That was an excellent one.

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Another CGI offering which leaves you wondering when the industry will produce decent material. But hey - you're an actor you do the thing & pick up the cheque! The problem with ' made in a computer film ' is that it shows! For me technology nerd be tempered with story quality,too much ' cheap thrills ' ate sought nowadays. The actors have done better than the piffle in this offering,from Steve Baldwin to ' the smoking man ' - but there are many such heavy on the tech - low on content films at present.The most that can be said is these allow you to throw the main breaker to your brain & watch in a stupor,you won't miss much!

Alright, I watched Dark Storm last night and I have to say it wasn't all that great. But it doesn't deserve some of the low ratings it has, at least not the ratings that go on about how bad the acting was. It was the CGI, the exaggerated and bad lines and the abrupt ending with little explanation were the real issues.Basically the plot follows Daniel, who got into an accident at a scientific research station involving a mysterious substance called "dark matter" which is being used by the army as a weapon. Daniel finds himself able to manipulate and control the weather; he also develops telekinetic abilities that are extremely awkward and out of place in the suburb community he lives in. Daniel ends up sick and could possibly die from being "infected" with the dark matter but the army has its own sinister agenda.This movie is a victim of a low budget and overuse of CGI, not bad acting or a bad plot necessarily. For what it's worth, I really thought the story was interesting, and most of the actors/actresses really put a lot of effort into their roles. William B. Davis is my favorite actor, I've seen a lot of movies he's acted in and he's well-known for his acting as the enigmatic Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files, and I still think he was a great actor in this movie. I liked the soundtrack, it wasn't bad heavy metal or country, thank god.The bad script lines took away from the plot, as did the abrupt ending, but my real problem was the overuse of CGI. In some movies CGI looks good, but not in this case, it made this movie look like a cheap video game and with the budget this movie had the CGI wasn't as professional-looking as it could have been. The Canadian scenery was nice, I think this movie could've benefited from less CGI and just filming in a realistic setting.

I am an avid fan of all sci-fi including the old 50's stuff but this was so, so bad it was embarrassing. I was only trying to kill a bit of time before the wife picked me up but nearly ended up killing myself. I must admit I do watch even the worst films to the end, but started daydreaming about how I was going to fix that loose piece of wallpaper behind the TV and missed the end. Poor acting/story to say the least and Baldwins was the worst I have ever seen....poor dialogue...vacant {I was going to say thoughtful!} stares into nowhere. The best line that had me in tears was to the captain "They sent in an assault team sir". I only saw two men attack the fully guarded base! {Think A team} Fairplay Baldwins professor colleague helped pull his acting performance up...shame because he has done a couple of good films. 3 out of 10 due to the not so bad special effects for a TV movie. If your going to watch it, think of your worst enemy then go and make friends with him....you will get a lot more satisfaction!

Unfortunately I saw those terrible '50's movies when they were new. It appears one of those plots was resurrected and given to a monkey chained to a typewriter.The script is hollow because it starts with a lack of understanding of dark matter. In a good sci. fi. piece, this is an advantage- it gives the writers an opportunity to rewrite reality by explaining the new rules of the universe as now discovered and expounded by the characters, showing their "genius." Our writers did not explain anything, let alone set up the plot for development. Instead, vague terms which had no logical relation to other vague terms were bandied about by almost lifeless drones, leaving the viewers worse than perplexed.The characters were given no personality by the script, and the actors could not (probable) or would not (possible) give a personality to their characters by exertion of acting skills. Therefore,no character flaws could be developed or remedied. Moreover, technologies (the lifeblood of sci. fi.) remained absolutely static. The technological solution was given in the first 20 lines, and was not developed past that. Even the superhero plot line, an almost foolproof device, was just plain awful. (I've always wondered how the modern term "awful" developed- from the "full of awe" meaning, or a different spelling for "offal." Viewers will have absolutely no question as applied to this film.) Most distressingly, the lead character was played with all the emotional range of chalk. Even after receiving powers which were described as "God like," the character could not find an emotion to display that might be a consequence of dealing with such a life changing event. The only interesting question regarding this film is how it found financial backers. Some actresses claim there has never been a lack of funds for any picture where they went topless. That could not have been a factor here: hardly a midriff went bare. But no matter how much money was spent, this film was a colossal loss of everything expended. So how and why was it ever made?