Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

fedor8 There are two obvious reasons for the low IMDb average: 1) most filmgoers are lazy, non-thinking (even anti-thinking) morons, and 2) they didn't understand the ending. (1 and 2 are cause-and-effect linked, so both points can be unified into one Grand Reason or Theory Of Everything (That Makes The Daft Viewer Hate Quality).) DC is a relatively moody fantasy horror/thriller which may be utterly confusing hence exasperating to lazy and/or less intelligent viewers, but it nevertheless offers an ending that explains all of the preceding bizarre events.For those who didn't get it: the blond-Birch half of the film is a basic description of the last weeks/months in the life of the serial-killer's last victim. The brunette-Birch half is Hell itself, in which the killer re-lives over and over various events in his "past" life through the brunette Birch. The psychotherapist/killer is forever doomed to live out his own personal Hell, destined to bounce forever between two world like a ping-ping ball: between that of his actual victim, the blonde Birch, and the nightmare world of the brunette Birch, who never existed in the first place. The killer is thereby punished by having to re-experience his own crime, both from the perspective of his last victim and her non-existent brunette double.Not that the basic foundation behind this premise is anything wildly new or original. It is somewhat reminiscent of "Angel Heart", even more of "Hellraiser V", and who knows how many other movies. Nevertheless, the basic idea is presented here in a new way, hence to criticize DC solely on the basis of its premise would mean that nearly every single Western, action film, and family drama, would also have to be dismissed as utterly unoriginal and useless. The movie keeps you guessing, and there are no major loose ends. (In fact, considering that all of the events occur in "Hell", then there is no really need for every single detail to be explained neatly at the end, anyway. Some parts need to be left to the imagination... for those viewers who have it.) DC does NOT remind of "Lost Highway" much. Lynch's typically overpraised LH is a confused jumble of utter nonsense, all style and almost zero meaning, whereas DC has both a logical structure and a point.

bjt55 Once again people who dislike horror movies seemed to have rated this movie low... This is a horror movie so if you like horror movies then you will like it! It had a genuinely creepy feeling which was great for this movie. In fact it was made pretty artistically because it goes from her normal life where everything is super bright to the point where it almost hurts your eyes, then her dreamself which is really dark and morbid. There is a lot of symbolism in this film and a killer ending. I love movies with twisted endings that aren't predictable. If you pay close attention to details you can begin to figure out a few things, but its hard to guess. This was an original idea, and pulled off really well. This would have gotten a higher rating if they created more suspense, I mean there was a few good parts but for how great the story was they could have done a better job!

mario_c DARK CORNERS is a mysterious, complex and dark thriller with a great surreal cinematography and confusing plot. It's all about a woman, Susan Hamilton (played by Thora Birch), that is having some terrible nightmares, in which appears another woman being stalked by a strange man. These nightmares seem to be each time more real, and she decides to visit a psychiatrist, Dr. Woodleigh (Toby Stephens), recommended by one friend of hers. The consult starts to be a little strange because he quickly finds out what's happening to her, like by magic… He puts her in some kind of hypnotic therapy, and through her dream, he "killed" the woman in her dream that was disturbing her, relieving Susan from her painful nightmares… or at least he thinks he did…But in fact, he didn't! Let's see why, later… As I said this film has really a great cinematography in my point of view, because it has great scenarios/settings, very good camera shots, good characterization, and especially a surreal and dark ambiance that turns it mysterious and odd. I even think this cinematography was a bit inspired by David Lynch's work, especially if we think about the bizarre characters (like the old lady that is waiting in Dr. Woodleigh's consulting room, when Susan arrives, or the strange people that surround the woman in the dream), the duplication of the same character (Thora Birch is Susan, the main character, but she's also Karen Clark, the dream's woman) or finally the extremely bizarre scenarios and ambiences created (principally on Susan's dreams).(SPOILERS) But this film also has a very open ending that can easily provide many theories to the plot… When the movie ended I was extremely confused about what was happening, like any person that watches this film, but one scene was persisting on my mind as an important key to solve the mystery: when Susan says "I think that's what hell is..It's having your sins pulled out from the dark corners of your soul and served up to you in this endless loop of torture."! I found it very deep and I knew it would have some kind of significance to solve the mystery, but I didn't know how! Until I read two previous comments here in IMDb that really explain what happened in this movie! Remember when I told you that the psychiatrist had put Susan in a hypnotic therapy and killed the woman in her dream? In fact he didn't, in the dream, but he did it in the real life! Let's take it by parts: In the end we see the woman of Susan's dream, Karen, to pursue the mysterious guy that stalked her during the entire film. The guy enters in Susan house provoking a shock between these two supposed separated "worlds". If Karen is just a dream, someone that dwells in Susan's mind, how can she enter in Susan's home? The viewer asks. But then, when she enters deeper in the house she finds Susan dead, in her bed, in a pool of blood, and she looks at the mirror, and who do we see? Karen? No, we see Dr. Woodleigh, the psychiatrist! Suddenly, Susan's husband (David, played by Christian Anholt) enters in the bedroom and he looks at "Karen" and who does he see? Again, Dr. Woodleigh! Yes, that's true, he's the killer! And what about Karen? Who is she anyway? So there it is my explanation to the movie (the same of these two users I did refer before!): The real life is what happens to Susan, the subplot about Karen is just the looping hell where Dr. Woodleigh fell after he die by Susan's husband hands (after David find the psychiatrist next to her dead wife's body it is suggested that he spanks him, probably until death)! Or like one of those users said:" Do you ever wonder what happens to rapists and murderers when they finally get to hell? Answer: they get to relive their crimes, over and over, from the point of view of the victim". That's the explanation to the plot that's hidden in that line spoken by Susan: "I think that's what hell is..It's having your sins pulled out from the dark corners of your soul and served up to you in this endless loop of torture". Beside, we can remember that the people that surrounded "Karen", in those strange and bizarre scenarios, had very weird faces and behaviours, seeming to be more like demoniac creatures than human… The other user I mentioned made me remember of another important thing: this kind of plot, and consequent explanation, is not as original as many may think. Like him/her, I also saw a movie some time ago called SALVAGE which had the same kind of plot and explanation! It's a surreal and metaphysical explanation to the plot, but it's the more logical one in my point of view, and I'm quite sure it was the director's idea making this film.(END SPOILERS) The acting is very good, especially by Thora Birch. She does an incredibly job, playing these two different characters, Susan and Karen. About the soundtrack I think it could have been better.Anyway, it's really a sinister and mysterious movie, with a great cinematography, just the way I use to appreciate so I will score it 10/10!

mansour8687 This was a "promising" good movie with some dialogue and a lack of plot or character development that prevented it from being a great movie. If you can overcome some of the poor lines spoken by the leading couple, particularly such memorable lines as: "Give me a shout if you'd like me to come over there and wipe you". "You'd like that, wouldn't you, you perv"; then you might find a fairly engaging thriller worth the hour and a half to see it. As I said, some of the lines were hideous and the numerous "toilet" scenes were filled with an inane dialogue that does nothing to advance the plot, deepen character understanding, or shed light on the film's overall themes.The second greatest problem is the poor plot development. Of what relevance is the night stalker to Susan's revelation that she is linked psychologically and spiritually to Karen? I could be misinterpreting the movie, but the link between Karen's nightmares and Susan's nightmares suggests they are two parts of the same psyche, at odds with the apparently "beautiful" life Susan leads and the hideous life Karen leads. Susan lives a life of comfort but not exactly "love", Karen one where men are purely bestial and live only to rape and repress women. You can argue that Susan feels like she is a victim--she dreams of women raped and murdered at the hands of the night stalker. In her waking world, her husband dominates her life and literally takes her for a ride but she has no sense of independence. Her body is not her own; the fertility treatments are destroying her own babies, possibly her sanity, and one wonders if she wants pregnancy only to please her man without taking her own safety into account. This is most striking when she gets up for a bathroom break and her husband nearly orders her back to bed. Though her dreams and miscarriage are taking a toll on her, her husband's motives and treatment of her feels slimy and completely insincere and he never really take his eyes of his solitaire game.On the other hand, Karen has no man whom she loves. The scary retinue of people on the bus are there only to mock her and attack her. Hers is a far more dangerous world, where women are not kept in gilded cages but are victimized and attacked, eroticized in ways that are vile and reprehensible. Yet why does Karen choose to live in an abandoned industrial district? I know that in nightmares the dreamer doesn't consciously choose her surroundings, but this fact in itself suggests a woman who does not care for her own safety; it could also be a clue to her true identity,complete with a "Saw" movie washroom with fluorescent lights, a Hollywood cliché for typical serial killer furnishings. We all know the cliché--the abandoned warehouse is where Hollywood movie serial killers always keep the victim strapped and bound to a table. Could we try some originality please? Not that violence should be condoned, but serial killer movies are a dime a dozen. Karen has no one else to confide in. She is merely there to dream that she is really Susan Hamilton, but there is no deepening of the connection between the two women other than that each one dreams the other girl is her true alter-ego.And what role does the hypnotist have to play in the plot? He is finally revealed to be the night stalker, but what are his motives for attacking the two women? Karen and Susan keep referring to the secret hidden sins they have no wish to reveal. The hypnotist is stalking both of them, but to what end? And why? Both women are pregnant and then have miscarriages, all of this being revealed to both of them as one women sleeps to awaken as the other woman living a similar yet different life. What are Karen's sins that she finds herself staring down at the murdered body of Susan only to find that she sees her face in the mirror transforming into that of the mad hypnotist? A little theory: I think that aside from Multiple personality disorder, Karen and Susan are two sisters somehow separated and kept estranged from each other. Karen, lovely as she is, is beaten up and injured in her dreams only because she is somehow the night stalker. Sometimes Karen sees herself as the victim because she cannot subconsciously realize until the end of the film that she is the murderer of each of the young women. Her facial injuries are all inflicted by the women she has slain.Why? Karen cannot accept that she has been denied the kind of life that Susan has lived. We always think the grass is greener, the roses smell sweeter on the other side. This is my theory, however incorrect it may be.