One needs to do no more than read the title and the basic premise to understand that this will be a low-budget, low-grade romp. Even the logos of production company Chemical Burn Entertainment are self-indulgent, excessive, and tawdry. Next factor in the lengthy opening narration that provides (unnecessary) background information for the story to come, and once we get through the subsequent opening credits, in a runtime of 68.5 minutes we're already 4 minutes in before the movie properly begins. In all fairness, one may well draw comparison to the works of Charles Band and Full Moon, particularly those of the past few years that were extra extra low-budget, with a story that allowed for a minimal cast and minimal effects, sets, or otherwise dressings. I recognize a kinship with 2023's 'Parasite lady,' for example, with an approach that's almost like a Z-grade variation on arthouse horror. All this is to say that 'Lady of the dark: Genesis of the serpent vampire' did have a chance, but it was a small one, and it makes a bad first impression.
Then we start to consider the bare-faced production values, the constant and extremely gauche soft focus, the needless embellishment of vocal effects, increasingly proliferate use of fish-eye lens, and the occasional (but only occasional) conceit of having the main character talking to the person holding the camera, or maybe to the camera itself by way of a video diary(?). Then there's the original song that greets our ears a bit before the 15-minute mark, an attempt to copy the successful formula of Evanescence of soft, clean female vocals and rock, with lyrics that don't even make sense (I truly don't understand what "My sense is overweight" is supposed to mean). The "score," meanwhile, such as it is, is mostly perfectly bland, dull, and toothless. Additional instances of rock and metal music are supposed to compensate for the emptiness, but don't; some milquetoast indie acoustic mumblings are almost laughable. And by the way, as we approach the halfway mark we've gotten quite a bit of nudity, but as of yet no plot.
Oh sure, our protagonist cries, and has nightmares, and looks troubled as she meanders around her abode or the immediate vicinity outside. She complains about a snake bite that we don't specifically see happen, and which we're told occurred months ago. She interacts with other characters, who do not speak, and who are represented almost exclusively through a first-person perspective thanks to that camera, even when she's having sex with them. When it first becomes apparent that Something Has Happened it seems like a miracle - right before the title happily resumes its blithe nothings with almost uniformly second-rate music, continued lascivious emphasis on our protagonist's body, tiresome editing that's not remotely as clever as it thinks it is, and "sort of kind of" emotional-driven puttering around the house. Hold on: why was it, again, that I decided to watch this?
For what it's worth, plot does show up in the second half. The feature then continues to be plagued by much the same issues as in the first half, only now with more blood.
Look. I see what this could have been. It could have been a tightly focused psychological horror-drama, zeroing in on the sole important character as she suffers a wound from something unnatural and begins to undergo a transformation in her mental state, her attitude, and her behavior. That's what it tries to be. Yet there wasn't the slightest possibility that 'Lady of the dark: Genesis of the serpent vampire,' as it was made, could have succeeded in that effort. 'Lady of the dark: Genesis of the serpent vampire,' as it was made, is hopelessly, direly, desperately, and aggravatingly heavy-handed, gawky, languid, tepid, uneventful, weak, self-indulgent, boring, poorly conceived, poorly written, poorly directed, poorly shot, amateurish, flailing, floundering, unconvincing, and meager. It's not very good at even illuminating the progression that we're supposed to be seeing as our protagonist changes. For lack of the necessary nuance, tact, and otherwise delicate touch that is very specifically required for the approach it wishes to take, the whole thing almost totally comes apart. Star Melanie Denholme tries, but what can she do under these circumstances?
Filmmaker Philip Gardiner had one good idea, which was the story that provided the foundation for the screenplay. He tried to bring that one good idea to life by employing an astonishing cavalcade of bad ones. I think that one good idea, and Denholme's earnest effort, saves 'Lady of the dark: Genesis of the serpent vampire' from the bottom of the barrel. To have achieved any meaningful entertainment or lasting value, however, this little flick needed to be more than a one-man show. As Gardiner effectively did everything here except act and write the music, he had complete creative control, and there was no one to correct his worst impulses, or to dissuade him from the worst choices that ultimately got made. Yes, I see what this film could have been. What it could have been, however, is represented only in fractions of what it is, and I can't blame anyone who would take one look at 'Lady of the dark: Genesis of the serpent vampire' and reject it wholesale. I admire the effort, such as it is; let me know in the unlikely scenario that it should happen to get a remake with the excesses, indulgences, and bad film-making decisions trimmed away.
