This film is undeniably absurd; every aspect of this film screams "surrealism," from the refusal to fully explain or justify the strangeness of the plot to awkward, uncomfortable sex scenes. As I'm a fan of such movies, I enjoyed my viewing and was pleased to view something I hadn't seen repackaged and rebranded a hundred times before.
Should you watch this film? If you're in the mood for something different and unique, sure. If you're expecting the film the poster and description portrays - that is, a disturbing and violent horror flick - then I think you'd be better suited looking for and watching something else.
That's not to suggest this movie is without violence or gore, but compared to some of the more well-known surreal horror films (Videodrome, Eraser Head, and House, for example) this is a rather tame movie. However, be advised: there is an underlying theme of body horror throughout the film. If "gross out" (though the "ick factor" of this film is slight) isn't your thing, I'd recommend looking for something different to watch.
41 Reviews
WTF was this ... Crazy,surrealistic, bizarre and utterly strange. Great !
peterp-450-29871622 December 2015
I get lonely here all by myself. How about I help you make mobiles, and in return, all you have to do is spend time with me? That's it? That's it. Partners? Uh, yeah, yeah, partners. If you had a hand, I'd shake it.
There are movies that go beyond your understanding. You're left behind with a "what-the-hell-was-this" feeling. Films which are sinister, totally crazy and utterly surreal. Movies that'll make you say : "This can never be outperformed in terms of bizarreness". And then there's "Deep Dark". Too bizarre for words. Surreal and unreal at the same time. An ancient concept is used again though. It's another case study about an individual who pursues a specific goal and tries to achieve this at any cost. A kind of "3 wishes" principle with the additional nasty boomerang effect. It returns and hits you straight in the face.
Hermann Haig (Sean McGrath) is an artist who attempts to create modern and contemporary art. However, this doesn't work very well and people aren't that enthusiastic about his creations (mobiles with all sorts of recycled waste hanging on it). Nevertheless, he believes he has the talent and thinks there's something subtle missing to make real crowd pullers of his artwork. In desperation he asks his uncle for advice. Promptly this fellow rents out an apartment to Hermann. In that way he can find inspiration while being isolated from the outside world. A kind of a retreat so he'd be able to bring out that deep-rooted talent. Unfortunately, that deeply rooted talent remains right there where it was all along. And this to the dismay and despair of Hermann. When he's about to call it quits, Hermann discovers a hole in the wall. And to his surprise, something starts to communicate with him. First by means of a wire with a note attached to it. Afterwards the hole in the wall starts to speak to Hermann with a sensual female voice. And gradually this phenomenon helps him with his art.
It's rather difficult to link this film to a particular genre. You can't call it horror. But the opening scene might be shocking or disturbing to some. And the denouement has a surprise or two in store. But it really isn't scary or frightening at all. It seemed to have a direct line to my funny bone. Although it's certainly not comedy. Or you think that malicious pleasure is something humorous. It's also not fantasy. Just like in "Her" there's an invisible entity that talks to the protagonist with a sensual voice, only it's no software. And this time there's something physical to discern. That mysterious hole. A hole that hides a personality that yearns for attention and intimacy. And yes, you can expect the unexpected. Can you say there's some perverse humor in it? Yep indeed. I could label it as real estate porn.
You'll definitely have many unanswered questions afterwards. Where does the phenomenon come from? Was Hermann his uncle successful because of this? And what the hell are those slimy objects Hermann uses in his art? To be honest, the mobiles he creates afterwards, still look like garbage and worthless. However, the effect it has on spectators is pretty drastic. The only downside is the rather slow buildup. But otherwise this is a bizarre and strange film that I watched in amazement. Do you love something so macabre and crazy, with someone slowly sliding into something completely insane, than this is the perfect movie for you. However, I'm sure I'll be looking at a hole in the wall in a complete different way. I never thought a stupid hole in the wall could turn me on.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT
There are movies that go beyond your understanding. You're left behind with a "what-the-hell-was-this" feeling. Films which are sinister, totally crazy and utterly surreal. Movies that'll make you say : "This can never be outperformed in terms of bizarreness". And then there's "Deep Dark". Too bizarre for words. Surreal and unreal at the same time. An ancient concept is used again though. It's another case study about an individual who pursues a specific goal and tries to achieve this at any cost. A kind of "3 wishes" principle with the additional nasty boomerang effect. It returns and hits you straight in the face.
Hermann Haig (Sean McGrath) is an artist who attempts to create modern and contemporary art. However, this doesn't work very well and people aren't that enthusiastic about his creations (mobiles with all sorts of recycled waste hanging on it). Nevertheless, he believes he has the talent and thinks there's something subtle missing to make real crowd pullers of his artwork. In desperation he asks his uncle for advice. Promptly this fellow rents out an apartment to Hermann. In that way he can find inspiration while being isolated from the outside world. A kind of a retreat so he'd be able to bring out that deep-rooted talent. Unfortunately, that deeply rooted talent remains right there where it was all along. And this to the dismay and despair of Hermann. When he's about to call it quits, Hermann discovers a hole in the wall. And to his surprise, something starts to communicate with him. First by means of a wire with a note attached to it. Afterwards the hole in the wall starts to speak to Hermann with a sensual female voice. And gradually this phenomenon helps him with his art.
It's rather difficult to link this film to a particular genre. You can't call it horror. But the opening scene might be shocking or disturbing to some. And the denouement has a surprise or two in store. But it really isn't scary or frightening at all. It seemed to have a direct line to my funny bone. Although it's certainly not comedy. Or you think that malicious pleasure is something humorous. It's also not fantasy. Just like in "Her" there's an invisible entity that talks to the protagonist with a sensual voice, only it's no software. And this time there's something physical to discern. That mysterious hole. A hole that hides a personality that yearns for attention and intimacy. And yes, you can expect the unexpected. Can you say there's some perverse humor in it? Yep indeed. I could label it as real estate porn.
You'll definitely have many unanswered questions afterwards. Where does the phenomenon come from? Was Hermann his uncle successful because of this? And what the hell are those slimy objects Hermann uses in his art? To be honest, the mobiles he creates afterwards, still look like garbage and worthless. However, the effect it has on spectators is pretty drastic. The only downside is the rather slow buildup. But otherwise this is a bizarre and strange film that I watched in amazement. Do you love something so macabre and crazy, with someone slowly sliding into something completely insane, than this is the perfect movie for you. However, I'm sure I'll be looking at a hole in the wall in a complete different way. I never thought a stupid hole in the wall could turn me on.
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT
Too much about being an artist (read bum) too little content
nightcrawlercyp-311-21934611 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
To understand why this movie got from me only 4 you must understand that the content is only 20 minutes, but is stretched to more than an hour with boring stuff. For the first 15 minutes nothing happens. The story starts with a bum that thinks himself to be a great artist and his sad mother who has to support him and tries to bring him to reality. Then you have about 10-15 min of him trying to sell his garbage as art. Then the real story starts as he discovers a strange hole in the wall of the room he rents. Unfortunately too little is spent explaining stuff about the hole and too much on his artist life. With the help of the voice from the wall he manages to sell his crappy mobiles and that is about it . In the end he leaves the hole and puts a painting frame on top of it that does not cover it trying to be artsy and failing. Although the movie has great potential in the story of the voice in the wall the author chooses to be a failing artist and a bum instead and concentrate on how hart it is to be a struggling artist (read bum). The main character (and most except the mother and his uncle) are not the kind of characters you would care about so nothing that happens to them seems important. The hole does not become too big and is never explained anything about it. Here is my theory on the hole and how it should have developed: the creature from the hole is lovecraftian monster that tries to get in our world. It needs human energy to cross the tunnel and enter and being a big creature it needs a lot. Its attachment to Herman is because he called it and is the main anchor to this reality. His art incorporates parts of the creature itself which the creature can use remotely to absorb energy from the buyers. If the creature would manage to get close enough to this world it would start consuming humans as apparently this is what eats. But of course the author chooses to play the bum part...
Twilight Zone Light
billcr1216 January 2018
Deep Dark has the feel of an extended (79 minute) Twilight Zone episode without the genius of Rod Serling. A twenty something, no talent artist creates They are garbage. He winds up at an apartment with a hole in the wall. Behind it, he hears the voice of a woman. She is lonely, and in exchange for companionship will provide him with objects which seem to mesmerize gallery patrons. The Faustian bargain is successful and the artist must satisfy the hole in the wall in a most unusual manner. The premise was o.k. but it just sputters out in the end.
Truly strange....
planktonrules14 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am really stumped with this review...and that almost never happens. Despite having written thousands of reviews, I have just found a movie that really defies description. It even makes me wonder whether I liked it or not. I am just not sure what "Deep Dark" is all about and it might be worth seeing again or seeing it with friends and discussing it afterwords. It's THAT unusual and thought-provoking.
Seth McGrath stars as Hermann, a young man with absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever....none. Yet, inexplicably he's convinced himself he's a great artist and he just needs to get others to see his work and then they'll be convinced as well. Unfortunately, his mobiles are junk...and everyone thinks so. On a lark, he decides to move into one of his uncle's apartments for two weeks to devote himself solely to creating a masterpiece. Soon, however, something REALLY, REALLY weird occurs. Behind a small hole in the wall comes the voice of a lovely woman and it not only talks to Hermann but spits out odd things (I have no idea exactly WHAT this stuff is) and Hermann incorporates them into his mobiles....and he becomes an instant success. But what about the woman behind the wall and what is the stuff it gives him? Well, it's not exactly a woman...in fact, it isn't exactly human. As for the art material, God only knows! Exactly what is it? I have no idea...but the thing behind the wall with a beautiful voice has a lamprey-like portion to it and it really, really loves Hermann...both emotionally and sexually. I still cannot wrap my head around the scene where Hermann is having sexual relations with the hole in the wall...but it does the trick and gives it inspiration and soon it begins spitting out other weird things for Hermann's mobiles. Does this sound weird? You betcha! But it only gets weirder and bloodier and more and more difficult to describe!
So is this a comedy or a horror film or a fantasy film? Well, it certainly has elements of each. But there's also a certain strangeness, an absurdity that leaves the viewer confused-- especially at the end. This ending might keep people thinking and wondering a long time as to what, exactly, happened. Overall, I think I liked it. The plot is highly original, the music is amazingly good and the acting and direction are quite good. Credit for the story and direction all go to the same person, Michael Medaglia--a young and relatively inexperienced newcomer to films. As for the story and its meanings...well, I would really love some second (and third and fourth...) opinions! It has a lot to like and appreciate...but it also made my brain hurt just a bit and left me confused. Overall, I'd say that this is the perfect film for someone wanting something different...very, very different! Perhaps it would make a perfect entry into my "You Ain't Seen Nothing' Yet" series... Plus I did see quite a bit of promise from this uber- weird movie.
Seth McGrath stars as Hermann, a young man with absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever....none. Yet, inexplicably he's convinced himself he's a great artist and he just needs to get others to see his work and then they'll be convinced as well. Unfortunately, his mobiles are junk...and everyone thinks so. On a lark, he decides to move into one of his uncle's apartments for two weeks to devote himself solely to creating a masterpiece. Soon, however, something REALLY, REALLY weird occurs. Behind a small hole in the wall comes the voice of a lovely woman and it not only talks to Hermann but spits out odd things (I have no idea exactly WHAT this stuff is) and Hermann incorporates them into his mobiles....and he becomes an instant success. But what about the woman behind the wall and what is the stuff it gives him? Well, it's not exactly a woman...in fact, it isn't exactly human. As for the art material, God only knows! Exactly what is it? I have no idea...but the thing behind the wall with a beautiful voice has a lamprey-like portion to it and it really, really loves Hermann...both emotionally and sexually. I still cannot wrap my head around the scene where Hermann is having sexual relations with the hole in the wall...but it does the trick and gives it inspiration and soon it begins spitting out other weird things for Hermann's mobiles. Does this sound weird? You betcha! But it only gets weirder and bloodier and more and more difficult to describe!
So is this a comedy or a horror film or a fantasy film? Well, it certainly has elements of each. But there's also a certain strangeness, an absurdity that leaves the viewer confused-- especially at the end. This ending might keep people thinking and wondering a long time as to what, exactly, happened. Overall, I think I liked it. The plot is highly original, the music is amazingly good and the acting and direction are quite good. Credit for the story and direction all go to the same person, Michael Medaglia--a young and relatively inexperienced newcomer to films. As for the story and its meanings...well, I would really love some second (and third and fourth...) opinions! It has a lot to like and appreciate...but it also made my brain hurt just a bit and left me confused. Overall, I'd say that this is the perfect film for someone wanting something different...very, very different! Perhaps it would make a perfect entry into my "You Ain't Seen Nothing' Yet" series... Plus I did see quite a bit of promise from this uber- weird movie.
I really felt like I wasted my time.
sNate8727 March 2019
I was drawn into this because the description and some reviews made it sound like it would be a visual trip and very experimental. It's actually just a pretty straightforward story about a struggling artist. The only twist being he talks to a hole in the wall and it grants him parts to make his art. It also gets jealous of any woman he tries talking to. That's about it.
Don't expect a horror film. Or David Lynch-lite (which is what I kind of had in my head). Or any comedy. I'm honestly not sure who the intended audience of this film was. I kept waiting and waiting for something off the wall to happen and grew increasingly bored when it never did.
The one positive thing I will say, is that the plot was fairly original. It had lots of potential, I just wish it was more entertaining.
Don't expect a horror film. Or David Lynch-lite (which is what I kind of had in my head). Or any comedy. I'm honestly not sure who the intended audience of this film was. I kept waiting and waiting for something off the wall to happen and grew increasingly bored when it never did.
The one positive thing I will say, is that the plot was fairly original. It had lots of potential, I just wish it was more entertaining.
There's no Wonderland beyond this hole
quincytheodore19 November 2015
Deep Dark is a movie tethering on the fringe of horror genre, it's like a modern art on some posh gallery that may be confusing because due to its odd nature. It doesn't work like many thriller or horror flicks and takes a bit of time to roll, albeit its short runtime. There's just an intrinsic draw as though something bizarre is popping up yet one can't avert their eyes, and that itself is already a more successful horror than most.
Hermann (Sean McGrath) is an artist who's not particularly gifted. He tries hard to produce art to no avail. At some point his uncle rents him an apartment that doubles as a workshop. What he finds instead is a talking hole which presents him with artistic gift. This premise is so strange, it's almost satirically creepy.
In fact, the movie doesn't remotely have the same mystery feel to it, barely having any scare at all. It may even turn into comedy foray at a couple of instances, as it mocks its own protagonist and his predicament. The desperate artist angle works incredibly well, showing that desperation can give birth to foolishly appealing choices.
Without giving away much, this is one of the movies that relies on the quirky development, Deep Dark can be simplified into part haunting and part stalker theme. It's far from supernatural scares, so those expecting gripping thrill akin to Insidious might not find it here. The movie plays out in a type of fantasy, although it's still bizarre even for folklore premise.
Deep Dark is amalgamation of the weirdest aspects from fantasy and mystery wired together like abstract art. The sheer oddity leaves a strangely interesting aftertaste. It's recommended for those searching for something different, and the short length fits a lazy weekend slumber like a finger, among other things, on a mysterious hole.
Hermann (Sean McGrath) is an artist who's not particularly gifted. He tries hard to produce art to no avail. At some point his uncle rents him an apartment that doubles as a workshop. What he finds instead is a talking hole which presents him with artistic gift. This premise is so strange, it's almost satirically creepy.
In fact, the movie doesn't remotely have the same mystery feel to it, barely having any scare at all. It may even turn into comedy foray at a couple of instances, as it mocks its own protagonist and his predicament. The desperate artist angle works incredibly well, showing that desperation can give birth to foolishly appealing choices.
Without giving away much, this is one of the movies that relies on the quirky development, Deep Dark can be simplified into part haunting and part stalker theme. It's far from supernatural scares, so those expecting gripping thrill akin to Insidious might not find it here. The movie plays out in a type of fantasy, although it's still bizarre even for folklore premise.
Deep Dark is amalgamation of the weirdest aspects from fantasy and mystery wired together like abstract art. The sheer oddity leaves a strangely interesting aftertaste. It's recommended for those searching for something different, and the short length fits a lazy weekend slumber like a finger, among other things, on a mysterious hole.
Pointless and Lackluster
blood-lust66613 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm blown away by the glowing reviews given by some of the viewers of this film. (People who are part of the production team perhaps?) This movie has no redeemable qualities. The characters are incredibly one dimensional and unlikable. I believe this movie is making an attempt at being a horror comedy, however, it just ends up being extremely awkward for the viewer. No humorous moments. No scary moments. No thrilling moments. Just scene after scene of: When will we get to the point? SPOILER: It never comes. There is no explanation for why the wall talks, where it gets the items for the mobiles, what the finished mobiles even look like, why the wall bleeds, why the artist's uncle send him there... I could go on and on with the unanswered and pointless questions that arise in this movie. My suggestion: Save yourself some time and skip this movie.
Glad to see folks are still making really weird flicks.
udar552 September 2019
Struggling artist Hermann (Sean McGrath) leases a rundown apartment from his uncle and continues to struggle with his mobile-centered art pieces. That is until a tiny hole in the wall spits out a string with a note attached saying, "Relax, I can help." The hole begins speaking to him in a seductive female voice and soon the hole starts producing tumors (!) that Hermann places on his mobiles. The fleshy orbs intoxicate any viewer, making Hermann an instant success in the local art scene. Of course, the partnership comes with a price. I was drawn to this horror dark comedy just by the poster and one sentence plot synopsis on TubiTV. Writer-director Michael Medaglia delivers on the film's weird promise, coming off almost as a low budget combo between David Lynch and latter day Henenlotter. The premise might run a little thin at 80 minutes but I was entertained the entire time. His skewering of the indie art world is hilarious.
Will definitely disappoint
sobedragon716 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
So I read a bunch of the reviews, expecting to see something interesting, new, vibrant and great. What I got was an terrible pile of crap. The character development is absolutely terrible, the plot is pretty much ridiculous, and most of the "plot" is pretty one dimensional and boring. I found myself wanting to play on my phone more than watch the movie.
Herman, a struggling artist, living at home with his mother. Somehow he remembers being a baby and seeing a mobile, so he becomes obsessed with making mobiles, out of shitty things. In an hour and 19 minutes, there are roughly 2 truly "horror" movie-esque things in this, and they are pretty dumb. The ending was basically a waste of time, and after watching this movie, the only thing I would ask for is my time back. This definitely had potential, and could have been much creepier and darker, but in the end, just came out pompous and boring.
Herman, a struggling artist, living at home with his mother. Somehow he remembers being a baby and seeing a mobile, so he becomes obsessed with making mobiles, out of shitty things. In an hour and 19 minutes, there are roughly 2 truly "horror" movie-esque things in this, and they are pretty dumb. The ending was basically a waste of time, and after watching this movie, the only thing I would ask for is my time back. This definitely had potential, and could have been much creepier and darker, but in the end, just came out pompous and boring.
It's like Barton Fink, Being John Malkovich and Videodrome had a three-way.
jtrosenblatt4 September 2015
So I was just thoroughly impressed. After watching this movie I felt the way I felt after seeing Momento or Rushmore or Pi or Being John Malkovich or Maelstrom or Cube or I Stand Alone - you know, when you see a movie and you realize there's a director out there who has this unique vision of the world and through whatever luck and circumstance required they were allowed to make a movie. It's great when the talented visionary messed up people who really should be making movies actually get to make one, that's what I was reminded of watching this. A masterful understanding of tone and pacing in a film that uses body horror undercut with deadpan humor in a way that is unique (yes, unique even though it's 2015 and unique seems like a relic in the rebooted franchise obsessed wasteland of modern cinema). This well shot, well written, well edited and well acted (Anne Sorce was absolutely amazing in what appears to be her first big on screen role) film made by a visionary whose love of movies is paralleled by his respect for the Audience (i.e. what I said about pacing - this is how you cut a movie, people! Seriously, take note). And yes, I will be procuring this in the future to watch it again, but more important, I can't wait to see what the guy who made this makes next time. I don't usually get to have this much fun watching a movie but when I do I really really appreciate it.
My Review Of "Deep Dark"
ASouthernHorrorFan23 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Deep Dark" is a indie dark madness in perfect tone with stylish art-house horror. The film is directed by Michael Medaglia and stars Mary McDonald-Lewis, Erin Hagen, Don Alder, Sean McGrath, with Denise Poirier as the whole and John Nielsen. "Deep Dark" is a strange and wild journey into symbolism, and almost male-chauvinist themes that either over-sexual women or see them as negative clichés. And yet it is all more entertaining and captivating than one would think. Synopsis: Hermann, a failed sculptor, is about to kill himself when he finds a strange, talking hole in the wall. The creature in the hole (Denise Poirier, the voice of ÆON FLUX) has the power to fulfill his wildest dreams, but things go horribly wrong and when the killing starts, Hermann is thrust into the worst nightmare of his life. Deep Dark is a twisted tale warning you to be careful what you wish for, because it just might get you.
The story is a bizarre play on male/ female relationships in both the professional and person life. It does ride on familiar and redundant archetypes in the stories that reek of 'the battle of the sexes'. Normally the film is a comedy or high camp theatre, "Deep Dark" is neither, it is a heavy indie slice of surrealism and the macabre. It is hands down a instant cult classic for the new age horror fan. Medaglia is creative, risqué, and blunt in his design and vision. And the relationship between the characters are real, authentic and justified in their clichéd depictions, which you wouldn't think feels anything but ridiculous-and yet there is a real connection with not only the protagonist but also the antagonist-a whole in the wall!
The special effects are limited in "Deep Dark". The few scenes that have gore or blood give it good, but there isn't a lot of it. Enough to make the film look and feel like real modern horror. Oh, and they are all practical effects. The real special effect in "Deep Dark" though is the ability Michael Medaglia has in getting you to connect, and buy into this relationship between a struggling artist and a whole in the wall that is a woman. This is a bizarre film and the fans are gonna bit very mixed about the story, but I found it slightly more provocative than ridiculous.
The story is a bizarre play on male/ female relationships in both the professional and person life. It does ride on familiar and redundant archetypes in the stories that reek of 'the battle of the sexes'. Normally the film is a comedy or high camp theatre, "Deep Dark" is neither, it is a heavy indie slice of surrealism and the macabre. It is hands down a instant cult classic for the new age horror fan. Medaglia is creative, risqué, and blunt in his design and vision. And the relationship between the characters are real, authentic and justified in their clichéd depictions, which you wouldn't think feels anything but ridiculous-and yet there is a real connection with not only the protagonist but also the antagonist-a whole in the wall!
The special effects are limited in "Deep Dark". The few scenes that have gore or blood give it good, but there isn't a lot of it. Enough to make the film look and feel like real modern horror. Oh, and they are all practical effects. The real special effect in "Deep Dark" though is the ability Michael Medaglia has in getting you to connect, and buy into this relationship between a struggling artist and a whole in the wall that is a woman. This is a bizarre film and the fans are gonna bit very mixed about the story, but I found it slightly more provocative than ridiculous.
A total classic hole-in-the-wall that will draw you deep in!
ActorAndrewFord8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Deep Dark" brings new descriptors such as medium-hearted for a Indie art-house horror film.
Directed by Michael Medaglia starring Mary McDonald-Lewis, Don Alder, Sean McGrath, Denise Poirier as the "Hole" (ÆON FLUX), and John Nielsen (Transformers).
"Deep Dark" is a wild twisted little journey into thought provoking themes of sinister horror, relationships and new twisted erotic pleasures, which makes it is all the more entertaining and captivating.
Hermann, a failed sculptor, finds a strange talking hole in the wall. The hole has the power to fulfill artists dreams, but at a twisted price, and things go horribly wrong when the killing starts. Hermann is thrust into awkward situations with no way to go stuck between a rock and a hard place and caught with his pants down.
Deep Dark is a twisted tale warning you to be careful what you wish for but at the same time with a twist of love conquers all; even if it is a unlikely relationship...this is the movie's Deep Dark emotional-tagging secret sucking audiences deep in.
The story is a brilliant creation of the sick, insecure, sexual world of control-freaks and their demented twisted-fantasy games and normal head games yet cooled down with refreshing tones of macabre.
A instant cult classic original script even for the critical horror fan and non-horror fan alike. A blunt vision like Quentin Terintino yet with relationship between the characters are authentic and justified keeping you more grounded.
Special effects are kept limited and rightfully so, keeping the film relying on strong actors without over doing it with CGI and cheap modern day tactics etc...a hybrid if you will. Scenes with blood give it good and healthy for the audience craving a prompt to sexual spanking; did I mention sexual?, but there isn't too much for the discerning anti-horror fan, just enough to make the film move along interestingly without any stagnant cliché cheapness or fluff.
This is a bizarre masterpiece that will keep you very entertained even if you aren't the "sharpest tool in the shed" (Ditz) and don't pay attention. It's just as much provocative as bizarre-craziness...enjoy! it while you can; I know Herman did.
P.S. SouthernHorrorFan-User Review wrote "Starring...Erin Hagen"..fact which is obviously a lie...my speaking part was bigger than hers and it sure as heck wasn't starring me so LOL..and be real people!
Directed by Michael Medaglia starring Mary McDonald-Lewis, Don Alder, Sean McGrath, Denise Poirier as the "Hole" (ÆON FLUX), and John Nielsen (Transformers).
"Deep Dark" is a wild twisted little journey into thought provoking themes of sinister horror, relationships and new twisted erotic pleasures, which makes it is all the more entertaining and captivating.
Hermann, a failed sculptor, finds a strange talking hole in the wall. The hole has the power to fulfill artists dreams, but at a twisted price, and things go horribly wrong when the killing starts. Hermann is thrust into awkward situations with no way to go stuck between a rock and a hard place and caught with his pants down.
Deep Dark is a twisted tale warning you to be careful what you wish for but at the same time with a twist of love conquers all; even if it is a unlikely relationship...this is the movie's Deep Dark emotional-tagging secret sucking audiences deep in.
The story is a brilliant creation of the sick, insecure, sexual world of control-freaks and their demented twisted-fantasy games and normal head games yet cooled down with refreshing tones of macabre.
A instant cult classic original script even for the critical horror fan and non-horror fan alike. A blunt vision like Quentin Terintino yet with relationship between the characters are authentic and justified keeping you more grounded.
Special effects are kept limited and rightfully so, keeping the film relying on strong actors without over doing it with CGI and cheap modern day tactics etc...a hybrid if you will. Scenes with blood give it good and healthy for the audience craving a prompt to sexual spanking; did I mention sexual?, but there isn't too much for the discerning anti-horror fan, just enough to make the film move along interestingly without any stagnant cliché cheapness or fluff.
This is a bizarre masterpiece that will keep you very entertained even if you aren't the "sharpest tool in the shed" (Ditz) and don't pay attention. It's just as much provocative as bizarre-craziness...enjoy! it while you can; I know Herman did.
P.S. SouthernHorrorFan-User Review wrote "Starring...Erin Hagen"..fact which is obviously a lie...my speaking part was bigger than hers and it sure as heck wasn't starring me so LOL..and be real people!
Don't be deceived by glowing reviews...
literarybliss4 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers ahead!!
I never intended to write a review over Michael Medaglia's Deep Dark til I meditated more on the film and read some other peoples' reviews. IMDb's synopsis for the film is as follows, "A failed sculptor discovers a strange, talking hole in the wall. It has the power to fulfill his wildest dreams...and become his worst nightmare." Sounds like a bizarre and possibly hilarious premise, right? What it turned out to be was a strange sort of experience that left the viewer feeling more uncomfortable than titillated.
The real reason I was spurred to write the review was seeing other reviewers citing the film's originality and dark humor as high points. I even saw a user on IMDb state that this was the best film they had ever seen. I take issue with that statement, but I am at least glad someone found wonder in this mess of a film. Deep Dark is a sort of Faustian story at the bare bones of it, but it seems to take some cues from a long time favorite of mine, Little Shop of Horrors (both the original film and the musical). While normally a decidedly Little Shop premise with dark humor would excite me, Deep Dark did the opposite. It has the kind of frame work Little Shop does. A run of the mill guy strikes luck by happening across a possibly alien being, guy is also in love with a pretty girl who is his colleague, guy strikes a deal with the possibly alien being and finds success, and disaster ensues for all involved. So, in the end the film isn't too original as some reviews would lead you to believe, and what Medaglia does with this familiar premise isn't too original either. Ever heard of a little novel called The Cipher? It was published in 1991 and was written by Kathe Koja, who won a Bram Stoker award for it. Want to take a guess what The Cipher is about? If you said magical strange wonder hole in the wall you are one hundred percent correct. That sounds pretty familiar right now, doesn't it? Barnes and Noble's synopsis of The Cipher is as follows, "Nicholas, a would-be poet, and Nakota, his feral lover, discover a strange hole in the storage room floor down the hall. "Black. Not darkness, not the absence of light but living black. Pure black and the sense of pulsation, especially when you look at it too closely, the sense of something not living but alive." It begins with curiosity, a joke - the Funhole down the hall. But then the experiments begin. "Something we haven't tried before," Nakota says. But she and Nicholas aren't in control, not from the first moment, so they free fall as the Funhole leads to obsession, darkness, and transformation." I think that synopsis speak volumes in the context of this review. So, in short this movie isn't as original or mind blowing to people who are fairly well versed in horror genre or just literature and movies in general. I'm not saying a premise has to be 100% original to be effective, but Deep Dark is less original than other reviews might lead you to believe.
Now, here's the nitty gritty about the movie. The weird mishmash of Little Shop and The Cipher does not do this movie any favors. The writing is bland. There are moments where the dark humor is supposed to be there, but you just don't laugh. The humor feels forced and in many ways not natural to Medaglia as a screenwriter. The characters don't feel real either. They're caricatures, there is no real development, and in the end they are just as forced and odd as the humor. (I realize not all horror movies can be You're Next in the dark humor department, but sheesh this movie was pitiful.) The acting, was well, not good, but I assume that might have had a lot to do with how the script and the characters were sparse and uninteresting. Actors can't really work with unimaginative characters and in the end it shows through the labored and uninspired performances. The plot arises a few questions that I wish the movie had addressed. I am okay when a movie or a book leaves questions unanswered, but there was some connective tissue that did not come full circle, regarded protagonist Hermann and his Uncle Felix who owns the apartment building that the infamous wall. The best I can infer is that the hole is the source of Uncle Felix's success and possibly why he bought the building, and why he told Hermann to go stay in the apartment for inspiration. My question is why did Hermann never call his uncle and ask about his experiences with this hole or if he even knew anything about it. It seemed like it should have came to a point where the nephew and uncle conversed about the hole, but it never came to be. Not to mention I felt extremely uncomfortable watching a man be coerced into sex by a wall. But wait! There's more! A jealous art rival of Hermann's is playing voyeur and watching him stick his penis into this magical artist making hole and proceed to make love to it. I laughed, but it was because I was freaked out and could not understand why anyone would write a scene like that. At least Seymour never had to have sex with the plant. Goodness. There are moments where perverse meets compelling, and this was not one of them.
Overall this is just not a great movie, nor is it funny or original. Don't be deceived by any other reviews that you read.
I never intended to write a review over Michael Medaglia's Deep Dark til I meditated more on the film and read some other peoples' reviews. IMDb's synopsis for the film is as follows, "A failed sculptor discovers a strange, talking hole in the wall. It has the power to fulfill his wildest dreams...and become his worst nightmare." Sounds like a bizarre and possibly hilarious premise, right? What it turned out to be was a strange sort of experience that left the viewer feeling more uncomfortable than titillated.
The real reason I was spurred to write the review was seeing other reviewers citing the film's originality and dark humor as high points. I even saw a user on IMDb state that this was the best film they had ever seen. I take issue with that statement, but I am at least glad someone found wonder in this mess of a film. Deep Dark is a sort of Faustian story at the bare bones of it, but it seems to take some cues from a long time favorite of mine, Little Shop of Horrors (both the original film and the musical). While normally a decidedly Little Shop premise with dark humor would excite me, Deep Dark did the opposite. It has the kind of frame work Little Shop does. A run of the mill guy strikes luck by happening across a possibly alien being, guy is also in love with a pretty girl who is his colleague, guy strikes a deal with the possibly alien being and finds success, and disaster ensues for all involved. So, in the end the film isn't too original as some reviews would lead you to believe, and what Medaglia does with this familiar premise isn't too original either. Ever heard of a little novel called The Cipher? It was published in 1991 and was written by Kathe Koja, who won a Bram Stoker award for it. Want to take a guess what The Cipher is about? If you said magical strange wonder hole in the wall you are one hundred percent correct. That sounds pretty familiar right now, doesn't it? Barnes and Noble's synopsis of The Cipher is as follows, "Nicholas, a would-be poet, and Nakota, his feral lover, discover a strange hole in the storage room floor down the hall. "Black. Not darkness, not the absence of light but living black. Pure black and the sense of pulsation, especially when you look at it too closely, the sense of something not living but alive." It begins with curiosity, a joke - the Funhole down the hall. But then the experiments begin. "Something we haven't tried before," Nakota says. But she and Nicholas aren't in control, not from the first moment, so they free fall as the Funhole leads to obsession, darkness, and transformation." I think that synopsis speak volumes in the context of this review. So, in short this movie isn't as original or mind blowing to people who are fairly well versed in horror genre or just literature and movies in general. I'm not saying a premise has to be 100% original to be effective, but Deep Dark is less original than other reviews might lead you to believe.
Now, here's the nitty gritty about the movie. The weird mishmash of Little Shop and The Cipher does not do this movie any favors. The writing is bland. There are moments where the dark humor is supposed to be there, but you just don't laugh. The humor feels forced and in many ways not natural to Medaglia as a screenwriter. The characters don't feel real either. They're caricatures, there is no real development, and in the end they are just as forced and odd as the humor. (I realize not all horror movies can be You're Next in the dark humor department, but sheesh this movie was pitiful.) The acting, was well, not good, but I assume that might have had a lot to do with how the script and the characters were sparse and uninteresting. Actors can't really work with unimaginative characters and in the end it shows through the labored and uninspired performances. The plot arises a few questions that I wish the movie had addressed. I am okay when a movie or a book leaves questions unanswered, but there was some connective tissue that did not come full circle, regarded protagonist Hermann and his Uncle Felix who owns the apartment building that the infamous wall. The best I can infer is that the hole is the source of Uncle Felix's success and possibly why he bought the building, and why he told Hermann to go stay in the apartment for inspiration. My question is why did Hermann never call his uncle and ask about his experiences with this hole or if he even knew anything about it. It seemed like it should have came to a point where the nephew and uncle conversed about the hole, but it never came to be. Not to mention I felt extremely uncomfortable watching a man be coerced into sex by a wall. But wait! There's more! A jealous art rival of Hermann's is playing voyeur and watching him stick his penis into this magical artist making hole and proceed to make love to it. I laughed, but it was because I was freaked out and could not understand why anyone would write a scene like that. At least Seymour never had to have sex with the plant. Goodness. There are moments where perverse meets compelling, and this was not one of them.
Overall this is just not a great movie, nor is it funny or original. Don't be deceived by any other reviews that you read.
Terrible
RussHog13 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is terrible.
It's about a guy who wants to be an artists and so he moves into an apartment in search in inspiration. There is a hole in the wall that may or may not have some demon inside that talks to him and helps make him a good artist. Soon - he has his art in the hands of the hot art dealer babe and he is on top of his game - and in no time flat there is hell to pay.
The script is atrocious. The writer could have used some better dialogue and some more character development - but no such luck.
There is a woman in this film who plays a hot art dealer and she is great. She is the only thing in the movie worth watching.
I give this movie 1 stars for the script, acting and cinematography - and 2 stars because the actress who plays the art dealer was worth watching.
In fact - this movie had been all about her - and how she falls in love with a new art guy - only to learn that he had sold his soul to the devil for his brilliance.
Instead it was about him - and it sucked.
It's about a guy who wants to be an artists and so he moves into an apartment in search in inspiration. There is a hole in the wall that may or may not have some demon inside that talks to him and helps make him a good artist. Soon - he has his art in the hands of the hot art dealer babe and he is on top of his game - and in no time flat there is hell to pay.
The script is atrocious. The writer could have used some better dialogue and some more character development - but no such luck.
There is a woman in this film who plays a hot art dealer and she is great. She is the only thing in the movie worth watching.
I give this movie 1 stars for the script, acting and cinematography - and 2 stars because the actress who plays the art dealer was worth watching.
In fact - this movie had been all about her - and how she falls in love with a new art guy - only to learn that he had sold his soul to the devil for his brilliance.
Instead it was about him - and it sucked.
VERY GOOD risible film with unusual plot
Mike_T-Little_Mtn_Sound_Archive11 February 2019
Deep Dark is very good film, with an unusual plot & well done production. I won't provide a synopsis here, but rather a few comments on content, production, etc.
The absurdity of the plot is remeniscent of something from David Lynch, which lends itself to a myriad of possibilities, no matter how far-fetched. The production is excellent, and while I did not recognize any of the actors, it had the look and feel of any "regular old movie" one would see in a theater - so, independent, but not schlocky. Everything from the script, to cinematography, to the (stellar) soundtrack added to the dark and ludicrous scenes unfolding onscreen. The acting was extremely well done, especially by the lead; a couple of quirky characters, but I believe their parts were written in such a way that demand what some might call "bad acting." It all lent to the dark & twisted concept of the film.
As for contents, for those who care:
Overall, i highly recommend this film for fans of David Lynch, Darren Aronofsky, Alejandro Jodorowsky, or any other surrealist director.
The absurdity of the plot is remeniscent of something from David Lynch, which lends itself to a myriad of possibilities, no matter how far-fetched. The production is excellent, and while I did not recognize any of the actors, it had the look and feel of any "regular old movie" one would see in a theater - so, independent, but not schlocky. Everything from the script, to cinematography, to the (stellar) soundtrack added to the dark and ludicrous scenes unfolding onscreen. The acting was extremely well done, especially by the lead; a couple of quirky characters, but I believe their parts were written in such a way that demand what some might call "bad acting." It all lent to the dark & twisted concept of the film.
As for contents, for those who care:
- no nudity, but for the male protagonist without a shirt in one scene.
- no recollection of profanity, so if there was any, it was obviously not en massé, or grossly evident.
- violence and gore is confined to just a couple scenes. The violence is two scenes of hand to hand fighting, without much incident (nothing you wouldn't see in a PG rated film). There are a couple of bloody scenes, each accompanied by what some might call "gore," but for the most part there is nothing outside these couple of quick scenes. In other words, if you're only looking for gore, this is not for you.
Overall, i highly recommend this film for fans of David Lynch, Darren Aronofsky, Alejandro Jodorowsky, or any other surrealist director.
post traumatic stress disorder
dylanpowers-4512520 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
i am disturbed, I'm going back to therapy for this. Honestly whoever made this movie deserves to be in prison for life or at the least needs to be put in a mental institution for a WHILE. he put his PENIS in the wall, he F%$#ING the wall. anyways cool I have depression do not watch this please.
Holey Original
scythertitus2 September 2018
You do have to wonder if this movie stemmed from a bet over whether or not you could make a good horror movie out of a 'killer glory hole'. The answer is; yes, but only if you completely change the concept and keep things vague enough for it not to become completely obsurd.
This lack of comedy and over the top-ness could be levelled as a criticism as well though. Despite the concept the film is mostly played very seriously, maybe this was for the best but then again some laughs wouldn't have gone amiss.
Overall this is a serviceable story about a struggling artist, but it relies a little too much on the out there concept getting it by and in the end the actual story comes across as a little shallow. Perfectly watchable if you like low budget horrors about downwards spirals though.
This lack of comedy and over the top-ness could be levelled as a criticism as well though. Despite the concept the film is mostly played very seriously, maybe this was for the best but then again some laughs wouldn't have gone amiss.
Overall this is a serviceable story about a struggling artist, but it relies a little too much on the out there concept getting it by and in the end the actual story comes across as a little shallow. Perfectly watchable if you like low budget horrors about downwards spirals though.
Great art is like lightning
nogodnomasters14 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Herman Haig (Sean McGrath) fancies himself a mobile artist and no one else appreciates his work. When his mom (Mary McDonald-Lewis) rents out his room, Herman turns to Uncle Felix (John Nielsen) for help. Felix rents him an apartment where he can work and get inspired.
Herman gets his inspiration from a talking hole in the wall with a soft female voice reminiscent of THE EVIL BONG. The wall protects Herman, and demands his time, love, and affection.
This is an odd film with little precedence. I liked the premise of the film, but not the execution. I would recommend TEETH for those who enjoyed this film.
Guide: No real sex or nudity. Don't recall any swearing. It was just weird.
Herman gets his inspiration from a talking hole in the wall with a soft female voice reminiscent of THE EVIL BONG. The wall protects Herman, and demands his time, love, and affection.
This is an odd film with little precedence. I liked the premise of the film, but not the execution. I would recommend TEETH for those who enjoyed this film.
Guide: No real sex or nudity. Don't recall any swearing. It was just weird.
It could work
mitsuko182830 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I think it's a good idea, full of peronal exploring and a good criticism. I liked the whole story, the idea of an artist, each moment that he passes searching for inspiration and creation. It's just, it leaved me confused and with some elements to chance.
Sometimes I felt like it was something so personal, like I was watching deep dark to a artist's unstable heart. But other moments was something just comical and strange. Like Joel's death, I just can't understand very well that part, or uncle's story as well. Some characters were so annoying for enjoying the story completely (for me).
Idk if I can explain it. It's just, it's a great and artictic movie, but it leaves me a sour taste.
Sometimes I felt like it was something so personal, like I was watching deep dark to a artist's unstable heart. But other moments was something just comical and strange. Like Joel's death, I just can't understand very well that part, or uncle's story as well. Some characters were so annoying for enjoying the story completely (for me).
Idk if I can explain it. It's just, it's a great and artictic movie, but it leaves me a sour taste.
A fail on all fronts. Avoid at all costs.
j-nickturner11 April 2020
Not funny enough to be comedy.
Not weird enough to be surreal.
Not scary enough to be horror.
Not smart enough to be clever.
Not well acted enough to be convincing.
If this is supposed to be a commentary on art, it doesn't comment on much of anything. If it is supposed to be horror, nothing scary happens. (Etc. I think you see where I'm going)
The runtime isn't even much longer than an hour and it still drags along like a dead horse pulled behind another horse with only two legs. Maybe, mayyyyybe this could've been a decent short film, but I doubt it because the director has nothing to say.
Not to mention nothing really happens. Take 30 seconds to think of what would happen with a talking hole in the wall in a horror movie. Yup, that's all that happens. Actually probably only a few of the things that you are expecting happen. Read the description and you've seen the movie. Actually, the description is more exciting than the film itself.
I love weird, arthouse horror! Thats what I thought this would be.
It isn't. It's just 79 minutes of uninspired nothingness. There is no climax. There is no message. The movie just ends.
Skip it.
If this is supposed to be a commentary on art, it doesn't comment on much of anything. If it is supposed to be horror, nothing scary happens. (Etc. I think you see where I'm going)
The runtime isn't even much longer than an hour and it still drags along like a dead horse pulled behind another horse with only two legs. Maybe, mayyyyybe this could've been a decent short film, but I doubt it because the director has nothing to say.
Not to mention nothing really happens. Take 30 seconds to think of what would happen with a talking hole in the wall in a horror movie. Yup, that's all that happens. Actually probably only a few of the things that you are expecting happen. Read the description and you've seen the movie. Actually, the description is more exciting than the film itself.
I love weird, arthouse horror! Thats what I thought this would be.
It isn't. It's just 79 minutes of uninspired nothingness. There is no climax. There is no message. The movie just ends.
Skip it.
One of the best movies I've seen
WatchAndSmile22 August 2016
10/10. Extremely underrated to the point I ask if people who rated less than 6 actually watched it. The concept is amazing. Acting is really good The visuals and directing is very good. I am not a big fan of horror movies because they are mostly not scary or good in anyway. This movie is a complete opposite.
It explores the popular concept, WHAT IF. Making the viewer(especially a typical guy) relate to the main character.
This is the best horror movie I've watched in the last 5 years. If you like good story, concept and acting then this is is it.
If you like terrible slasher garbage that the theaters are full of, then by all means pick the other 99% of all the crap Hollywood releases.
It explores the popular concept, WHAT IF. Making the viewer(especially a typical guy) relate to the main character.
This is the best horror movie I've watched in the last 5 years. If you like good story, concept and acting then this is is it.
If you like terrible slasher garbage that the theaters are full of, then by all means pick the other 99% of all the crap Hollywood releases.
Half measures and unanswered questions
gressman0713 October 2019
The trailer gives away too much, IMO. At just 80 mins it is surely an interesting trip. More dark comedy than anything, with brief flashes of horror/creep. Some humorous commentary on art culture with half the runtime of the bloated Netflix Original "Velvet Buzzsaw" or whatever
Desperate artist reaches rock bottom and gets a strange saving grace via mysterious hole in wall. At a cost. Some would say too much, but to have unlimited fame and fortune how far would you go?
Seems the film could have gone one or two ways, but seemingly goes half measure between the two. There seemed a definite lack of resolution, or answers, one in particular. The journey itself was quick and enjoyable, often with dark humor and intrigue, but the ending left me feeling...unfulfilled.
Desperate artist reaches rock bottom and gets a strange saving grace via mysterious hole in wall. At a cost. Some would say too much, but to have unlimited fame and fortune how far would you go?
Seems the film could have gone one or two ways, but seemingly goes half measure between the two. There seemed a definite lack of resolution, or answers, one in particular. The journey itself was quick and enjoyable, often with dark humor and intrigue, but the ending left me feeling...unfulfilled.
Not unwatchable but rubbish
stevejones-516958 June 2020
Seriously?!??
johannes2000-12 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to say if the makers really meant it all seriously or if they tried to find out how much silliness you can sell to an unsuspecting audience. It's advertised as a horror movie, but apart from one graphic brutal death and some harsh mutilations there's not much of a horrific or tension-filled atmosphere, the pace is rather slow and the story is more bizarre than terrifying or even creepy. Maybe a touch of humor could have helped (the goings-on being quite hilarious anyway), but the movie was totally devoid of even the slightest tongue-in-cheekness, taking itself evidently dead-serious.
There are lots of movies where for some super-natural reasons suddenly wishes come true (usually with a steep price!), by way of a strange box delivered at the door or a secret room in an old house. But here they introduce the most weird wish-fulfilling instrument ever: a hole in the wall. Not big, but tiny as a little mouse-hole. Hermann finds out that he can pull little notes out off this hole. One note says: "touch me", and he does so with his finger, caressing the hole. Now I don't want to give the impression that I see Freudian innuendos everywhere I look, but here it's very, very hard to ignore. Especially when the hole starts to talk in a husky female voice, asks Hermann to kiss it and at some time even to have sex with it, which he does (really!!). I'm not at all a puritan, but somehow this all felt (and looked!) extremely awkward and distasteful.
I suppose that everyone involved in this production meant well and worked hard, but I cannot for the life of me imagine that anyone was satisfied with the result, let alone felt proud of it. Maybe they should have gone for a comedy-version, all the ingredients were there.
There are lots of movies where for some super-natural reasons suddenly wishes come true (usually with a steep price!), by way of a strange box delivered at the door or a secret room in an old house. But here they introduce the most weird wish-fulfilling instrument ever: a hole in the wall. Not big, but tiny as a little mouse-hole. Hermann finds out that he can pull little notes out off this hole. One note says: "touch me", and he does so with his finger, caressing the hole. Now I don't want to give the impression that I see Freudian innuendos everywhere I look, but here it's very, very hard to ignore. Especially when the hole starts to talk in a husky female voice, asks Hermann to kiss it and at some time even to have sex with it, which he does (really!!). I'm not at all a puritan, but somehow this all felt (and looked!) extremely awkward and distasteful.
I suppose that everyone involved in this production meant well and worked hard, but I cannot for the life of me imagine that anyone was satisfied with the result, let alone felt proud of it. Maybe they should have gone for a comedy-version, all the ingredients were there.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
