'The passion of Darkly Noon' is probably one of the worst movies I have ever watched. The reason why I stayed with it till the end was that I was curious how many more unreasonable, incoherent and irrelevant features were about to appear. This is not discrediting the actors, I leave that open, but only about the storyline.
The plot is very simple and easy to guess after the first few minutes but then the movie keeps changing subject and focus. First, it is obviously the issue of Noon and Callie and that she is his first love after being brought up in a very isolated context. Then the movie shifts to the story between Callie and Roxy suggesting to become more of a mysterious thriller about witchcraft, but this is just a fake and does not go far. The appearance of Noon's parents adds to the issue but seemed to me completely ridiculous, furthered by the awful acting of both of them (and who did that make-up?). Towards the end the movie goes into longer and longer scenes. The climax (from the point where Noon starts painting himself in the cave until he is killed) could have been just as well expressed in half the time, the scenes drag on for ages.
few more things. First, the undertaker. Who wrote this character into the movie? He is a joke and does not fit at all with the overall pace and depth the movie desperately but unsuccessfully tries to establish. His little helper (who finds Darkly Noon in the first place) speaks of Darkly as his friend, although they have only seen each other once or twice. The friendship was probably so emphasized in order to make the final shooting scene a hard decision for that guy (seeing that he has to kill his 'friend'). But the conflict does not appear at all in that scene (he quickly shoots Darkly and that's it).
Last thing. What is the silver shoe all about? Was that to include some symbolic feature? Anything would have been more believable than a giant silver shoe floating down a river because a circus-family had an accident loosing that shoe on that river. How come the shoe floats past Darkly but is later used as a burning stake for Roxy's dog (would you incinerate your dog on a silver shoe? was it completely normal for Roxy to find a giant silver shoe? shouldn't the shoe have been much further downstream by the point it is used?). The circus family, who appears randomly in the last scene of the movie, did not only have one giant silver shoe, no, they also had a miniature model of it (which the son's 'favourite toy'). First of all, who believes that!? Second, his son's 'favourite toy'? Any stick is a better toy than a silver shoe (which will always remain a silver shoe, any wooden stick would be more interesting (because it would trigger the imagination) than an abstract silver shoe. By the way, Callie never saw the silver shoe before, so when it is presented to her it cannot have any meaning to her (and how helpful is a silver shoe after your house burned down!?)
These were my major concern, rendering this movie completely ridiculous and horribly written.
The plot is very simple and easy to guess after the first few minutes but then the movie keeps changing subject and focus. First, it is obviously the issue of Noon and Callie and that she is his first love after being brought up in a very isolated context. Then the movie shifts to the story between Callie and Roxy suggesting to become more of a mysterious thriller about witchcraft, but this is just a fake and does not go far. The appearance of Noon's parents adds to the issue but seemed to me completely ridiculous, furthered by the awful acting of both of them (and who did that make-up?). Towards the end the movie goes into longer and longer scenes. The climax (from the point where Noon starts painting himself in the cave until he is killed) could have been just as well expressed in half the time, the scenes drag on for ages.
few more things. First, the undertaker. Who wrote this character into the movie? He is a joke and does not fit at all with the overall pace and depth the movie desperately but unsuccessfully tries to establish. His little helper (who finds Darkly Noon in the first place) speaks of Darkly as his friend, although they have only seen each other once or twice. The friendship was probably so emphasized in order to make the final shooting scene a hard decision for that guy (seeing that he has to kill his 'friend'). But the conflict does not appear at all in that scene (he quickly shoots Darkly and that's it).
Last thing. What is the silver shoe all about? Was that to include some symbolic feature? Anything would have been more believable than a giant silver shoe floating down a river because a circus-family had an accident loosing that shoe on that river. How come the shoe floats past Darkly but is later used as a burning stake for Roxy's dog (would you incinerate your dog on a silver shoe? was it completely normal for Roxy to find a giant silver shoe? shouldn't the shoe have been much further downstream by the point it is used?). The circus family, who appears randomly in the last scene of the movie, did not only have one giant silver shoe, no, they also had a miniature model of it (which the son's 'favourite toy'). First of all, who believes that!? Second, his son's 'favourite toy'? Any stick is a better toy than a silver shoe (which will always remain a silver shoe, any wooden stick would be more interesting (because it would trigger the imagination) than an abstract silver shoe. By the way, Callie never saw the silver shoe before, so when it is presented to her it cannot have any meaning to her (and how helpful is a silver shoe after your house burned down!?)
These were my major concern, rendering this movie completely ridiculous and horribly written.