Today on Blogcritics
Home » Movie Review: Against the Dark

Movie Review: Against the Dark

The testimony of the critic is no more. Steven Seagal has rendered dead the doubts, the scathing words, the formulas of scorn – all are past to the present, crumbled into nothing. The critic lies stunned, a wash of surprise dirtying his eyes. Seagal has veered off the pompously-wrought trajectory set by the critic, far from the lines of fate traced by the self-important twitches of Fellini-stained hands. Gone are the genre prisons that once contained row upon row of Half Past Dead and Flight of Fury. The old canvas of Action, dotted here and there by Revenge, Cop, Drug Lord, Revenge, Corruption, Terrorism, Revenge – now blotted out by a new canvas, a fresh genre in which to explore deep philosophical thinking as only Seagal can.

The shift: typicality gives way to horror, the domain of monsters, and repulsive alterity. The previously untouched genre unfurls its wares in Seagal’s glow, ready to be transmuted into something wholly new: a horror film starring Steven Seagal.

Such is the essence of Against the Dark. It’s a journey to the frontier of each and every illusion we hold regarding Seagal. Sentences will need to be rewritten in the aftermath, the venture simultaneously breaking and remanufacturing everything we thought we knew. Orthodoxy is smote. Old words are necessarily chewed to mush. Only with Seagal’s sanction will the words work – otherwise they die in the fires of banality.

Against the Dark’s world is one we’ve all come to accept, the ravaged deathscape too often seen, one that now endears as much as it irritates. Like the senile aunt who regurgitates the same stories ad nauseam, the world where disease induces derangement in the citizenship, producing homicidal maniacs that want to feast on your flesh, leaving you a carrier of their infection – this too becomes an object of love. Let it unfold, they plead, give it your time, gratify its wants, freely lend your ears, for it means no harm and has been produced in the most sincere ludic spirit.

Humanity’s depleted numbers stand as potential victims, prey to the hordes of unleashed evil, the strange vampire-mutant xeno-who-the-fuck-knows? that now roam the city. Opposing this force is Seagal, who leads a team of sword-master vigilantes called Hunters. They spend their evenings strolling through the streets, killing as many creatures as possible. When their collective punch is called upon, you can be sure their timely arrival will furnish the screen in hope, relief and oodles of blood.

The main thread of the film has a group of survivors wandering through an abandoned hospital, waiting for Seagal and his pals to come and rescue them. Occasionally we cross-cut to a military encampment where Keith David’s army asshole plans to ‘disinfect’ the area, that is, bomb the fuck out of it. All of which sets up a scenario where Seagal must rescue the survivors and escape the area, time’s ticking hand a constant burden.

It’s a complex narrative. One that demands rumination, an hour or two of heady reflection. Don’t feel embarrassed if you need to reread the last paragraph.

The film is a picture of grey and green, floaty cameras stuttering in time to the plot. Superfluities of the colour spectrum become absorbed in a flash of quick-fire cutaways and slow-motion pans. Blurred tilts disclose the actions of Seagal and his team, a merry band that includes The Rock’s stunt double. Yes, the film is that star-studded! The producers have clearly set no limits when it comes to casting – the cheap Sarah Polley substitute being sufficient proof of that.

But let’s not be coy: no one watches a Seagal film to admire the talents of the supporting cast. Seagal poses his own questions, lives his own commentary, gives voice to the silent imaginings of his own interests. Between films he stores his ideas, notions collected and nurtured, milk in the teat ready to be drawn. Then it comes, spewing forth in deluges of acumen. The unnoticed becomes noticed, Seagal sails past Ithaca and enters a new realm, a place of vivid insight and melodious blues barre-chords.

Oh Seagal! at which puny hubris do you aim your magnificent mentality this time?

The answer, as always, lies in the title.

About Aaron Fleming

  • Duke De Mondo

    Segal as the embodiment of la perruque – noah’s balls, that is the most revelatory sentence i have read all week.

    beautiful stuff, as ever, Sir Fleming.

  • Mat Brewster

    Great stuff as usual, Sir fleming.

  • El Bicho

    I need to watch this, and I don’t usually say that about Seagal films

  • jimmynog

    Down at the bottom it says you are “given to the most ludicrous appraisal of Culture’s finest icons and compositions”. You should add “also reviews Steven Seagal movies”. I wonder if ol’ Squinty will ever master a second facial expression. Maybe it’s that ponytail of his, got it all done up too tight. At least he’ll never need a facelift.

  • adam

    Your review made zero sense. The movie was very bad. Your entire review makes it seem like you didn’t even watch the movie, and just wanted to write about something for the sake of writing. I think you thought you were witty, but it honestly was not funny. Maybe in London this is considered funny, I don’t know. Maybe the joke is on me because I have no idea about your website, I just googled “Against the Dark” and found your page.

  • Ari Lestariono

    Seagal inspires us all to martial arts society and made him prominent to his movie career, if the movie is bad enough to watch, certainly other critics wouldn’t be as to worst opinion, in my views the movie represents the character play into by taking action beheading the monster and not thinking too much since time is limited prior to virus epidemic, whilst modern society and law enforcement took excessive time to do something and it’s getting worst.

  • cybergroover

    To be honest I don’t ever really comment on blogs and stuff but,man I really have to say what a magic review: Pompously unimpeachable!

  • Alex

    Ok this is probably the worst ‘review’ I have ever read in my whole life. Being a film critic myself and having watched the movie, It was very bad.

    Now on to you’re ‘review’ (Which quite frankly resembles a piece of very obscure poetry). It is long winded, terribly hard to comprehend, and probably the most self-indulgent piece of writing I have ever seen.

    Little advice, if you are writing a public review, not a personal piece of poetry to be stored in some dusty hidaway of a harddrive, write it in a way that makes it clear and actually pleasurable to read for those people who come across it.

    But hey what was I expecting, a very low grade movie only warrants a low grade review.

  • Christopher Rose

    Alex, “you’re” comment has changed my perception of not only this movie and reviewer Aaron Fleming but life itself.

    Being a commenter and having read your comment, “It” was very bad.

    A little advice, if you are writing a critical public comment, not a private opinion best kept to the dark “hidaway” recesses of your vast intellect, learn to fucking spell and write first.


  • Peter Grier

    Alex, I would tell you that the concept behind the review is satire…
    …but then you’d probably reply that there’s no way it would keep you’re [sic] car off the ground.

    Mr Rose, very nice riposte.

    And Thank You, Mr. Fleming. How rare is it that a terrible movie still manages to produces a plus in this world–albeit through a review. Reading your thesis has left me as refreshed as when Archimedes so many years ago slipped into his warm bath and had his epiphany.

    ‘Epiphany’, Alex. A sudden leap of understanding, especially through–