Dark Storm

I had to stay up with my young son last night and thought Dark Storm looked vaguely interesting compared to the other pap on offer.

No.

It was the aura of car crash TV that kept me watching. A fat Stephen Baldwin acting worse than my armchair does. My word, I've never seen anyone so bad in a film.

His scientist sidekick and the villain at least were professional and I could believe they were actors, but Mr. Baldwin gave the standout worst "acting performance" I have ever had the misfortune of sitting in front of. Whatever you do, do not waste an hour or two of your precious life on this utter shower of *&^%. Spend the time more fruitfully in staring at a blank wall, or cutting your toenails.

This movie is not a blockbuster by any stretch, the acting, especially from Balwin was uninspiring and flat, the 'science' was almost non existent and some of the props\outfits looked like they were taken from the local op shop.

On the plus side, it was reasonably fast paced with passable CGI effects for the budget, there was some character development and there was some good support acting.

Overall just below a pass, but certainly watchable as a light thriller, don't expect too much and if you're a sci-fi fan like me, just ignore all the holes in the premise of harnessing Dark Matter...

DARK STORM, a zero-budget TV movie from 2006 starring a down-on-his-luck Stephen Baldwin, has all the trappings of a dodgy disaster-cum-sci-fi movie: a scientist is accidentally exposed to dark matter and soon finds himself with the ability to control the elements.

About halfway through the running time, I somewhat incredulously realised that I was in fact watching a remake of a poverty row programmer called THE INDESTRUCTIBLE MAN, starring an equally down-on-his-luck Lon Chaney Jr., about a guy who finds himself with the power to control electricity. The two plots aren't exact, but they're similar enough to suppose that the writer must have seen the old Chaney flick.

In any case, DARK STORM is a poor excuse for a film. Half of it is a silly sci-fi outing, with random balaclava-wearing goons going around hassling pretty female scientists and extras getting killed. The other half is a disaster movie, with dark matter storms destroying buildings in Seattle and Romania, of all places. One of the storms destroys a high rise in scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks. Needless to say, the CGI effects are horrible and the acting equally bad, particularly from a slumming-it Baldwin, who really should know better...

If this film was going to win an award it would surely be in "The Most Annoying Hairstyle in a Movie" category. An overweight Stephen Baldwin's hair certainly annoyed me from the very start of this film. Anyway, this movie is about some scientists who have discovered something code named "Eruptor", which is a device that supercharges Dark Matter and uses it to change the molecular structure of it's target, thereby eradicating it. Simples! Mr Baldwin sort of ambles through his role as the main man to save the world, helped by his trusted friend and his loyal wife. The special effects are decent and although it is all nonsense, it is worth a watch just to see Mr.Baldwin's hair.

It doesn't get much sillier than this for the serious sci-fi buff, but as low-expectation, old fashioned "Saturday afternoon matinée" diversion, it's entertaining enough.

A slightly overweight Stephen Baldwin, in a follow-up to an even sillier 2006 sci-fi opus, "Earth Storm" about using bombs to put a crumbling moon back together, invents a weapon using "dark matter" (apparently a more photogenic, controllable version of anti-matter) and generatable thunderstorms. Naturally, things go awry, foolish military men make stupid, ill-considered snap judgements causing even greater problems, traitors steal the weapon and (reaching the heights of "Marvel Comic silliness") Baldwin absorbs some of the "dark matter", making himself a self-generating (but only defensive for some reason - until the villain does it) weapon! The big screen Spiderman films made as much scientific sense (why can't screenwriters give us entertainment with stories JUST as exciting that gets the science right and doesn't insult our intelligence!?) but had more consistent characters and motivations.

If you can ignore the basically incredible weapon which is the McGuffin which gets the plot rolling, the piece is fun on its own terms - no worse than Disney's 1979 "Black Hole" (which famously made its title dark star a glowing whirlpool). The Disney had firmer scientific underpinnings but worse acting and special effects, so it's sort of a fair trade off.

The always engaging Rob LaBelle makes a fine scientific sidekick (who actually does most of the work - not to mention acting), and Gardiner Millar as the chief villain is solid - even when the special effects have him reenacting the last scenes of the first Indiana Jones film.

Undemanding fun, but keep your expectations low.