Leofwine_draca This minimalist thriller is a one-of-a-kind film with an excellent pedigree; not only is it directed by Robert Fuest, who gave us a minor horror classic in THE ABOMINABLE DR PHIBES, it is also written by two top television writers of the time, Brian Clemens (THE AVENGERS) and Terry Nation (DR WHO). However unlike the various work of the contributors this isn't an effects-driven exercise in flashiness and action; instead barely anything happens in the movie.The pacing is deliberately slow, and the film as a whole is largely an atmosphere-building exercise with the only action appearing at the very end of the film. The visceral horror aspects are mainly non-existent and instead the film strives hard to create and maintain high levels of suspense and foreboding. The forbidding setting of a rural French landscape is a clever touch and through static camera angles and creepy music we are led to believe that the landscape we see is both alien and dangerous.Beautifully filmed and with a strong script - with little dialogue Clemens and Nation make sure that every word counts - AND SOON THE DARKNESS is an exercise in realism. As there are no special effects involved the film hasn't dated at all and could be taken for the present day if it wasn't for the minor trappings, i.e. the old fashioned vehicles and hairstyles. Again the realism is strengthened through the matter-of-fact storyline, with large periods of inaction adding to the experience.The main emphasis is on the murder mystery aspect of the plot, most of the film acting as a whodunit and asking the viewer to guess firstly what happened and secondly who is responsible. The task isn't easy at first, with loads of red herrings and plot twists being thrown in our way, but gradually light will begin to dawn on those who have prior knowledge of these kinds of movies.The cast is an extremely small one, consisting of only four or five major characters. This adds to the isolated nature of the movie, especially with the language barrier deeply affecting the situation of our leads. Pamela Franklin proves she has grown up a lot since THE INNOCENTS with her mature yet fragile nurse character and her subdued turn is generally spot on. In comparison, Michele Dotrice (SOME MOTHERS DO 'AVE 'EM) is flirty and attractive as her outgoing companion and also makes a favourable impression. Sandor Eles (COUNTESS Dracula) is given a chance to shine as the shifty Frenchman who gets caught up in the events and becomes a prime suspect.Shots of unkempt farmers staring at Franklin over lonely open landscapes and cars soaring into the distance go a long way in adding to the increasing atmosphere. Despite the lack of violence, murder and bloodshed, horror fans should enjoy this movie through the sheer amount of suspense and atmosphere that it offers. Definitely a thought-provoking and at times gripping movie. A similar offering - but even rarer - followed three years later with DEADLY STRANGERS.

csbrown07 Sorry I cannot understand rave reviews of this film. On the surface it is a good thriller but has serious flaws1. Every character acts suspiciously like an Agatha Christie novel, even the British ex-pat teacher that never appears again2. -Spoiler- why did the Paul character ruin the film from the camera if he was not the killer. It just does not make sense3. -Spoiler- there are no clues during the film of the eventual Perpetrator. A mystery/crime plot should at least leave some clues rather just presenting the killer at the last moment.Overall not really good

HorrorQueen17 2 girls go on a cycling holiday to France. When one of them goes missing, it's up to the other one to try to find out what is going on and try to save her friend.The set up of this was pretty slow but it built up the atmosphere and tension really well. It is set in the French countryside and the sunshine is relentless, which was a nice change from horror movies being shot in a lot of darkness. A lot of the time people are speaking French and the protagonist doesn't understand the language, as there are no subtitles the audience doesn't either, which I thought was clever. While the ending was not unexpected, the amount of suspects did keep me guessing for a while and the film kept the tension building the whole way through. Pamela Franklin did a good job carrying the film mostly on her shoulders, and overall I think it was a very good, tense little thriller. It wasn't particularly scary, so don't see it if you're wanting a good fright, but as a thriller it was pretty good.

drystyx This is a sort of thriller that reminds us much of "Charade". Charade came first, so it gets the bragging rights.And I don't think it is a spoiler to say that, except to those who saw "Charade", and like me, they will pretty well know what is going on all the time. A\ It starts very very slow. The first 20 minutes is absolutely nothing, but at least the scenery is good. We get to see leggy women and nice country side. Had this been made in a city, and the women wore slacks, you would have fallen asleep long before the twenty minute mark.We begin in an outdoor cafe, and one woman is taking a picture. We know the camera and film will be an important cog, but it could also be a red herring.From there, the suspense is very well done. In 1970, this was not as easy to predict as today. Being easy to predict doesn't make it bad, though, not when the story line follows logic. Any other sort of outcome would have been "illogical" considering the clues. I am already risking the spoiler here, so I won't elaborate. Suffice to say, it is well thought out, well written, well done all around. I would have liked to seen a bit more energy in the first twenty minutes. The country side wasn't that pretty. Good film, and actually very believable for this genre.