In the Dark

Count me as one who loves the whole documentary sub-genre of horror created by "Cannibal Holocaust" and made popular more recently by both "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Last Broadcast." Though not a huge explosion of these types of films have popped up, there is a handful out there, such as "Strawberry Estates," "The St. Francisville Experiment," and "The Collingswood Story." These films attempt to frighten the audience by giving them a unique perspective of witnessing the events of the plot unfold through the eyes of a character's own camera lense or, in some cases (such as here), a security camera. Additionally, these films often advertise themselves as being "real, authentic footage!" when in fact, any viewer with any brains knows differently. Often times, these films are able to create adequate suspense and uneasiness. Unfortunately, this is not one of those instances and is really a smear and insult to its much better predecessors.

"In the Dark" presents itself as "real" footage of the events that take place when a group of teenagers break into an abandoned, burned asylum, where years before, a few of them did *something* (raped?) to a female inmate that left her scarred after they started a fire to cover their crime. The footage is presented dually through the camera lense of one of the teens and through security cameras present in and outside the building. Why does a abandoned asylum that is barely standing because of fire damage need security cameras you ask? Well, you're guess is as good as mine and that is just one of many things wrong with this film. You see, viewers are to believe that the girl inmate who was picked on knows that these teens are in this abandoned asylum on Halloween night, is able to escape her current institution and come to seek her revenge. She is presented here are sorta of a cross between a possessed Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" and a zombie from the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, which is puzzling considering she is supposedly just a burn victim. Better (or worse) yet, she is able to smuggle of few other inmates out of her facility to help scare the crap out of the teens. You'd think, since money was invested to have working security cameras in the decrepit asylum, that the security would have been a hell of a lot better at the new one! Apparently not....apparently no security cameras at the new asylum captured a few of the inmates walking out to go wreak havoc next door.

The film's main flaw is the fact that is is extremely boring and filled with extremely bad actors who are portraying annoying characters we could give a crap less about. We are subjected to long scenes of one of the more annoying characters filming himself make rude comments and mock his equally annoying mother, and act like a total retard detailing his plan to sneak out while his mother is fast asleep behind him in the couch. This scene has to be seen to be believed and my jaw was dropped at the ridiculousness I was witnessing. Long scenes of virtually nothing happening are presented as apparently the director's idea of suspense; characters whine and fight with each other and sort of act scared, but for some reason never all just decide to group together and leave the place. After all, there was about 9 of them and only one "killer." Again, nothing about these characters is even remotely interesting and I really just wanted them all to die. The film also feels about 20 minutes too long and the pacing is just horrid. I really really had to stop my self from hitting the fast forward button on my DVD remote, or worse yet, just ejecting the damn thing altogether.

"The Blair Witch Project" worked because it felt real. The acting was superb and there was no ridiculous plot elements that felt fake. Everything the viewer saw and heard looked and felt authentic and it was scary as hell. This film feels fake. There is no suspense because some of the things that unfold (particularly the ending) are so implausible that it is an insult to viewers. I only hope that the filmmakers really did not expect people to believe this was "real" footage because they failed miserable. Avoid this borefest at all costs.

FrightMeter Grade: F

If you like lousy movies - and I mean real stinkers - then this is the flick for you. Yep, this film has it all - putrid directing, actors who wouldn't make the cut for a high school class play, inane writing, ridiculously inept special effects, and on and on. If these people were trying to make a terrible film, they exceeded beyond their wildest dreams.

As Val Lewton and Jacques Tourneur showed nearly 80 years ago, it's possible to make a great horror film with no special effects and virtually no budget. All the filmmaker has to do is find some reasonably creative way to imply what's lurking just outside the frame, and let the viewer's imagination take it from there. It is plain, however, that the geniuses behind this masterpiece never even heard of Lewton or Tourneur.

It's not surprising that the director of this mess - Mr. Marc Cinquanta - chose not to put his own name in the credits. However, the name he selected - "Slater Kane" - sounds like he was trying to channel a 1970s peep show producer. A person who can't even think up a decent stage name shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a camera, as this disaster of a film shows.

I also have to note that while most of the reviews for this movie are justifiably negative, a few try to make it sound like some great creative accomplishment. Having seen the film, I have no choice but to conclude that the director either asked his friends to write the reviews or posted them himself under phony names. Didn't doing that embarrass you, Marc?

There are so many horror flicks on the market these days one must be a discriminating fan. I got to see this gem at the Chicago Horror Film Festival and enjoyed the fresh approach. This is not your average hack 'em up slasher film. I'm sure other horror buffs out there will enjoy this one as much as I did.

I hope it comes out on DVD some day. It would be a great addition to my collection and I'd LOVE to share it with friends on Halloween! I love it when creeps get what they deserve and Lizzie in this film does an excellent job of dishing it out.

Go Lizzie!!!

You would think it would be easy to make a move set in an insane asylum scary, but for some reason movie makers have had trouble with this. Dark Asylum was horrible, Session 9 was pretty good, and this movie is somewhere in the middle.

This movie borrows very heavily from Blair Witch, but that doesn't automatically make it bad. It's a legitimate way to make a scary movie on a low budget, and budgets don't get much lower than this.

I don't have a problem with the acting; the problem is most of the characters are very generic, and some of the writing is awful ("You're not my friend anymore!"). Also this movie is set in the 80's for some inexplicable reason which makes it all the more cheesy.

Just forget about the plot... it doesn't make any sense, the "twist" ending is rendered completely ineffective by the inability of the writers to make us give a crap about what's going on.

The main thing that this movie does well is provide some creepy shots. Again, they use the Blair Witch idea of home movie cameras and throws in security camera footage to pretty good effect.

This would be a decent student movie, but if you're expecting the competence that normally comes with "real" movie you will be disappointed.

So why am I give it four stars?

Because there is a scene towards the end with a rotating security camera that is absolutely brilliant. There's no dialogue, and because the camera keeps turning away from the action, you can't see everything that happens. But what you can see is enough. I would watch a whole movie like that.