If nothing else, director Peter Hyams’ commentary track on End of Days seems to be proof that you can have a personally held and deeply thought-out philosophy of film-making, approach your film with intelligence and care, and still make a crappy film. What you still need is some skill, luck, and a philosophy that isn’t entirely…well, wrong:
Hyams splits his time between enthusiastically praising his cast and explaining why he shot his Satanic thriller by candlelight and suggestion: “All the light used in this film is light that is warmed, so that there is an amber and oak tone in every sequence of the movie.†But he isn’t just concerned with tone. “I’m someone who believes that if actors are using flashlights in a movie, they’re using flashlights for the same reason we use flashlights,†he says, “because they can’t see except what their flashlight is illuminating. So this scene was basically lit with flashlights…†Hyams has been criticized for this choice in the past. His response: “I don’t think a movie that’s mysterious can be too dark. I love shadows.”
….His biggest flaw is the forgivable mistake of confusing intention with effect. “When people are standing near a light, I think they should be lit,†he explains. “When people are not standing near a light, I think they should be dark, or darker.†The result is a dull visual sheen that, some striking images aside, renders each murky set instantly forgettable.
I’ve never actually seen the film — nor have any desire to — but Hyams seems pretty typical: confusing an enthusiasm for film-making (and maybe a pinch of technical skill) with an ability to make films.