User reviews

Now, I make it a point to see bad movies, and stick with them right to the end. I've only turned off one film EVER - "Miracles" with Jackie Chan. But now I have to add this to that list.

This movie was horrendous. Absolutely terrible. The dialogue was unbearable, the accents unconvincing, special effects were laughable and the plot was almost non-existent. It also had a look like it was filmed exclusively using security cameras, which gave them an extra bit of annoyance as one moment you can't really see what's going on because you're too far, and then the next not seeing it because the camera is shaking like mad.

The movie follows a scientist who, while trying to cure HIV, actually is making a virus that creates vampires. The amazing thing about these new vampires apparently is their skill at making kevlar clothing and the fact that they have absolutely no physical weaknesses - invincible to everything (sunlight, bullets, knives, garlic, etc.) - except being complete idiots who like to wear leather outfits and get beaten up as an excuse to move the "plot" forward. The main character tries to get back at the people who made him what he is, and I really don't care if he actually succeeded. I assume he does, but I wish he didn't because then there wouldn't be even the possibility of this movie getting a sequel.

Watching this film, I got the feeling that the filmmakers are goths who wanted to make a movie to show how much they liked vampires and how cool they looked in black clothing and shades in daylight. And sadly, it definitely does not have a so-bad-it's-good quality like so many Troma films because the filmmakers take this seriously, which gives it a completely unwatchable film.

OK, first things first, let me get a little rant out of the way: IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EX-SPECIAL FORCES BOUNTY HUNTER IN YOUR MOVIE MAKE SURE HE OR SHE CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK IN THE DIALECT YOU WANT THEM TO! The Aussie trying to talk like an Alabama native was, quite possibly, the dumbest idea in cinema history. Except for casting Judge Reinhold as a Black Ops officer in "Project: Human Weapon".

The cinematography wasn't all that bad (except the part where I could actually see the rig they used to lift people off the ground) and it showed what the future of Independent Film will look like (sharp, clear, and almost as good as the studios) but the people behind the camera must've blown their camera budget on that awful looking Kevlar vest thing because instead of buying a red lens filter to simulate night time they just turned the contrast on the camera WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY down. Awful. So, yeah, it looked OK despite having a couple of glaring mistakes but that simply wasn't enough to save a horribly written, shoddily directed, badly acted piece of Australian crap.

I know that cosmic forces conspire against me and this movie is further proof of that fact. You see, were it not so, then this blight of a film, this cancer, this celluloid diarrhea that crept into my eyes and ears and then sat and festered upon my brain, forever burned into my memory, would never have happened.

Now, surely you must think "Fortey, what could be so bad? Why was the movie horrible? Didn't the end clinch it at least?"

Well, allow me to give you a guided tour of the special sphere of Hades that was this film.

To begin, this movie was filmed with a Sony Handycam. Possibly something older than a handycam made by Hitachi, from the mid 80's, I can't be sure. Some viewers appreciated the gritty look it provided. I was distracted by the "Uncle Carl's home movies" look it provided.

Describing the actors as wooden would insult furniture everywhere. Describing the dialogue as horrendous would be accurate and perhaps a little soft. But hey, I'm a tolerant guy. I like Ed Wood movies sometimes, it's hard to make my brain hurt with poor dialogue. But not impossible.

The producers of this film apparently saw the Matrix and a handful of vampire films (though I believe this shlock actually predates Underworld) and thought to themselves "Hey guys...let's take these ideas and then throw them in a blender with feces, slap it in front of a camera and see what happens." And so they did.

The ending though...ahh, the ending. What can I say about that except... I never saw it. I thought a sandwich would be more fulfilling than watching the rest of this film so I turned it off never to watch it again. And I forgot to make my sandwich. C'est la vie.

For those who liked this movie, I recommend Beaches featuring a young Mayim Bialik as well as tasty lead paint chips. It's the treat that can't be beat.

This movie is so completely awful it's difficult to know where to start! Firstly, 'El Mariachi' is namedropped on the DVD cover and we are led to believe this is a similar looooow budget effort. But in the commentary track the directors Kel Dolen and David Allen let slip it cost a million dollars! Now, by Hollywood standards that is low, but I wouldn't exactly call that a shoestring budget! 'Pi', 'Man Bites Dog' and 'Laws Of Gravity' are three movies that immediately spring to mind that show what can be done with very little money but TALENT and drive, and closer to home Peter Jackson's 'Bad Taste' was a cheap but original and entertaining horror movie that I really enjoyed. So there's no excuse for why 'Reign In Darkness' is so absolutely terrible! I can't think of anything good to say about this. The script stinks, there are no real characters with any substance or funny lines or any real logic behind it. The digital photography is passable I suppose but the acting stinks and the fake American accents are laughable. I couldn't help but wonder why Dolen and Allen made such an unoriginal and uninspired wanna-be mainstream movie in the first place. Why bother trying to compete with Hollywood product like 'Blade' when instead they could attempt something totally extreme and unlike anything Hollywood already produces? Someone like say, the astonishing Takashi Miike would be a more fruitful inspiration rather than this third-rate John Woo schtick. Surely being outside the mainstream allows you to be MORE creative and adventurous, not less! Maybe they were treating this is a show reel and are angling for a mainstream Hollywood career. If that's the case I wish them luck (because they're really gonna need it!), but otherwise I'm baffled about where they are coming from. Perhaps their constant references to Lucas and Spielberg on the DVD commentary says it all. I would say 'Reign In Darkness' is the worst Australian vampire movie of all time, but I've seen 'Bloodlust', and that, believe or not makes this look like 'The Matrix'! Even so this is one of the poorest Australia movies I've seen in many years, and is to be avoided like the plague!

The only halfway decent thing about this movie is the cover art. It's easy to see why the principals have no other movie credits - they're just that bad. The only glimmer of on screen talent is from David No, with a real director and a real script he might hope to turn in a creditable performance.

Kel Dolen's lisping narration is a boring attempt to provide some sort of continuity and story line that would otherwise be totally absent from this lame excuse for a movie.

There is one shocker connected to this movie; according to the 'Official' website, they are making a sequel!

First i need to say that i took this movie out without watching it all.....but i would bet good money it didn't get any better! There are so many things wrong with this movie that i felt like taking notes just to keep track of them. I mean, what is going on here!? Why is he walking around in daylight? Did i miss something? Why are they injecting homeless people? Why is everybody talking like that and what is the deal with the guy with the southern accent? Maybe they wrap it all up at the end....like i said i took it out so who knows. Don't waste your money renting this. The acting would be laughable if it weren't actually painful to watch. I read somewhere that this movie had a million dollar budget, the largest percentage of which seemed to me to have been spent renting the bmws in the chase scene. They're convertibles, and our "hero" is driving one with the top down in broad daylight. That's where i turned it off!!

I collect vampire movies....All of them. The good, the bad, the ugly of them. Everything from Underworld to the original Dracula featuring the one and only Bela...So when I found this in a bin for only $5.50, I thought SWEET!!! A new vampire movie for about the same price as a rental.

Now.....all I can say is that I want my $5.50 back with INTEREST. I would have given the movie a ZERO instead of a one, but there wasn't that option. Don't waste your time or your money...Even if you have the flu and can't get out of the house and it is the only thing you can find on some obscure cable program....Don't do it. You'll CRY when you watch it because you can actually feel your brain cells dying and shriveling up.

How this junk ever got onto rental shelves I will probably never know. Reign In Darkness is not just horrid, it's REALLY BAD! We are talking bad direction, bad lighting, poor acting, et cetera. I cannot think of one positive trait for this flick. I am going to give my 7-year old Nephew a camcorder and see if he can make a better effort. It could not be any worse.

This is by far the worst movie i ever seen. I would have given it a score of 2 if it was a parody because it actually made me laugh at some points.

How can a movie of such low quality be released in the year of 2003?

Avoid at all costs!

Shot on video in Australia with a distinct lack of scope and talent, the biggest problem with REIGN IN DARKNESS is the script. Instead of coming up with something halfway original, it gives us a rip off of both BLADE and THE MATRIX, featuring vampires running around a city in dark clothing and taking part in gun battles and fights. The film is so slavishly derivative to everything that's come before I wonder why the filmmakers bothered – it's obvious they're not going to be able to emulate either of those Hollywood films on this kind of budget, so why even try? The annoying thing is that I'm sure they could have at least made a more watchable film had they gone for something different.

For anyone not familiar with shot-on-video epics, the problems are numerous: the acting is often wooden, the dialogue delivered in a way that would make your local amateur dramatics group cringe. This one features Australians putting on a variety of American accents. The direction is pedestrian and the fight scenes – well, they don't even register. Forget any semblance of characterisation, motivation or continuity. The special effects are negligent – not even any rubbishy CGI stuff to laugh at – and I get the impression that the filmmakers ran out of what little money they did have, as later on we get a few people chatting in a dark room for about ten minutes before the credits roll. Not the most exciting of endings, then.

At the end of the day, if you want to watch this sort of stuff you're going to go with the Hollywood films – and for good reason. I have no idea why REIGN IN DARKNESS has even received a DVD release over here, given that it has absolutely nothing going for it aside from a misleading cover that makes it look like a 'professional' flick.

If you wanna watch Blade instead, do that. This is by no means a fantastic movie, but as they guy who played Vampire number 1, I can say that it is not the end result that mattered...it was the journey. A couple of friends, with a dream, set out to make a film with no money at all. Through favours and contributions by people, they came up with the product. They broke all air traffic regulations by flying a helicopter under the West Gate Bridge, to create an opening title worthy of a multi-million dollar production. Sure, it was downhill after that, but unlike millions of people worldwide - they tried. If you wanna bag the film, go for it, cos that is much easier than getting off yer bum and having a shot at your dream. So there.

Don't let the cover fool you for this poor movie. the plot had many holes init so i was lost right off the bat. the acting was imporable. the main charactor looked like a batman and agent smith from The Matrix. on a scale of 1 to ten one "being poking my self in the eye with dull wooden spork" and ten being "I loved it." I'd give it a 2 glueing my hand to senitive areas and yanking my hand back. The last time I saw a movie this bad it was called i, zombie. I'd rather watch that again than this.

Pease dont rent this movie it was a waste of film

One of the most appallingly bad vampire movies ever. Without any ability to act or communicate a story visually, the writers/directors/actors resort to an almost constant narrative voice-over. It's really bad. Run away. Very, very fast.

If you've seen the entire movie then you have a better constitution than everybody gives you credit for. The acting was, simply put, the worst I've ever seen and even the synchro was bad, well, for the ten minutes I really saw of it. Now, I could bore you with countless comment on how this movie blows but let's just simply ignore this one and move on with our life, it's better this way. And who the hell names a character Michael Dorn???

This is the first time I've ever turned of the movie before the ending. I already started getting worried when I saw the first images.. the movie was recorder with a simple dvcam (or even worse).. The acting is real bad, the camera-work is also very boring and the 'action' is mostly plain stupid...

It's OK for an amateur-movie for the friends of the actors/crew, but it's an awful production for someone who has to pay for it. I expected at least a C-movie.

I'm sorry but I can't be positive about it, and I can't forgive the dutch publisher who put this trash on DVD (I'm glad it was part of a 4-movie DVD which only cost 3 euro's)..

The movie was created/shot/finished in just under a year. Despite the plethora of viewers who think the low budget is the only thing that mattered, I find the plot to be interesting and worth watching. News Flash: they wanted to make it as a low budget movie; they had a shooting budget of around $25,000 (US) and did most of the editing with a home computer. They where one of the first to attempt an all-digital film in Australia and made use of surround-sound in place of visual effects, lending a new feel to the movie. The people had an idea and they went for it so the movie deserves your 90 minutes.

I recommend watching it at least 3 times: 1st for the story/for fun, 2nd with a friend who's seen it so you can poke fun at the effects, and 3rd with the director commentary so it all comes together. The commentary explains how some of the effects were done, why a few effects look the way they do, and some general problems/happenings on the set which help you better understand why the film was made and why it looked as it did.

Some aspects to the story require a suspension of disbelief or are under-explained, but many parts (including the explanation of what the virus is and why it was created) are extremely well thought-out. Overall, this movie is no `Lost Boys' or `Forsaken' but still very memorable and worth owning.

I rented this expecting a mildly entertaining vampire/horror movie. The box artwork and description sure made it sound interesting. It tries to be a combination of "Blade" and "The Matrix" at once and fails miserably on both goals.

Very poorly executed in almost every possible way. It was apparently shot on the same Sony digital camera systems that Lucas used on the last Star Wars movie. But the picture on this film is only decent and looks quite fake and bright. Why they even bothered amazes me since this was obviously a very low-budget movie to begin with. The sound is also very poorly done, i could not even understand much of the dialogue throughout the movie.

Avoid even renting this waste!

A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Reign in Darkness" (R - 2002 - DVD)

Sub-Genre: Monster/Vampire My Score: 3.6

Cast=2 Acting=3 Plot=7 Ending=3 Story=3 Scare=2 Jump=4 F/X=3 Monster=5 Blood=4

Molecular biologist Michael Dorn is accidentally infected with a new virus he is developing, turning him and its other victims into a new breed of vampire.

"Selected to work on what I believe is the cure for the plague of the 21st century...I was wrong." And you will be wrong to watch this movie. It was better to read the concept (it's the only thing I liked) and imagine how good the movie could have been, then to open that steaming pile and watch it. So now it sits on my shelf...waiting for my next trashy vampire movie marathon. Put a stake in this one and be done with it.