Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

view_and_review The word "dark" is really being overused in movie titles. Maybe once it had some real impact but now it's old hat.This movie started off with a lot of promise. There were the clichés: isolated area, no cell phone service, weird townsfolk--but even with that the movie had a chance to do something good. Well, it didn't. It fell incredibly flat. Partially due to the acting of Sean Patrick Thomas and the other part due to the story and the complete lack of sense in it.Sean played Dr. Michael Cayle who was in the small town to escape the big city of New York. When he wasn't sleeping he spent most of the movie looking confused and perplexed in situations which dictated fear, panic, or resolve. If we were to swim past his acting job then we'd enter the waters of the story.The story had something to it. Some hidden creatures keep the townsfolk in fear and in line. Dr. Michael finds out the secret but is then powerless to escape so he must find another way to keep his family and himself safe. I can dig it. But the movie fell off the tracks with some real illogical plot points, some improbable factors and a bad ending. This movie seemed like an M. Night Shayamalan reject.

i-34252 Definitely spoiler alert.Good horror/monster pictures are few and far between. While "Deep in the Darkness" does have its own share of problems, it's definitely one of the good ones as judged by the relative standards of its own class of movie. I would encourage devotees of the genre, willing to engage in an enthusiastic "willing suspension of disbelief" (a prerequisite for the genre), to give this movie a tumble. People with a lot of convicted, film-student notions about what constitutes high-art cinema would be best advised to look elsewhere.Stylistically, the movie has echoes of "Harvest Home" and "Wicker Man" with its depiction of something unhealthy just beneath the surface of a closely-knit small-town community and the progressive isolating of the masculine lead, leaving him an outsider even within the context of his own small family.Be warned: the wife of the protagonist appears to blow hot and cold in her relationship with her husband as the movie progresses. This reads as out of place or inconsistent and gives one the sense of a poorly-crafted plot element. At the very end of the picture we see it's actually a fairly legitimate expression of someone vacillating between loyalties.Within the context of its own genre, if I had any significant criticisms to level at this movie it would be with the nature of the ending. All of the questions about how we got here, what's going on here, and so on, are neatly tied up. But the movie does not seem to carry all of the way to a final conclusion. It's as if it quit about 10 minutes before a final resolution. There is a definite "-and where does he go from here…?" sort of feeling at credit-roll that was unfortunate. The movie makes the stylistic choice to end on an explanatory note that gives our hero an opportunity to understand clearly how he ended up in this situation that explains much of his wife's peculiar actions during the course of the film, but there are still a few issues he needs to resolve and the movie just stops. He's put up an effective and determine fight throughout the film and he's unlikely to stop at this point, and so neither should the picture.Some examples of questions that could use answering are: 1. The hero has apparently wiped out the entire nest of monsters except perhaps for one newborn infant monster and a couple of half- monster-half- humans. Why is he still isolated? Hasn't he won? 2. The community has apparently run off with his half-breed wife and his kid. It's a very small community. How far do they think they can go? And why is the community still helping the monsters? 3. Unlike "Harvest Home" and "Wicker Man", our hero has been left alive, healthy, and kicking at the end of the picture. Yet some of the townspeople appear to be trying to help the monsters along, and not just the half-breed townspeople. Clearly our hero is going to persist in creating a problem; why was he left alive?And so on. The list is long.Who knows? Maybe these questions have been saved for "Deep in the Darkness 2".

s3276169 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.

gavin6942 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.