Terror na Escuridão

Like the title says.

This wasn't a poorly made film. It was competently directed and acted. Just lacked charm. Things happen that don't make sense, just like in practically every horror movie. Passable make up effects.

Basically just a super average horror.

It was cool to see Dean Stockwell still acting though. Love that guy.

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.

I have seen a lot of negative comments about this film. My advice, ignore them.

Deep in the Darkness takes a now familiar horror premise and reinvents it, more than competently, in my opinion. Its not a terrifying film but it has enough menace, to infuse the story with a sense of unease and edginess it definitely benefits from. Nowhere is safe in this film, including the family home, which is anything but the idyllic country haven it first appears to be.

The acting is solid and includes a few old favorites from television such as Dean Stockwell, who is probably best remembered for TV series Quantum Leap. Given there are no big names in this film, some might be tempted to label it a "B" movie. In my view this is an unfair assessment. There is a heck of a lot to like here. So much so Id go so far as to say this title does a good job of putting a lot of so called "A" grade horror flicks to shame.

My advice give this film a go. Its not superb but its by no stretch of the imagination rubbish either. Seven out of ten from me.

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.

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!