Search - The Servants of Twilight on DVD

The critics' Bum Rap

Pete Fisher | Brooklyn, New York, USA | 06/15/2002

(4 out of 5 stars)

"I read Dean Koontz's eerie chiller, "Twilight," and liked it very much. When I came across the movie on VHS, I felt it adhered quite well to the book and was not at all bad. The plot is in the vein of a familiar genre... a group of religious fanatics, led by a charismatic, and seemingly crazed, woman who claims that God has spoken to her and identiifed a small boy as evil incarnate. When the cultists begin stalking the child, his mother enlists the help of a Private Investigator to protect her son, and a rather suspenseful chase ensues as mother and P.I. try to save the boy. If you liked "The Omen" and its sequels, you will probably enjoy this film. If "The Omen" was Grade A, I think "Servants of Twilight" rates a B or B+. Young Jarret Lennon does a fine job portraying an innocent child, and the mother shows strength in her determined efforts to protect her son. The film is not Oscar material, but films in this genre are not expected to be. As a thriller, it's fine and does not have the aura of a grade C, low budget, poorly acted, amateurish film that you might expect from the preceding very negative reviews. The only glaring error is that the story's time line may be confusing to some viewers, for it is not made very clear from the outset that the private eye is telling the tale to a psychiatrist in the form of a series of flashbacks. Dean Koontz's book is better than the film, but this movie managed to keep almost all of the surprising plot twists and turns that made the novel such a strong piece of fiction. If you like movies about 'The Final Days' and Antichrist themes, give it a chance. See the DVD and decide for yourself."

Departure From The Novel

Raymond A. Mardo | USA | 07/15/2005

(2 out of 5 stars)

"The movie version of Dean Koontz's novel contained many changes; that is to be expected. A novel won't translate to the big screen verbatim. The problem here is that many of the changes were ineffective in that they didn't help to develop the characters or progress the story. I don't think that I would've liked the movie at all if I hadn't read the book and that should not be required protocol in order to enjoy a film.



This movie had the feel of a made for TV movie, and by that I mean one of the older B rate TV movies, kind of like a cheesie Lifetime movie. It was a combination of unknown actors spewing bad dialogue -written simply for the sake of exposition - while wearing horrible wardrobe filmed in overdone lighting. The actors, who seemed pretty credible, never had a chance.



This could have been good, actually it could have been very good. Some of the changes from the novel should have translated excellently on screen. The screenpaly would have benefited from a rewrite. Too many scenes were repetitive. How many times do we need to see gunmen sneak up on the boy? Eliminate a few of those scenes and develop some backstory. How about some character development?



If you read the book, it's worth it to see how it translated to film. It only takes up 90 minutes of your life."

Not too shabby

Raymond A. Mardo | 06/25/2003

(3 out of 5 stars)

"I've read the book, as well as seen the movie, and I don't think they did too bad a job with it. The only thing that leaves me curious is the fact that the movie came to the conclusion that Joey was the Antichrist after all. The book was far more ambiguous about it, and left it totally up in the air as to whether Joey was who the church loonies claimed him to be, or whether he was, in fact, a child of light.
Still, not too bad an effort at all."

Jarrett Lennon, as Joey, steals this movie!

Raymond A. Mardo | 09/20/1999

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Well, Amazon.com says Belinda Bauer is the star -- if anything, she ruins this movie. But Jarrett Lennon, as "Joey," RUNS this movie, along with Grace Zabriskie (always scary!). "Joey" is a really normal little boy, with a lot of intelligence and personality, and is probably the only thing to make this movie look good for Dean Koontz, who should have directed it himself."