All alone

Film I suppose some people will go to the cinema and if the poster looks good they'll put down their fiver and look forward to a couple of hours of escape from the horror that is their lives. But if you're film aware you end up making value judgements about what you're going to see. No matter how good the reviews or oscar nominations, if the words 'harrowing' or 'portrayal' appear together in the synopsis, you couldn't pay me to enter the screen. When it comes to reviews I tend to follow the wisdom of Mark Kermode, Empire Magazine and Time Out. If Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian hates something I'll probably love it.

But sometimes the weight of critical opinion comes into play. If a film is universally reviewed well, I'm there. If a film split critical opinion massively so that they either love it or hate it I'll also go so that I can make up my own mind. If it gets mixed reviews I'll wait for the dvd. But if a film is so critically panned that it gets 1% at Rotten Tomatoes I wouldn't miss it for the world. So, assume it doesn't go dtdvd over here I'll be waiting in line for Alone In The Dark. Obviously its hunting season with writers trying beat each other for the best snide comment, but my favourite (seen here originally) is this:

"Saying Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark is better than his 2003 American debut House of the Dead possibly the worst horror film of the past decade is akin to praising syphilis for not being HIV."

That's from Nick Schager in Slate. There is however one lone voice in the crowd. Step forward Michelle Alexandria of Eclipse Magazine:

"Alone In The Dark" isn't going to set the world on fire, but it largely succeeds with what it has to work with. If you don't question it, can sit back and just enjoy the action, nice cinematography, and Christian Slater's performance, you will find a lot to commend in this otherwise train wreck. It's a fun ride that reminds you fondly of the game. Just don't take it seriously."

Alex gave the film a C+, which is good enough for me.