Spirits in the Dark

I love the fact that the writer/director/star doesn't look like your typical lead in movies today. I sat here watching this and knowing that I've seen that face and heard the distinctive accent and even though I was not sure when or what movie it was from but I had a feeling that what ever it was I enjoyed it. I didn't want to pull out IMDb during this movie so I waited. I enjoyed this and while I to think it was a little to long I can't fault the people who made it as any shorter it wouldn't be long enough to be feature length. But the understated nature of the film builds the creepy feeling. If you like creepy more than scary this will work for you and if you like horror without gore this is your movie as well. Look for the other film from this writer/director/lead it's called Moth and it's from 2016. It is Mothman but has little to nothing to do with Mothman of WV. That to is a well crafted story with fine acting and it was far better than I anticipated.

SPIRITS IN THE DARK presents the thoughts of a lonely widower, recorded via camera mostly in a first-person perspective, who is drawn to an abandoned town by a mysterious video. Once there, he encounters strange events.

This is an extremely slow-paced movie that places heavy emphasis on a moody atmosphere. And in that, it partially succeeds, both because the director has a good eye for composition and color, and because the abandoned setting he chose is naturally well-suited for that purpose.

Unfortunately, there is just too little going on to provide a payoff for most people. As the protagonist goes through the abandoned buildings, watching the movie begins to feel like watching someone play a sandbox video game. There certainly are people who enjoy this, but this is a movie, not twitch!

I think the director was intentionally going for an excessively contemplative approach, but if that is the aim, then the contemplations have to be of such a high caliber that they themselves provide a payoff to the audience. In this case, they don't, in my opinion.

The ending was both anticlimactic and a bit confusing, but not necessarily unpredictable. There is a possible suggestion that the child he finds in the building is his own, stolen by the murdered woman right after the accident that killed his wife, and that much of what we see in the end are visions of a dying man, but it is not definite.

All in all, this is only recommended for people who value atmosphere in movies over everything else.

Ok, I gave it 5 stars because I had to take in equation its microbudget, and considering what it managed to do with that, I think it is a fairly decent effort.

Spirits in the Dark is a good example of less is more, it has only 70 minutes, big fan of this idea, never overstretch it in order to appear more professional, if you need just 80 or 70 minutes to tell the story right, do so, don't bore me. It relied completely on first person perspective, and it was done so in good taste, overall it is a good production that couldn't do more. Of course, we have the eternal example of Blairwitch, where the tiniest of budgets managed to change find footage perspective, but lets be honest, no one is expecting that to repeat.

So all in all, I can't recommend this one, because it has little to offer, but for anyone interested in how to make a horror, how to lay down the grounds for one, how to take one simple idea, place it in the most of neutral surroundings, and have your movie without actors...well Spirits in the Dark is a prime example of just that. Hats off to those involved in the making of it and looking forward for more of your work in the future.

Cheers!

Relentlessly boring and nonsensical, absolutely predictable...That's what makes this drek a horror movie.

The director/actor is a decent enough guy, but how many scenes of him walking and walking and driving and driving do we have to see? It's like a 15 min story is crammed into a 70 min movie. I found myself looking at my phone instead of the tv screen.