Best movie ever!

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Arriving at a strange Turkish town, a group of friends attempt to play a game taught to them by a hitchhiker which soon turns deadly when they begin disappearing one-by-one and must find the reason why they're being targeted and get out alive.This one wasn't all that bad and had some good parts about it. Among the better parts here is the fact that there's some rather enjoyable times to come from it's atmosphere and surroundings that this one really plays with which makes for a wholly enjoyable time here. Playing this inside the kind of decrepit, crumbling open-air castle- grounds that this one does gives it the absolutely perfect old-world air of neglect and disuse which is absolutely amazing at generating the suspense of the situation simply with the kind of foreign atmosphere that's required here. In turn, when this one turns over into a stylish thriller about the group being targeted and then finding out there's a savage killer haunting the area it lets this one get even creepier with the early set-ups here with the video- camera and the pictures showing something happened there makes it seem like an even creepier place here which really gets worked over nicely with the different slasher film sequences that come up. From the discovery of the bodies strewn over the location and the different scenes of them being held captive in the different settings within makes for a great time here that gives this a really enjoyable touch that coincides nicely with their growing hysteria and general confusion over what's happening there which manages to give this a rather fun and enjoyable time. There's some flaws here, mainly in the fact that this one doesn't really get to the slashing until way too late into the film. This one manages to go until nearly an hour mark before it starts in on the different slashing that occurs within here, fixating mostly on the dull interactions of the group with their petty and bland fixations here from the father not trusting the hitchhiker around his daughter, the main couple arguing over their travel plans and how everyone's dealing with the cramped location that all hold the film's killer down from appearing earlier which is quite a struggle to get through. These are more problematic in the sense that they come off rather lethargic and slow-going rather than the film's centerpiece scene where they confront each other over who's the potential killer within them which is filled with utterly unappealing moments that don't mean anything and makes it so hard to care as they all turn on each other over flimsy means. Lastly, once the killer is revealed and the motivation given, it makes no sense as there's no build-up or real rationale throughout here which tends to make it seem all the more troubling than it really is and could've used some fleshing out than what's given here. Otherwise this one here wasn't all that bad.Rated R: Violence, Graphic Language and sexual themes.

I'm sorry, but Murder in the Dark doesn't deserve to be, in the '8 films to die for' in 2015. Maybe if the movie was based on the 1983 collection of short fiction by Canadian author Margaret Atwood; which had 27 pieces of writing, ranging in variety of styles, including fictionalized autobiography, parables, travel stories, satires and prose poems. I would see it! After all, all of those stories, are held together through their major themes of loss, menace and terror, and men's abuse of power. Now, that would be something to die for! In the end, the annual horror film festival got it wrong, by adding this film. This is by far, the weakest of the eight independent horror movies that debut at After Dark Horrorfest 2015. Originally released in 2013 and directed by Dagen Merrill, Murder in the Dark tells the story of a group of young international med students camping in the ruins of a medieval Turkish town for some odd reason to play the party game "Murder in the Dark". Only to find out that, someone is taking the game, way too seriously, as one by one, each member of the team are killed off. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, the movie's parlor game concept isn't the focus of the film, like the title makes it out to be. Not only does, very little murder happen in the dark, but the movie doesn't even capitalize on the gimmick of the game, besides the order of people getting killed. There isn't any variations! No vampires! No Froggy Murder! No Lonely Ghost! No anything! The parlor game part of the film is really disappointing. It doesn't help that the movie was filmed with a very low budget. The cheapness of the film, clearly shows in the fake looking blood, lame deaths and lack of sets. Although the film is set in Turkey, it was actually filmed in an old abandoned medieval town of Craco, Italy without permission. Because of this, the production for this film, was often stop, due to protest from the nearby town. Its shows, how limited, their time was, at the town. As most of the night shots, were filmed, elsewhere. While, it's cool to see them, camping in an old abandoned medieval town of Craco and I was in awe of the beautiful magnificent place, they shot in. It still doesn't make sense for the characters to be there. The town wasn't abandoned due to medical reasons. So why are they even there? They're not Archaeologists or Historians. So, what's the appeal? Also, how did the killer's hide out, not get detected by any of the students. Wouldn't all the medical supplies, be a big hint that something isn't right? Another question, the audience members, might be asking in this film, is how the killer could be in so many places so quickly. The twist toward the end, also doesn't add up. His premise in the film is still confusing even after they expose who he is. I really don't get, what he's trying to accomplish, by being a street surgeon. They show that he killed, a previous group of campers. Are we really supposed to believe that everybody in that group and this group has organs that are compatible with each other and happen to be in the medical field? How unrealistic convenient! Anyways, I have to say, the group of actors in this movie were mediocre, at best. I really couldn't understand, some of the things, they're trying to say, under their think Australian, Indian, Russian and South African accents. It doesn't help that the actors for this film, weren't allowed to see the script, in order, to bring a more honest reaction. The fact that the actors improvised much of the dialogue, shows how lazy, and not well-plan out this film was. The love story between Taylor (Mary Kate Wiles), the daughter of group leader Matthew (Phil Austin) and Australian hitchhiker Kevin (Luke Arnold) really comes out of nowhere. A few times when the characters were yelling with each other, I was left a little bit perplexed about the reasoning, why they were. Again, this is the nature of having to improvise and come up with dialogue on the fly without the support of a thought-out script. This choice by them, really backfired on the filmmakers, as it makes the characters look very dumbfounded for people that supposed to medical students. It was very annoying. It also doesn't help that all the characters are not that unlikeable. All of the yelling by them, made it frustrating to watch. I had to turn it off, several times, because of that. One other thing, that didn't look right in this film, is the camera work. Everything looks so generic. It never capture how beautiful, the city is. Some scenes are way too pitch dark to tell, what's going on, while others are way too shaky or out of focus. I wish the movie use more framing, lighting and properly capture a shot, because the city of Craco deserves better. Overall: Though, Murder in the Dark means well, its approach is not good. It's too clichés to stand out. I admire the intrepid spirit it took to make this movie, but this isn't a movie, I would rewatch, anything soon.

...a fresh take on the now, very stale genre of horror!I know there seem to be many who do not at all believe the "gimmick" that's used in the movie, "Murder in the Dark". I specifically use the word "gimmick" due to that being the most common of the negative descriptors used by critics in speaking of what this set of writers/directors bravely, dared to use in making this little horror flick.I. personally, DO believe that this crew/cast actually did try this daring feat of something totally new, and unheard of in the making of ANY movie, much less a genre piece of horror. I absolutely believe that these actors/actresses were led in blind and thereby forced to rely on their own gut feelings, and intuition, on how to proceed forward throughout the entire filming of this movie..and for me, the end result was great! It was completely grounded in reality, which allows the viewer to feel the unease, and even somewhat "feel" the fear that naturally arises from the unknown..and IMO, these actors/actresses were every bit in the thick of the thick of "the unknown"..the who?..the what?..the when, and how?..each of the scenes were going to play out?.. as well as deciphering where each of the scenes were going to fit.. what they would mean..and from there what it would "equal" in compiling and piecing together the proverbial puzzle of the "big picture", as a whole, in what would form the cohesive plot of the movie.I dug it, and I very much appreciate the different route this crew/cast dared to take in making this movie.

"Murder in the Dark" is a film about some vacationing friends descending upon a ruin of some sort. During their first overnight stay, they all get a little smashed and decide to play a game called "Murder in the Dark." What's starts off as innocuous fun turns very deadly. I ask anyone who watches this film to be sure to watch until the end. Much is revealed with interviews from the directors, producers, and the actors themselves. The viewer will find out that this "movie" was actually more a play than a film because the actors were NEVER allowed access to the script--if there WAS one. This was an experiment by the directors to allow the actors the chance to make their own movie. The majority of dialogue was improvisation, which amazed me. The dialogue of the cast actually determined who would live and who would die. Perhaps that's why this installment seemed a little fresher than most. I will not give away any further plot points, but I will say an accidental photo reveals what is happening to the cast.The movie is rated "R" for violence and language.