In the Dark

In The Dark was definitely a unique and good movie. It had shocking and scary moments, for sure, but most of all I was captured by how the filming actually happened and by the actual story itself. Some scenes were down right gnarly and I give it major kudos for the liberal editing of it. I feet it was a cross between a better Blair Witch and a scarier Halloween, with the addition of using actual footage and real people to tell a real and creepy story. Some of the people in it were foul, which I loved because I could relate! It was a real good look at real life fright and mayhem. Also, there are intense, silent moments in the film that haven't ever been done before in modern day movies. This one will end up with a cult following I'm sure.

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?

Therefore, I can honestly say, this was TERRIBLE. Firstly, every other positive comment HAS to be made by the people involved with the production. 8.5 rating? Really? Secondly, I love "fake-umentaries", but this was just bad. The acting was terrible... below B-grade. The "great camera work" was... well, up there with the acting. I know they weren't going for "slick", but it was just bad. The production value was actually quite good, which just adds to the disappointing end result. I can never tire of the "faux-cumentary" genre, but it's only been done right a few times. I'll give the filmmakers the credit of coming up with a cool concept, actually getting it off the ground and distributed, but they failed at making anything remotely watchable. Better luck next time.

Let me save you and your time and recommend that you Do Not watch this! Occasionally a bad horror movie will have at least one redeeming quality. It's unintentionally funny, it has a creative death scene. even an over the top character that you love to hate. This had none of those.

I watched this movie and was rooting for the characters to die just so it would be over. There is nothing new in the plot, the villain, or death scenes. Why did I keep watching it? I was not the person in possession of the remote. If I had been, I would have watched paint drying on the DIY network instead.

Yet another movie where I think the good reviews are from family and friends of the cast and crew.

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.