Against the Dark (2009)

Mondo Exploito‘s Pierre introduced me, quite recently, to the wonderful world of Steven Seagal. I had always assumed, having never seen a Seagal film as a kid, that his films were boring and second-rate in comparison to the other musclebound stars of the 80s and 90s. I was more of a Lundgren/Van Damme/Arnie kind of kid – movies with plenty of demonstrations of aerobic fighting abilities and a plethora of explosions. I had also made the assumption that Seagal’s films were bloodless and pussified. Boy, was I wrong. Seagal’s early pictures are a completely different breed of action, far from the shiny safeness of your average Van Damme flick. Seagal’s films were not about high kicks, they were all about brutal and bloody punches, arms getting broken, dick kicks, gunshot blasts, lots of swearing and extremely questionable morals. Yes, Seagal is fucking bad-ass in films like Nico: Above the Law (1988), Marked for Death (1990) and, my personal favourite, Out for Justice (1991).

It’s no secret that Seagal’s films have tumbled downwards in quality since his biggest hit, 1992’s Under Siege. His last cinematic release, Half Past Dead (2002), was a decade ago and since then he has lingered in DTV hell, pumping out an endless stream of steaming straight to DVD turds. My new-found love of Seagal should have stopped at Under Siege, or at least Half Past Dead. But my obsession with Steven Seagal has turned into a kind of madness. I am now determined to see everything the ever-fattening slob is in. And that brings us to the utter horror that is…

 

AGAINST THE DARK
USA, 2009, Richard Crudo

Here on Mondo Exploito we tend not to critique, instead we lump on dollops of wet praise. I’m going to break that rule tonight. Against the Dark is fucking horrible. I mean, really, really horrible. It combines the worst of nu-horror and nu-action with its flashes of nothingness to transition between scenes, sped up footage, stuttering frame rates and camerawork so shaky it’s nauseating. This is everything that is wrong with movies post-2000. This is the result of efforts from Michael Bay and Zack Snyder and films like The Bourne Identity and Resident Evil. Only it’s worse. Against the Dark has a budget of 9 million, yet looks as if it was pumped out for under a few grand. I’m guessing most of the money went to feeding Seagal fat fucking face. I know it’s overdone to give Seagal shit for his weight, but honestly, the guy is a blimp in this one. A sad, sad blimp. Yeah, you know you’re in trouble when this is the best part of a Seagal movie:

Admittedly, that clip is pretty goddamn hilarious. We rewound it at least ten times. Now, I wouldn’t mind the awfulness of Against the Dark if it wasn’t such a waste. Against the Dark makes a big deal, and rightly so, of its amazing premise: Steven Seagal versus vampires. A concept so awesome, so simple, that there’s no way anyone could fuck it up. But somehow they did. They fucked it up royally. “Steven Seagal versus vampires” may be the film’s selling point, but it is in no way the film’s plot or focus. Against the Dark is essentially the story of a bunch of generic vampire-apocalypse survivors making their way to A DOOR in a hospital, occasionally running into vampires along the way. This is intercut with scenes of Seagal (who appears onscreen for about fifteen minutes) and a bunch of Romanian chicks WALKING AROUND and, every now and then, they weakly hack up a vampire. The hacking consists of Seagal waving his sword around while the camera shakes to imply that he’s killed a vamp. Some other tough guy in Seagal’s gang does all the cool stuff like throwing dudes through windows (one of Seagal’s signature moves), while Seagal stands in the dark breathing heavily. At times, the film cuts to Keith David looking very depressed and probably wishing he was still on the set of The Thing.

Yes, Against the Dark is a vile piece of shit – a piece of shit that’s not even so-bad-it’s-good. It is worthless, utterly soulless and truly cynical movie making. Yet somehow… somehow, it left me… satisfied. I can’t explain it. Why did I feel satisfied when the credits rolled? Was I simply relieved it was over? Or perhaps… oh god… perhaps I’ve become such a fan of Seagal that seeing his stupid mug for a mere sprinkling of minutes is enough to leave me happy. I’m so ashamed. I’ll admit that I was pleased that Against the Dark featured a few moments of non-CGI gore and a scene with a vampire girl sharpening her teeth is a nicely absurd touch. This moment also had me in stitches:

But that’s it! Against the Dark exists in a world of films I try to avoid – rotten post-2000 DTV trash. These are movies that lack the charm of the bad movies of decades gone, even direct to video movies of the 90s are more appealing. Films like Against the Dark are made in post and not on set. It’s not just that they are bad, they are entirely of no value. Sony Pictures knows it. The cast knows it. The director knows it. And I know for damn sure, based on his nonexistent performance, that Seagal knows it. Seagal was never a good actor, but he’s not just wooden in Against the Dark… he’s not even in it. And that’s not just a reference to his limited screen time. I’m truly worried that a film as devoid of anything as this left me feeling full. Please help me…