Deep in the Darkness

In case you read some of my user comments in the past, you might know that I'm an incurable sucker for two things when it comes to horror movies, namely juicy titles and imaginatively sinister movie posters! If I stumble upon a film that has one or preferably both of those aspects in place, I completely disregard all possible ratings and reviews – hardly even look at them, in fact – and make it a top- priority to watch it! Needless to say that this peculiar and rather superficial habit already resulted in me watching a copious amount of downright dreadful movies that I could have avoided by a simple and quick glance at the IMDb rating, but I keep on making the same mistake…

Even though not nearly as hopeless as, say, "Invasion of the Blood Farmers", "Deep in the Darkness" sort of falls into the same category. I was immediately hooked on its title (containing two horror key words) and intrigued by the poster image of the house with all the branching of roots into the soil, but it quickly became obvious that "Deep in the Darkness" is a routine, inconspicuous and mediocre-at-best genre effort. The plot contains a handful of good and ambitious ideas, and it's fairly clear that director Colin Theys is an enthusiast young director that knows his classics, but the film eventually reverts to familiar clichés and features too many dull & redundant moments. It's another variation on the classic "small town with a dark secret" horror premise, in which a family of new arrivals are either warned to leave their new home as quick as possible or gradually pushed to participate in bizarre rituals. Doctor Michael Cayle initially laughs away the advice to bring an animal sacrifice to the so-called "Isolates" living in caves and tunnels underneath the forests nearby Ashborough, New Hampshire, but naturally comes to regret that he didn't. "Deep in the Darkness" benefices mostly from realistic character drawings and a few moments of admirable tension-building. The make-up effects, particularly on the Isolate creatures, are also quite professional. Being a horror movie like there are thirteen in a dozen, however, there definitely should have been more carnage and on-screen violence.

That's my opinion: a solid B-. Decent premise, sort of a Jack Ketchum throwback with Wicker Man/Harvest Home overtones (a community tied to the local "legend"). The acting is acceptable to pretty good and I, for one, rather liked the concept of the Isolates (with a dash of Morlock thrown in for good measure) and accepted the premise of this group of creatures living in the woods. Why only a B- then? Because it never rises to being anything better; characters aren't really defined (the husband blandly accepts his wife suddenly acting totally different and suspicious). People do dumb things (not as dumb as in most plot-only horror films) but if creatures rule the night why not leave during the day? Why not get a gun? Or call outside help? And it's not effectively shot - sort of pedestrian - as if the director never saw how much more he could get out of his location or scenes. And the score is over the top and the script too often "on the nose" with characters saying just enough to keep the plot moving but not enough to flesh anything out or feel particularly real. Even the child is only interested in plot: "wheres the dog?" or "I see ghosts" with no one asking for explanations or offering comfort or anything believable. But its serviceable overall. I can't wait for a decent remake.

Am not one to watch horror films, but after recording it a few days before decided to watch in daytime in my home office. Was not 100% present to watching it, but if I thought I missed something, I rewound & watched again. Kind of bloody, kind of silly, kind of scary, but passed the time enough for me to want to look up all the info on this film on IMDb. Director seems to have his niche and good actors seem to have nice careers. So...bottom line.....I wonder if there will be a D in D 2 ? I doubt it, but would I watch it? Yes!

Some people gave this movie bad reviews but i don't understand why. This movie is one for horror lovers. To me it didn't seem like a TV movie and I am the queen of B-movies to the folks around me. The sets are well done, the makeup excellent, the monster makeup well done and the blood and gore pretty decent. Nothing was obviously, ridiculously fake like most TV movies. This movie is creepy as heck. It starts out creepy from the first two minutes and the hits just keep coming. Some people said the monsters have too much exposure but the monsters are an integral part of everything that happens in the movie. There is plenty of mystery left to the monsters, including their origin and other things I can't say because, spoilers! The acting is great. I felt for the characters because they really seemed to be in distress, anger, pain, etc. There were some nice twists and, overall, the movie was fun to watch! It was nice and dark, creepy and scary. I'm from a small town in the woods, so I really enjoy creepy small town movies. You'd like this movie if you enjoy movies with dark atmosphere, creepy small towns, creepy neighbors, creepy people in general, monsters, or if you have a fear of the dark or the woods. I recommend you try it with an open mind. Don't let the bad reviews make you miss this one.

Dr. Michael Cayle (Sean Patrick Thomas) thought leaving the chaotic life-style of New York City behind for the quiet, small town of Ashborough would bring his family closer together. Soon after arriving, however, he discovers the town's deepest secret: a terrifying and controlling race of creatures that live amongst the darkness in the forest behind his home.

This film is based on a 2004 book by Michael Laimo (Dead Souls), which was influenced by the 1973 made for television film "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", starring Kim Darby (not to be confused with the 2011 remake with Katie Holmes. One could probably compare all three films, but suffice it to say the inspiration is rather loose and this film is not the same as those other two.

Dean Stockwell has aged a bit since his glory days of "Quantum Leap", but he is still a commanding figure. One scene involving a plastic bag of eyeballs could have been silly, but he manages to make it deathly serious. Sean Patrick Thomas is a strong lead and a solid actor, providing much more emotional depth to his character than we typically see in horror films. While this film may be lacking at times, it never lacks because of Thomas.

Shock Till You Drop gave the movie a score of five out of ten, stating that while it had some effective jump scares and a good cast, they felt that the film was mostly unmemorable. The New York Times panned the film, expressing disappointment that the film did not live up to its full potential.

The disappointment is understandable, as this overall good film has a flaw or two. Indeed, the creatures are revealed a bit too early, and seem to be somewhat lacking in believability, looking possibly like a poor man's imitation of the creatures from "The Descent". And because the creatures appear so early, the film seems to run on too long. Had the surprise been saved until later, they could have milked more suspense out of the plot. (This may depend on the version you watch; the full film is 100 minutes but was cut to 88 for TV. In this case, the shorter may be paced better.)

Whether this is worth owning is really up to the viewer, but it is probably worth a watch or two. For those who are curious, it hits your home video shelves from Scream Factory this spring.