20ft Below: The Darkness Descending

source: 20ft Below: The Darkness Descending

It's a a B movie of course...but not as bad as some are reviewing. Danny has definitely payed better parts but not too bad...just enjoy the ride.

Angel (Danny Trejo) is a tough intellectual anarchist who rules the deep underground of NYC. In the opening scene he kidnaps and kills the wealthy Jason Wells (Peter Dobson) which leads to an unsuccessful police sweep. Jake (Frank Krueger) is an ex-cop who lost his wife, rules the area between the streets and Angel's world. Chelsea (Kinga Philipps) is a reporter who successfully gets an interview with Angel and then takes her time leaving the tunnels. Jake's speeches on his lost love were as badly written and delivered as Angel's anarchy fluff. In fact the whole film had a nausea that reminded me of "Billy Jack." The film is supposed to be a metaphor about living in the dark and alone with Jake representing the microcosm and the underworld the macrocosm. It was done rather sloppily with unrealistic characters. For Trejo fans it is far better than "Voodoo Possession" but not as good as "Bullet." Can't wait for "Volcano Zombies." No sex or nudity. I don't recall any F-bombs.

I watched this under the title DARKNESS DESCENDS which is a little more palatable than the original. Sadly as it turns out this thriller is a complete waste of time, with a plot that just meanders along without anything in the way of purpose or drive. It's just another example of Danny Trejo grabbing a pay cheque while not really caring about the quality of the material in which he appears. The story is supposedly about a young and bland film maker who is making a documentary about the plight of the homeless living beneath New York (although the movie was filmed in Los Angeles, which is a poor substitute). There's a lot of discussion with weird characters living beneath the streets and by weird characters I mean actors giving exaggerated, caricaturish performances. Trejo is some gang leader trying to unite his followers with some semi-religious speeches to start a new war against mankind. The problem with DARKNESS DESCENDS is that it has no idea what type of film it wants to be. There are a few thriller aspects but they take up less than half of the running time. The dialogue is heavy and dull. There are even a few fight scenes but an action film this isn't. The whole thing is shot on the cheap in close up shots and the ending just fizzles away to nothing. It's not worth your time.

When I seen this sitting in the DVD bin I thought scores of people would be scrambling to get the only copy but that wasn't the case. After I watched it I learned why nobody wanted it. A lady decides to do a documentary on the homeless people living under the subway system who look more like Survivor contestants. Danny Trejo has more screen time than usual playing a gang leader who is always battling the other homeless people. The whole thing is just atrocious giving you some time to catch up on your sleep. I'll try and get in store credit for this DVD telling them something is wrong with it. I won't be lying.

Naive documentary film maker Chelsea goes into the underground of NYC to investigate the homeless people living in abandoned subway tunnels. She encounters senile former military, a strange artist, teen run aways, crazed former drug addicts, a disgraced ex-cop (Jake), and a self- righteous gang (the Chosen) of violent cretins led by Angel. Chelsea interviews a few of the cops (whose leaders want some action against the Chosen), Angel himself, the artist, two teen runaways, and Jake. The Chosen have it out for Jake and the teens. So, what happens in the inevitable show down? -----Scores----- Cinematography: 7/10 Usually clear enough. Sound: 3/10 Bad leveling. The music played during intervals often seemed irrelevant. Acting: 3/10 Danny Trejo showed his usual screen presence. Louis Mandylor was competent with the few lines he was given. The rest, not so good. Screenplay: 1/10 Were there any points to this film? Not that I saw. Also, the clothes worn were too clean, the people looked way too clean and too healthy. How is it that Jake has a new, spotless bottle of expensive looking booze? How does he have brand new candles in perfectly clean holders? One of the women in the tunnels has a new looking guitar; what are the chances that would not be stolen? The preaching (from Angel and from the group who hang with the artist) seemed out of place, as did the spouting of statistics.

The plot: A naive reporter finds a bigger story than she was expecting when she visits a underground homeless camp in the abandoned subway tunnels of New York City. This is a very low budget film. Unfortunately, it's not one of those inventive independent films that makes up for its lack of budget with bold, new ideas and a maverick spirit. Instead, it's pretty much what you'd expect from a direct-to-video Danny Trejo film: a cool villain, a weak story, and a bit of violence. For some people, that will surely be enough to carry the entire film, but if you're not a Trejo fanatic, you can probably skip this one. The biggest problem is that the homeless people generally don't look very homeless. I'm not saying they have to smell like urine and mumble incoherently, but these people are way too pretty and healthy for me believe that they've actually suffered. One of them has what looks like a brand new guitar. I'm not even sure that I could afford that guitar. You don't have to go all method and make the actors live in a homeless community for a week, but more realism wouldn't have hurt. Some of the characters were pretty cool. Of course, I liked Danny Trejo, and, of course, he played a badass villain. He was sort of interesting: part ubermensch, part cult leader, and part Occupy Wall Street protester. I'm not sure how well all those things mix, especially when he'd segue from discussing the plight of the homeless to some Nietzsche-inspired rant about how the weak deserve their plight. Still, for Trejo fanatics, it's enough to make the film watchable, and he delivers it with his trademark hostility and danger. As soon as he enters, it's easy to believe that he's the most dangerous man in any room. The rest of the characters weren't so interesting. Most of them were underwritten and depended on cultural archetypes to give them weight: the crazy homeless guy, the burnt-out ex-cop, the pushy reporter, etc. As long as you don't mind a film full of stock characters that never really transcend their stereotypes, it's fairly survivable. A few of them are well-spoken and even fairly well acted (I liked the crazy homeless guy), but most of the dialogue ends up being clichés, especially after the midpoint. Prior to that point, it seemed like they might be verging on something interesting or insightful, but then they just wander into hack screen writing 101 and never leave. The plot is fairly traditional, and it holds no real surprises. It's the same film that you've seen time and time again, only this time its set underground. If you just want to see Danny Trejo act like a badass, this is a fair choice. If you want more than that, I'd say skip it. I like films about underground societies, but this one really didn't work very well. For an artsy, quirky take on the subject, try Kontroll, an amazing Hungarian film. For a more fantasy-based take, try Nail Gaiman's Neverwhere. I'm not a huge fan of Gaiman, but even the worst of his work is better than this.

I'm honestly shocked by the ratings that others have been giving this movie! Maybe it's my community outreach homeless project that we've been doing my ex and I at the state capitol or maybe it's the fact that this is just like a comic book and I am a total comic book Junkie but I love this movie and I think I'm going to have to buy it after watching it once! The acting is spot-on, the script is spot-on, this cinematography is amazing, this is probably my favorite even above Sons of Anarchy and Dusk till Dawn is that my boys been in! All around this is just an amazing movie there's not one thing about it that I would change at all! I'm completely impressed the cast in the crew are to be commended for the amazing work they did!

Review: What an awful movie. I lost interest after the first 15 minutes and I really struggled to stay awake through the rest. I didn't know what was happening from one scene to the next and I didn't really care. I know that it was about this underworld with good and evil living there but that was about it. Everyone that starred in the movie was overacting except for a Trejo who was pretty cool. By the end of the film I didn't know who was who or what was what and I wasn't about to rewind the film to find out. It amazing me how films like these actually get a budget. Awful! Round-Up: None of the actors in this film, except for Trejo, looks familiar so I can't really comment about there previous work or there careers. The leading character got on my nerves after a while and his whole moody persona was annoying. I understand that the character had a shady past and the whole dark underworld feel was needed for the character, but it was hard to watch. Basically it was another bad choice on my behalf but I'm sure that this type of film has it's audience, somewhere in the wilderness. I recommend this movie to people who are into there thrillers about a dark underworld controlled by a evil man who doesn't like outsiders. 1/10

Sorry but this movie does not work for we. Danny Trejo being on the cover was enough for me to watch the film, but too bad his stardom did nothing to make the film better. I've seen him save his fair share of B-movies just by appearing on screen for a few minutes and being bad ass, but this movie is not it. I did like the concept of a filmmaker documenting the people living in New York City's subway system, with one of them played by Trejo, seeing himself as a messenger of God who slays the wicked, and by wicked I mean the privileged Wall Street types, so obviously he's able to find a group of people willing to help him rid the city of this vermin. The film making is very lackluster, enough so that the found footage documentary style the film is doing seems so played out. You know the film is cheap just by the fact that they can't get Trejo to even comment to a half hour worth of footage. Not really good when he's your main villain and the most interesting out of his army. Danny's appearance is truly just a few minutes and it's not worth the trouble to see it just for that. I've seen him make a cameo like apprentice in far better B-movies like, In the Blood, which is worth seeing, so see that.