Are The ‘Alone in the Dark’ Movies Really That Bad?
You had to have been there to really appreciate the anxiety associated with seeing your favorite videogame characters on the big screen back in the 2000s—also known as the dark ages of videogame adaptations. And if you’re going to discuss this dire period of popular culture, there’s no avoiding the infamous Uwe Boll. Known for exploiting German tax laws to fund his films—as well as literally fighting (and beating) his harshest critics in unsimulated boxing matches—the controversial filmmaker was responsible for an assortment of poorly received videogame adaptations that gamers absolutely loathe (though I’d argue that his take on Postal is a Troma-esque cult classic).
And with Pieces Interactive’s Alone in the Dark reboot set to bring the long-running survival horror series back from the dead, I think this is the perfect time to look back on the franchise’s infamous duology of adaptations that were widely regarded to be some of the worst films ever made.
Originally envisioned as an adaptation of the 2001 reboot Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare, the first Alone in the Dark film was meant to be a Lovecraftian thriller about a private investigator who winds up involved in a missing persons case connected to a supernatural conspiracy. However, when Boll became attached to the project, Blair Erickson’s original script was unceremoniously discarded in favor of something featuring “more car chases” and fewer references to the source material.
Also Read: Looking Back At ‘Alone in the Dark’ From First to Worst
Given a relatively large budget, with producers thinking that the gaming franchise’s large fanbase meant that this was a guaranteed investment, Boll was able to recruit an unexpectedly talented cast featuring the likes of Christian Slater and Stephen Dorff. Even then, the director inevitably ended up butting heads with the actors during the shoot, going so far as to publicly state his regret over hiring Tara Reid as well as shooting down any criticism of the script.
Despite these conflicts, the project would be released in January of 2005, with the finished film following Slater as series protagonist Edward Carnby, a paranormal investigator researching an ancient native American artifact somehow connected to supernatural monsters he used to see as an orphaned child. With the help of archeologist Aline Cedric (Reid), as well as the secret organization Bureau 713, Carnby falls down a rabbit hole of mad science and paranormal shoot-outs as he discovers the truth about his childhood.
Boll was already used to harsh criticism by 2005, but nothing could have prepared the cast and crew for the public shaming surrounding the movie’s release. Not only would the flick be ridiculed for its embarrassing box office revenue (about half the shooting budget), but it would also suffer at the hands of unusually cruel critics, with more than one reviewer accusing the film of being one of the worst cinematic experiences of all time.
Also Read: ‘Avatar’ Who?: ‘Another’ is a Fantastic Live-Action Anime Adaptation
Quick to defend his work, Boll actually went on to blame some of the financial disappointment on poor marketing from his then-distribution partner Romar films, while also attributing part of Alone in the Dark’s poor reception to gamers who each have a different version of the ideal adaptation in their heads.
Fans may have had a point about the movie not sticking to the source material, with the film relocating the action to a large city instead of a spooky island and only tangentially following any of The New Nightmare’s overall plot. But I personally don’t find the flick to be as bad as everyone says it is. In fact, I’d argue that anyone who accused the film of being one of the worst movies ever made was either too caught up in the “hating stuff is cool” movement of the early internet or simply hadn’t seen enough movies.
You can accuse Alone in the Dark of many things, but you certainly can’t say that its bizarre cocktail of martial arts, goofy sci-fi, and trashy horror makes for a boring experience. Sure, the film blends together countless tropes from several better films, but how can you hate a movie with kung-fu fighting zombies and epilepsy-inducing shoot-outs set to Future Fusion Metal?
Also Read: ‘Crow Country’: Hotly Anticipated Retro-Inspired Game Gets Release Date
In all honesty, there’s a lot to enjoy here if you can overlook the janky visuals and cheap effects work. From cheesy yet memorable lines like “just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean it can’t kill you” to a couple of fun action sequences—not to mention the overqualified cast—I genuinely think that this film would have been a cult movie hit had it come out in the 70s or 80s.
It’s unfair how we can look back fondly on trashy auteurs like Lloyd Kaufman and Ed Wood but not give more recent filmmakers the same courtesy just because we were alive when their films came out. I think Alone in the Dark 2 is a curious example of this.
Released in 2008, coinciding with Eden Games’ reboot of the interactive portion of the franchise (though the storylines are entirely unrelated), the so-called sequel is an entirely different kind of “bad” movie altogether. Merely produced by Boll, this direct-to-video follow-up was helmed by first-time directors Michael Roesch and Peter Scheerer.
Featuring an entirely new cast and crew backed by a narrative that doesn’t even try to connect to the events of the previous film, Roesch and Scheerer’s flick is more of a reboot than anything else. This time, the story follows Rick Yune as yet another version of Carnby who begrudgingly teams up with aging witch-hunter Abner Lundberg (Lance Henriksen) in order to find and eliminate the evil witch, Elisabeth Dexter (Allison Lange).
Also Read: How I Rekindled My Love For Horror Games [Dodging Death]
While Alone in the Dark 2 was also a critical dud, it was still much better received than its predecessor, with reviewers praising the lack of Boll and the movie’s focus on mood rather than spectacle. I also think that the flick has its merits, boasting higher production value and better cinematography combined with a somber tone more in line with the game’s horrific atmosphere. But, I can assure readers that it is definitely not better than the first one.
While there’s nothing wrong with the new cast (I especially appreciate the inclusion of Bill Mosely and Danny Trejo alongside Henriksen, as well as Lange’s take on the villainous witch), the flick lacks the misguided soul that made the first film so interesting. The sequel isn’t necessarily a terrible movie. But it’s also not as stylish or memorable as what came before, feeling a lot like a studio-mandated overcorrection instead of the work of someone with a real vision.
That being said, like its predecessor, there are some elements that make this sequel stand out among other poorly received videogame movies. For starters, the entire thing almost accidentally feels like a 2000s version of a hammer-horror flick, and I really enjoy the focus on a single intelligent antagonist rather than generic zombies or xenomorph rip-offs—even if that means the film has even less to do with the games than the first one.
Also Read: ‘Evil Within’: Replaying the Forgotten Horror Gem a Decade Later
Unfortunately, along with its 2008 videogame counterpart, Alone in the Dark 2’s poor reception was also responsible for putting the once-beloved franchise on ice for over 15 years. And though I enjoyed revisiting both of these flicks (mostly because I’m a sucker for trashy 2000s horror), it makes sense that their old-fashioned aesthetics and stories didn’t go over so well with 21st-century audiences.
I truly hope that the Alone in the Dark franchise gets another chance at an adaptation one day—preferably a Lovecraftian period piece more akin to Erickson’s vision for the films. But I’d still recommend these weird little pictures to folks hungering for a cheesy B-movie double-feature. At the very least, this duology is a fascinating case study on how even an ill-advised human touch can enhance an otherwise bland cinematic experience, and I think that’s worth something even if you still think that these are terrible movies.
Categorized:Editorials
