Phillip Tomasso III So, this morning I watched the 2010 Chad Feehan as writer / director film, Beneath the Dark. The synopsis sounded good, but I tried it mostly because Jamie-Lynn Sigler beneath(Sopranos, Guys With Kids) was in it. The film also stars, Josh Stewart, who has been in a number of good films and TV shows as well.Okay. The basic idea is that Paul (Stewart) and Adrienne (Sigler) are headed to a wedding. A guy from Paul's college frat is tying the knot. Growing weary on the way, and a little frisky, Paul runs the vehicle of the road. It's decided they will not push it and land a hotel room for the night.The Roy Hotel is run by Frank (Chris Browning). He's a step-and-a-half above Anthony Perkins on a creepy-meter, and the hotel is slightly more modern than the Bates Motel. Once tucked away in a room, Adrienne is still frisky (and while there is no nudity, it is quite hot), only Paul has too much on his mind and cannot perform. Frustrated he heads to the connected diner for coffee where he meets a Man (Afemo Omilami) who claims to be the Son of God.The Man certainly knows a lot about Paul, and Paul's soiled past, and aside from conversation, he tries to have Paul answer some simple questions . . . What Do You Believe In?I can't forget Frank's wife, Sandy (Angela Featherstone). She is not a happy woman. Sandy stalks the bars looking for company. Isn't hard for her to find what she wants. Not bra-less in a thin white tank-top. She shows up here and there. (And is quite sensual in a barfly kind of way). Seems her sole (or soul) purpose is to torment the loser-ness of her husband.There is always homemade cherry pie and fresh coffee. There is a jukebox–while outdated with its selection–that is always ready to play.Beneath the Dark is nothing new. Sadly, I knew the end of the story at the very beginning of the movie. There have been a flood of "identical" big-screen and direct to DVD films with the same ending over the last four years. I could name them. But if you see one — then I have ruined the ending for the rest. I hate that. Hate it. Because the story was as solid as the acting. Both I enjoyed. The dialogue was crisp enough. The filming was simple but effective.If I were to assume you saw none of the other films with the same ending — then this is an excellent movie. If not, then this is a mediocre film. Since the Beneath the Dark is from 2010 — and we are on the cusp of 2014, I am going to assume the ladder and for that, give the movie 5 out of 10 Stars.Zombie Author Phillip Tomassohttp://www.philliptomasso.com

movieman_kev Paul (Josh Stewart of the FX TV show "Dirt") and adrienne (Jamie-Lynn Sigler of the much- better known Sopranos) are forced to divulge secrets after they stop at a peculiar motel in the middle of the Mojave Desert and meet some of it's weird denizens. This movie was slow, uneventful, and while not boring, not particularly enjoyable. However the acting was decent and the soundtrack to the film was pretty good.The mystery behind some huge secret had my intrigued, but the pay-off for that wasn't really worth my investment in it.Eye Candy: Angela Firestone gets toplessWhere I Saw it: Showtime Extreme

keeganmurray-19 Beneath The Dark starts well enough. A young couple pull up into a hotel, looking for a place to stay for the night. As in so many hotel horrors that went before it, the place is deserted and what little people that are around are incredibly sinister. Sound familiar? That's because it is. Imagine Reeker, Vacancy and The Shining (try spot the references) thrown into a blender. That's the impression Beneath The Dark makes early on, and it's a good 'un. Slowly the movie unfolds a series of flashbacks which give an insight into the past of a few of the characters we have seen throughout the movie and into the secrets that their past holds. Paul and Adrienne are a run of the mill young couple experiencing a few relationship problems (Vacancy anyone?) and Frank is the lonely hotel owner who is sinister in his overt friendliness. All sounding pretty run of the mill so far? Here's where it veers off. Through the pre-mentioned flashbacks, and also the bizarre reveals we begin to realise there's a lot more going on in Paul's life than meets the eye, and from some reason, the events of the night seem to be unfolding around the mysterious secrets of his past. As the intensity of these bizarre incidents is cranked up the viewer begins to feel increasingly unsettled and also engrossed. The slow burning build-up beats every last inch of possible tension out of what is, in all fairness, a very lame script. Slowly Beneath The Dark appears to be building to something magnificent, and then boom, the end has happened. Where was our sensational denouement? Nowhere to be seen. In a finish that's likely to leave more questions than answers, and not in the good David Lynchian way, the viewer is left feeling somewhat ripped off. You put up with the bad acting and poor dialogue for what appears to be an interesting plot and quite decent direction to be left feeling somewhat dumbfounded as to how the writer felt that to be an acceptable finish to the movie. Beneath The Dark as a result, appears to be a case of a writer biting off more than he can chew, but with some very blatant signs of potential for the future. All in all I give it 6/10.

aw1435 Since the majority of the critiques are ignorant of the truth I'm just going to spell this out for you. The film is a re-vamp of Albert Camus' short story The Guest. It's an existentialist piece... if you don't appreciate either the writer or the movement then this isn't for you. I loved both and thought it was well executed. The soundtrack was great to boot. I'll eventually try to add that on here as it's a shame it's not already done.It's only when the prisoner is set free with the choice to make on his own that he suddenly finds peace with his solitude & meaning in a life where he too has freedom of choice, "In this vast landscape he had loved so much, he was alone". It's here we see three of the pillars of Camus' point –liberty, justice and happiness. Furthermore, Camus makes the prisoner a "Guest" to represent his assertions of brotherhood --the fourth pillar; "Men who share the same rooms, soldiers or prisoners, develop a strange alliance". This best illustrates that each person is alone in exile but sharing the planet with each other & in doing so makes us each alike in that regard. It comes across as a statement of liminality, like we are alone but with each other.Liminality is an anthropological term used to describe political and cultural change as well as rituals. During liminal periods of all kinds, social hierarchies may be reversed or temporarily dissolved, continuity of tradition may become uncertain, and future outcomes once taken for granted may be thrown into doubt. ...tell me it's a spelling mistake :P