Best movie of this year hands down!

Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

In case you read some of my user comments in the past, you might know that I'm an incurable sucker for two things when it comes to horror movies, namely juicy titles and imaginatively sinister movie posters! If I stumble upon a film that has one or preferably both of those aspects in place, I completely disregard all possible ratings and reviews – hardly even look at them, in fact – and make it a top- priority to watch it! Needless to say that this peculiar and rather superficial habit already resulted in me watching a copious amount of downright dreadful movies that I could have avoided by a simple and quick glance at the IMDb rating, but I keep on making the same mistake… Even though not nearly as hopeless as, say, "Invasion of the Blood Farmers", "Deep in the Darkness" sort of falls into the same category. I was immediately hooked on its title (containing two horror key words) and intrigued by the poster image of the house with all the branching of roots into the soil, but it quickly became obvious that "Deep in the Darkness" is a routine, inconspicuous and mediocre-at-best genre effort. The plot contains a handful of good and ambitious ideas, and it's fairly clear that director Colin Theys is an enthusiast young director that knows his classics, but the film eventually reverts to familiar clichés and features too many dull & redundant moments. It's another variation on the classic "small town with a dark secret" horror premise, in which a family of new arrivals are either warned to leave their new home as quick as possible or gradually pushed to participate in bizarre rituals. Doctor Michael Cayle initially laughs away the advice to bring an animal sacrifice to the so-called "Isolates" living in caves and tunnels underneath the forests nearby Ashborough, New Hampshire, but naturally comes to regret that he didn't. "Deep in the Darkness" benefices mostly from realistic character drawings and a few moments of admirable tension-building. The make-up effects, particularly on the Isolate creatures, are also quite professional. Being a horror movie like there are thirteen in a dozen, however, there definitely should have been more carnage and on-screen violence.

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.

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".