Deep in the Darkness

Great creepy story, fantastic acting, good visual effects... can't ask for anything more. Love seeing ingredients come together and deliver exactly what it's supposed to.

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.

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.

That's my opinion: a solid B-. Decent premise, sort of a Jack Ketchum throwback with Wicker Man/Harvest Home overtones (a community tied to the local "legend"). The acting is acceptable to pretty good and I, for one, rather liked the concept of the Isolates (with a dash of Morlock thrown in for good measure) and accepted the premise of this group of creatures living in the woods. Why only a B- then? Because it never rises to being anything better; characters aren't really defined (the husband blandly accepts his wife suddenly acting totally different and suspicious). People do dumb things (not as dumb as in most plot-only horror films) but if creatures rule the night why not leave during the day? Why not get a gun? Or call outside help? And it's not effectively shot - sort of pedestrian - as if the director never saw how much more he could get out of his location or scenes. And the score is over the top and the script too often "on the nose" with characters saying just enough to keep the plot moving but not enough to flesh anything out or feel particularly real. Even the child is only interested in plot: "wheres the dog?" or "I see ghosts" with no one asking for explanations or offering comfort or anything believable. But its serviceable overall. I can't wait for a decent remake.

There are definitely good points about this movie; it is shot well, the acting is good and the story is compelling. However lots of the quality is lost due to the confusion that is created by having too many events occur without any real explanation or pacing.

The story clearly works much better in book form and probably would have better suited a mini-series format akin to Wayward Pines rather than being condensed into a film. That way the plot points that go completely unexplained could have had the time to be explored and digested by the viewer.

Overall there is a lot of good here, it is just too much in too short a time and so the story suffers greatly, still a good watch though.