directing could be stronger of course as well (but remember, low budget), like making sure actors playing dead actually try not to blatantly breathe or by at least trying to make fight scenes realistic. The moment where one of them brings a crowbar down "on someone" (over his head) repeatedly - at 1mph - was hysterical.

But I'm giving it some stars because I managed to watch the whole thing and had a few moments that kept me guessing and really kept me going. Some of the actors and production team certainly showed great potential. Just remember, if you watch it, that you've got to be prepared for a very low budget affair with average acting.

From the first moment of the movie, you know that the acting isn't going to be great. But having said that, apart from the acting, I think it comes together. The scenery is nice, the shots are not special, but hey are definitely not bad, and I have to say the story is actually quite interesting.

If you are willing to forget the bad acting and breathing dead people, there are enough interesting things in this movie that makes it worth viewing.

It's totally not a Hollywood movie where there are clues scattered everywhere, and the low pace of the movie is a pleasant.

Even though I gave it a four it's worth viewing, if you can forgive the acting.

My apologies to the actors though. The were very good for their roles, and I'd like to see more of them.