Wake - A Escolha

This film begins like so many others of its genre -- namely, a young couple on their way to a far away destination pull into an eerie, almost deserted motel where things aren't what they seem.

If you think you've seen it before, likely you have. Beneath the Dark has strong echoes of the 2003 John Cusack film Identity, though it pales in comparison. Ahh, what to say about this movie? I enjoyed watching it, but then I am a fan of the suspense genre which has been in a serious state of drought lately. Is it a good movie? Not really. Is it a bad movie? No. The plot line does catch your interest as you watch the two very different back stories of the young traveler and the motel manager unfold. The narrative of the film makes the viewers expect the inevitable connection, which is mildly interesting once revealed. However the entire conceit of the movie is nearly immediately obvious. I suppose in a world where twisty thrillers have been around for so long, it is far more difficult to pull off true surprise. Yet I feel that the director/writer Chad Feehan missed the opportunities to misdirect the audience. One can only hope Chad was not trying for an M. Night Shyamalan production.

The film used so many clichés, that it could have been the product of a university class on the genre: the isolated motel in the Midwest and the slightly off motel manager are photocopied directly from Psycho. The jukebox that plays the same song over and over is also lifted. (Didn't we see that in a number of Rod Serling productions?). Yet all is not as grim as this review seems. Mr. Feehan studied well, and utilized these and other familiar elements effectively.

So a sense of mild suspense persists throughout the movie. The ending is a bit of a let down -- but the journey was fun.

Bottom line: If you like this genre, this movie is serviceable. I certainly wasn't sorry I watched it, although I thought that the motel manager needed to be cast with a stronger performer. If you have nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon, punch this one up. Keep your expectations low and you might enjoy it.

... then you shouldn't be disappointed.

A young couple in a hotel out in the desert somewhere close to LA. The Hotel office guy acts strangely, and so do all the other people the couple, mainly the guy, will meet during that night. Up to here it is an absolute cliché but this leads the viewer into the wrong direction.

Things are getting stranger and stranger but instead of hysterically screaming girls and bloody massacres, suspense keeps steadily up by clues to the reason why this is happening. But of course there is also a little screaming and blood. Even though this movie leads into a rather parallel World it is pretty reasonable.

So people who are able to find a movie mysterious enough without too much blood and bones, but rather by a good and also surprising story and characters should have a good one and a half hour with this one.

So, this morning I watched the 2010 Chad Feehan as writer / director film, Beneath the Dark. The synopsis sounded good, but I tried it mostly because Jamie-Lynn Sigler beneath(Sopranos, Guys With Kids) was in it. The film also stars, Josh Stewart, who has been in a number of good films and TV shows as well.

Okay. The basic idea is that Paul (Stewart) and Adrienne (Sigler) are headed to a wedding. A guy from Paul's college frat is tying the knot. Growing weary on the way, and a little frisky, Paul runs the vehicle of the road. It's decided they will not push it and land a hotel room for the night.

The Roy Hotel is run by Frank (Chris Browning). He's a step-and-a-half above Anthony Perkins on a creepy-meter, and the hotel is slightly more modern than the Bates Motel. Once tucked away in a room, Adrienne is still frisky (and while there is no nudity, it is quite hot), only Paul has too much on his mind and cannot perform. Frustrated he heads to the connected diner for coffee where he meets a Man (Afemo Omilami) who claims to be the Son of God.

The Man certainly knows a lot about Paul, and Paul's soiled past, and aside from conversation, he tries to have Paul answer some simple questions . . . What Do You Believe In?

I can't forget Frank's wife, Sandy (Angela Featherstone). She is not a happy woman. Sandy stalks the bars looking for company. Isn't hard for her to find what she wants. Not bra-less in a thin white tank-top. She shows up here and there. (And is quite sensual in a barfly kind of way). Seems her sole (or soul) purpose is to torment the loser-ness of her husband.

There is always homemade cherry pie and fresh coffee. There is a jukebox–while outdated with its selection–that is always ready to play.

Beneath the Dark is nothing new. Sadly, I knew the end of the story at the very beginning of the movie. There have been a flood of "identical" big-screen and direct to DVD films with the same ending over the last four years. I could name them. But if you see one — then I have ruined the ending for the rest. I hate that. Hate it. Because the story was as solid as the acting. Both I enjoyed. The dialogue was crisp enough. The filming was simple but effective.

If I were to assume you saw none of the other films with the same ending — then this is an excellent movie. If not, then this is a mediocre film. Since the Beneath the Dark is from 2010 — and we are on the cusp of 2014, I am going to assume the ladder and for that, give the movie 5 out of 10 Stars.

Zombie Author Phillip Tomasso

http://www.philliptomasso.com

Beneath The Dark starts well enough. A young couple pull up into a hotel, looking for a place to stay for the night. As in so many hotel horrors that went before it, the place is deserted and what little people that are around are incredibly sinister. Sound familiar? That's because it is. Imagine Reeker, Vacancy and The Shining (try spot the references) thrown into a blender. That's the impression Beneath The Dark makes early on, and it's a good 'un.

Slowly the movie unfolds a series of flashbacks which give an insight into the past of a few of the characters we have seen throughout the movie and into the secrets that their past holds.

Paul and Adrienne are a run of the mill young couple experiencing a few relationship problems (Vacancy anyone?) and Frank is the lonely hotel owner who is sinister in his overt friendliness. All sounding pretty run of the mill so far? Here's where it veers off.

Through the pre-mentioned flashbacks, and also the bizarre reveals we begin to realise there's a lot more going on in Paul's life than meets the eye, and from some reason, the events of the night seem to be unfolding around the mysterious secrets of his past. As the intensity of these bizarre incidents is cranked up the viewer begins to feel increasingly unsettled and also engrossed. The slow burning build-up beats every last inch of possible tension out of what is, in all fairness, a very lame script. Slowly Beneath The Dark appears to be building to something magnificent, and then boom, the end has happened. Where was our sensational denouement? Nowhere to be seen. In a finish that's likely to leave more questions than answers, and not in the good David Lynchian way, the viewer is left feeling somewhat ripped off.

You put up with the bad acting and poor dialogue for what appears to be an interesting plot and quite decent direction to be left feeling somewhat dumbfounded as to how the writer felt that to be an acceptable finish to the movie. Beneath The Dark as a result, appears to be a case of a writer biting off more than he can chew, but with some very blatant signs of potential for the future. All in all I give it 6/10.

The plot for this movie is not exactly new but even with me saying that it will keep you guessing for a bit.

The production is great, the acting top notch, characters, direction all good.

The most notable quality of this movie though is the pace, it is very slow and considered. The characters are examined in massive detail but you never really get to know them. This is how the plot is disguised so well.

If you have patience and you don't mind a film that takes its time then this is definitely for you. For me it was a little slow and void of substance.