Why so much hype?

A Disappointing Continuation

A different way of telling a story

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

RELEASED IN 2014 and directed by Colin Theys, "Deep in the Darkness" chronicles events when a doctor (Sean Patrick Thomas), his wife (Kristen Bush) and daughter move to a quaint New England town where they learn very strange things are happening. Dean Stockwell plays an eccentric neighbor and Anthony Del Negro his grandson. Blanche Baker appears as the matriarch of the town while Cara Loften plays a troubled blonde. The first half is effective as a haunting mystery/horror flick with Thomas compelling as the protagonist. Naturally, I thought I was in for a good movie. At the mid-point, however, the secret of the town is revealed and it's serviceable, but not wholly successful, although the creatures (or whatever you want to call them) look great. From there, the movie goes off the rails and loses the viewer's attention. The captivating power of the first half disappears as the remaining scenes are strung together without any dramatic or aesthetic merit. Worse, the film's too ambiguous with way too many questions left unanswered or, if you try to connect the dots, the answers don't add up (speaking as someone who enjoys 'figuring out' challenging movies).The curious differences in quality of the two halves can perhaps be explained by the fact that the first half follows the book quite closely whereas the second half deviates and the director/writer/editors simply didn't know how to complete what they effectively set-up in the first half. They tried to do their own thing and failed miserably. THE FILM RUNS 1 hours & 40 minutes and was shot in Moodus, Connecticut. WRITERS: Michael Laimo (novel) and John Doolan (screenplay). GRADE: C-

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.

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".

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!