It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I have avoided foreign films due subtitles all my 58 years, no more, films with them are as good as movies you don't need them for, don't be turned off due subtitles, "In Darkness" ranks up there with Anne Frank's Diary, if your History oriented and wish to see what those pore soles went threw, this is my 2nd subtitle film, I now have six others lined up to watch and will watch having gotten over the stigma of subs, if you felt some thing for Anne Franks story please, please give in to this movie, you will not in any way be turned off due the subtitles unless your still stigmatized with the fact of reading and understanding what your watching, very few places in this one are you over whelmed with reading to understand, a very meaningful true or based on a true story movie, a very much must watch

It's an obvious understatement to say that World War Two brought out the worst in people; but in some cases, it brought out the best, men like Oscar Schindler who, though of no previous special moral character, risked their own lives rather than be complicit in murder. Agnieszka Holland's 'In Darkness' tells a less celebrated tale, of a Polish sewer engineer who hid a family of Jews underground for a year and saved them from certain death by risking his own life. The broad boundaries of the tale are familiar: mixed motives, bravery, squalor, and a backdrop of near unimaginable horror. How to make this watchable is the next challenge, and Holland doesn't wholly succeed: there's not quite enough that is particular to this story to offset the general misery (to my mind, Polanski's 'The Pianist' remains the single most riveting film of the Holocaust, for exactly the reason that the story it tells is so personal). Still, there are gripping moments, especially where the hero is nearly accidentally betrayed by his daughter. And it's a reminder that some of us have been blessed, so far at least, not to live in interesting times.

Director Holland follows a cliché that has become very shopworn; cinema schools should do what that can to outlaw it. As antidote, instructors should repeat as often as needed: "Don't film in the dark." I know the temptation. The director or screenwriter will say, "Let's make the film very mysterious. We will film in such a way the audience will hardly know who is talking or where they are. The intense confusion of the audience will lead the audience inexorably into the terrible frustration and confusion of the film's characters." Sounds plausible. And when Shakespeare produces the ghost of Hamlet's father in the darkness of night, the staging is effective. That however is because the darkness is a brief interruption in the light; there's dramatic contrast. When darkness becomes a dominant cliché, the contrast is lost, and the effect is boring. The audience tends to wonder when the director is going to get back to work. Also, what Aristotle regards as the indispensable identity of the audience with the characters becomes very difficult to generate. IN DARKNESS is a poorly made film about an important subject.

'In Darkness' proved to be a worthy Polish contender against the foreign film winner 'A Separation'. This film to me is a more successful version of 'Schindler's List' - similar in terms of the portrayal of an unlikely hero who had no reason to save the Jews but did it in the end.(Why so? Schindler's List covered a much wider span, all above ground, with a longer time frame as well, and yet failed miserably as it chose to tone down A LOT of what could have happened in reality given the weight of the situation. I expected more from it as it is not even realistically outstanding to some of the other commendable Holocaust-related work of art.) This film focuses not on the atrocities in the surface, but more on the intricate details in its core matter - things happening underground. Roughly half of the film happens inside the sewers, but with enough details that reminded me of "Hunger" even though the dire situation were not full-fledged in my opinion.We not only get to know of the conflicts between the hero, his non-Jew community against the Jews, but also the conflicting portrayal of the Jews themselves who are not all one-dimensional characters unlike in some other movies (i.e. not overly depressed or in a state of hopelessness, they actually hate each other, some of them are annoying/ traitors/ greedy etc).I too believe things are pretty toned down as well in this film, as living under the sewers in such a situation where the water rendered unusable, the stench unbearable (augmented by the stench of corpses), absence of light, hygiene and proneness to diseases/fatal accidents could easily cause multiple levels of discord and unwanted psychological behaviors.I have read that the director deviated from the real account a little as some of the characters 'killed' are actually survivors today. But in a way, maybe it is for the better as the film is already disturbing enough.Also, some of the scenes done above ground are a little bit unnatural...hence I could not grant a rating above 7 stars. But all in all, this is a well made Holocaust-related film but it is also a film about humanity that is much better than average.