I claim no familiarity with James Patterson's novel, but I'm very familiar with TV movies. I assume it's by adaptation into the television medium, and not a reflection of the novel itself, that this little flick is astoundingly direct in its storytelling. I mean that just not in terms of how the plot develops, but also in terms of what the film throws at us very quickly, with no evident rhyme or reason - beyond the scope of the underlying mystery - and with the apparent intent that we accept at face value what we're being told. This is a recurring issue throughout the film, for that matter: seen, for example, whenever protagonist Justin reads letters given to him, or a little less than halfway through when Justin returns to Italy and it's just flatly decided his initial investigation is done (it sure doesn't seem like it based on the story as we see it), or when the plot as it presents just jumps back and forth. And that plot as a whole, well, I'm supposing we just need to actively engage our suspension of disbelief, which I'm further supposing would be easier for those who adhere to some variety of Christianity. Moreover, presumably it's the quirks of adaptation that shred the characterizations into trite forms, and the scene writing into forthright curiosities.
I think there are actually terrific ideas here, firm foundation for a tale of supernatural horror - in the characters, in the scenes, in the story at large. In their root ideas the deepening chaos, violence, and madness make for sinister fun. In this form, however, the writing is scattered: sometimes seemingly jumbling its priorities, sometimes rushed, sometimes weak, unbelievable, or halfhearted, sometimes almost self-contradictory, and sometimes plainspoken to the point of stymieing the flow and credibility of the narrative. It's very noteworthy, for example, how the Vatican's assigned investigators seem to treat Margaret and Kathleen very differently, and the script also leans on one more heavily than the other. There's no reasonable justification for either disparity. Meanwhile, I don't think Marina Sargenti's direction is altogether bad, and it's possible she was also constrained by the demands of the medium, but the very orchestration of shots and scenes seems likewise scattered in some measure. Somewhat illustrating the point, the violence of the climax is executed rather sharply, yet the epilogue embraces a hokey, bare-faced, straightforward tack that stands in strict opposition. There's a lot to like here, but much to criticize, too.
Between the standards and sensibilities of television production in the early 90s and the difficulties of adaptation - presumably these more than any shortcoming on the part of those involved - the writing and direction feel troubled, and likewise the editing. And the rest of the viewing experience suffers in turn. There are some very recognizable and reliable names and faces appearing in the cast, and of both those I know well and those I don't, I see the acting skills that we know they possess. There's a bluntness to the performances here, however, and a feeling like the actors were restrained from wholly committing to the ideal vibrancy that any given moment should bear. With this in mind, and at least as if not more importantly, as the horror elements are ramped up in the latter half they similarly present with a frankness that dulls the intended effect. It's not as if 'Child of darkness, child of light' is a feature built on subtlety and underhanded wit, yet excepting the most bloody and gory splatter flicks, any given title still depends on a careful, nuanced touch to allow its best ideas to flourish and have impact. I don't think this picture is bad, but to have achieved meaningful success it needed a more delicate hand in most every regard.
Between the medium and the adaptation, maybe that delicate hand wasn't even possible here. Maybe I'm being too harsh; I did actually enjoy watching, and I want to like this more than I do. Other facets are more plainly admirable, like the stunts and practical effects (though post-production visuals are gauche). The production design is swell. I really do recognize that the cast are trying to do the best they can under the circumstances (however one wishes to define those circumstances). And I repeat that the underlying ideas of the story are splendid, primed for devious genre entertainment. Yet by whatever confluence of factors, the movie we got has a hard time passing muster, and can't entirely satisfy. I'm rather of the mind that this deserve a redo. Call it a remake, or just another adaptation, and bring back those cast members that we can, albeit in different roles. Heck, bring back the same folks behind the scenes. What this needed was the chance to be darker, more intense, and more full-bodied - exploring at will and without restriction all the small, insidious corners of the characters and their arcs, and the story ideas and their implications. As it is, 1991's 'Child of darkness, child of light' has worth - just not as much as it could or should have had.
I think there are actually terrific ideas here, firm foundation for a tale of supernatural horror - in the characters, in the scenes, in the story at large. In their root ideas the deepening chaos, violence, and madness make for sinister fun. In this form, however, the writing is scattered: sometimes seemingly jumbling its priorities, sometimes rushed, sometimes weak, unbelievable, or halfhearted, sometimes almost self-contradictory, and sometimes plainspoken to the point of stymieing the flow and credibility of the narrative. It's very noteworthy, for example, how the Vatican's assigned investigators seem to treat Margaret and Kathleen very differently, and the script also leans on one more heavily than the other. There's no reasonable justification for either disparity. Meanwhile, I don't think Marina Sargenti's direction is altogether bad, and it's possible she was also constrained by the demands of the medium, but the very orchestration of shots and scenes seems likewise scattered in some measure. Somewhat illustrating the point, the violence of the climax is executed rather sharply, yet the epilogue embraces a hokey, bare-faced, straightforward tack that stands in strict opposition. There's a lot to like here, but much to criticize, too.
Between the standards and sensibilities of television production in the early 90s and the difficulties of adaptation - presumably these more than any shortcoming on the part of those involved - the writing and direction feel troubled, and likewise the editing. And the rest of the viewing experience suffers in turn. There are some very recognizable and reliable names and faces appearing in the cast, and of both those I know well and those I don't, I see the acting skills that we know they possess. There's a bluntness to the performances here, however, and a feeling like the actors were restrained from wholly committing to the ideal vibrancy that any given moment should bear. With this in mind, and at least as if not more importantly, as the horror elements are ramped up in the latter half they similarly present with a frankness that dulls the intended effect. It's not as if 'Child of darkness, child of light' is a feature built on subtlety and underhanded wit, yet excepting the most bloody and gory splatter flicks, any given title still depends on a careful, nuanced touch to allow its best ideas to flourish and have impact. I don't think this picture is bad, but to have achieved meaningful success it needed a more delicate hand in most every regard.
Between the medium and the adaptation, maybe that delicate hand wasn't even possible here. Maybe I'm being too harsh; I did actually enjoy watching, and I want to like this more than I do. Other facets are more plainly admirable, like the stunts and practical effects (though post-production visuals are gauche). The production design is swell. I really do recognize that the cast are trying to do the best they can under the circumstances (however one wishes to define those circumstances). And I repeat that the underlying ideas of the story are splendid, primed for devious genre entertainment. Yet by whatever confluence of factors, the movie we got has a hard time passing muster, and can't entirely satisfy. I'm rather of the mind that this deserve a redo. Call it a remake, or just another adaptation, and bring back those cast members that we can, albeit in different roles. Heck, bring back the same folks behind the scenes. What this needed was the chance to be darker, more intense, and more full-bodied - exploring at will and without restriction all the small, insidious corners of the characters and their arcs, and the story ideas and their implications. As it is, 1991's 'Child of darkness, child of light' has worth - just not as much as it could or should have had.