It seems there was something in the zeitgeist which led to some superficially similar movies about duality coming out within a short period of time. Brian De Palma made Raising Cain less than a year before The Dark Half and not very long after David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers, a spectacularly discomforting movie which somehow came out the same year as Twins. I'm not sure why I felt like revisiting The Dark Half more than the examples above, it just seemed to call to me last night the way the sparrows seem to call to Timothy Hutton's character... that and it was the only one of the bunch freely available on Amazon's VOD service.
I give many movies a hard time for not making a lot of sense, but The Dark Half doesn't make sense in an agreeable way... if that makes sense. There are details the movie takes its time to set up, but many of these details don't strengthen the core experience, which is this: a novelist's pseudonym has somehow embodied himself and now he's going on a killing spree.
So, uh, what the hell does all this have to do with the tumor discovered in the main character's brain when he was a kid? Why is it important for us to get a pseudo-medical explanation (which somehow manages to explain nothing at all) when the character in question seems to be purely supernatural in origin? Why is there so much talk about schizophrenia when it's made perfectly clear, early on, that's not what's going on? And why write so many one-note characters when you have a cast as outstanding as Timothy Hutton, Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, and Royal Dano?
It probably sounds like I'm getting ahead of myself here, but that's kind of the way the movie operates: the cart before the horse, the chickens before the eggs. And it probably sounds like I disliked the movie, but I didn't. I liked it much more than I did before, I just have questions... lots and lots of questions.
Director George Romero, who made my favorite horror movie of all time (Dawn of the Dead), doesn't necessarily strike out here, but he makes some strange decisions. Fortunately, none of these decisions break the movie and it's not hard to look past them. When he adapted Stephen King's novel of the same name, I imagine he took the bits which interested him as a visual storyteller but failed to transplant some of the connecting tissue.
The result is an uneven movie which manages to work in spite of its flaws. The horror has a nice upwards curve in terms of intensity, and the way the final conflict resolves is one of the most satisfying deaths ever filmed. I'm just not sure what the hell happened at the end or why it happened. Maybe it's just a little too metaphysical and/or metaphorical for my tastes.
Be sure to come back tomorrow... 31 Days of Gore concludes with yet another Romero picture.