Deep in the Darkness

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.

Deep In the Darkness is pretty bad overall. The acting is acceptable, with the protagonist carrying most of the scenes. It starts off relatively well, building feelings of suspense and mystery, but quickly devolves into nonsense thanks to a horrible plot and absolutely silly creatures. Unfortunately, the weak and nonsensical plot only gets worse as the movie drags on and ultimately what you get is a very poor and forgettable movie.

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!

OK, I see only negative reviews here, won't go bashing them, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, therefore I am going to present you mine. So let's see why I enjoyed "Deep in the darkness".

Well for starters, it's a horror where bad decisions aren't taken at every step and boy did that feel good. Quite refreshing seeing people using their brain, trying to survive and not fell for the dumbest traps possible. Afterwards, the acting was good, believable. The creature concept I see is a hard pill to swallow for most, I for one think it is simple and easy to go with. I approve to it! You get to see a few deaths, a few fight scenes, some interesting facts about those creatures, and other variables making their way throughout the movie, making it more complex than your usual B horror. So all in all, in my books, this is a winner, as I enjoyed it, and stayed for the entire ride.

Now, as I am putting down this comment, the score is 3:1 for the negative reviews, therefore it will seem hard to take my word for it. But, if you are a horror junkie, if you approve to more underground productions, this one is smarter than most. It has more to offer, providing a good plot, execution and minutes well spent. Therefore, I recommend "Deep in the darkness" as I missed a woods/creature horror, done right.

Cheers!

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.