In Darkness (2018) User Reviews

I'm a little confused

[benjaminlauriesmith · 5/10 · 1 June 2018]

I enjoyed the movie right up until the 'dramatic' reveal at the end.

It's a movie that feels like it was written in parts and then everyone took a break and came back to it after a while and no one sat down and read through it again to make sure it all made sense.

It tries very hard to be an intelligent thriller with as it turns out a reveal at the end that I guess was meant to be the big twist.

The problem is that the big twist at the end assuming it was a big twist and reveal is that she is in fact not blind and has been pretending all along which creates A LOT of plot holes in the movie you have just watched.

The other possible explanation is that the traumatic experience that caused her to go blind when she was a kid was reversed by the traumatic experience that she suffers at the end of the movie BUT the BIG problem is the movie does not explain either; in fact in a series of flashbacks it hints at she may have been able to see all along but that creates HUGE plot holes in the movie. For example why she simply didn't stop 'pretending' to be blind for ten seconds and slip the poison into the bad guys drink as she had planned before she dropped the vial.

Its one of these movies that could have been a great movie but it loses its way somewhere along the telling of the story and then just leaves you feeling confused and asking what was that all about at the end of the movie rather than the intended feeling of satisfaction that she 'won' the movie plot and how clever she was to pull off that deception

Something a little off when Engulfed "In Darkness"

[jtncsmistad · 5/10 · 30 December 2018]

Natalie Dormer ("Game of Thrones") is fine as a blind pianist with a tortured past. The script she co-wrote with Director Anthony Byrne is thoughtful and delivers ample twists and turns. And the sound editing amplifying a sightless aural experience is first-rate on behalf of a talented team headed by veteran pro Harald Ansorge.

This established, I came way from "In Darkness" strangely less than satisfied. The pace never felt quite right. At least for me it didn't match the inherent volatility of the story being presented.

And I'm still in the dark as to why.

questionable twists

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 2 June 2018]

Sofia (Natalie Dormer) is a blind concert pianist in London. She agrees to play for the father of her upstairs neighbor Veronique (Emily Ratajkowski). Veronique falls to her death under suspicious circumstances. It's connected to her war criminal father from Bonsia. There are people after him and Sofia is hiding a secret herself.

It's not the first movie with a blind woman who witnessed a crime. This one takes on some convoluted twists. I question the logic of the big twist. The turns don't really surprise but rather exasperates. Natalie Dormer is a great actress but this doesn't really work. The twists need to be better supported. This movie needs some simplifying.

A Smart Thriller With A Bad Ending

[TheAnimalMother · 7/10 · 13 May 2020]

Sort of hard to believe this film is rated a 5.8 on here right now. Though I would agree that it definitely is flawed, it also has many great aspects to it. It's a worthy effort and a worthy watch if you like smart thrillers. Mostly it is a smart thriller, but it eventually goes just a little too far to be a great film, but to me it was definitely good. I strongly dislike the major twist at the end, it was so unneeded and just flat out didn't fit the film. Otherwise though, it's quite interesting with some very unique aspects for an American film. 7/10

Poor conclusion but still a gripping nail biter

[garygwilliams · 7/10 · 1 June 2018]

I love Natalie Dormer's classic beauty as it has an underlying strength to it. I loved her in Game of Thrones and The Tudors but she really gets the spotlight in this engaging thriller. The problem is the ending seems like is should have been the sequel. In Hockey, they saying goes "Play for 60 minutes", Anthony Byrne was up 5-0 going into the 3rd and lost 6-5 in overtime. By trying to make the ending too twisty, he loses all of the momentum he had so carefully and effectively constructed. This could have been a classic with a bit more modern action and more pathos in the back story especially towards the end. Anthony's TV background shows and not in a good way.

Would have been a good movie if...

[elizrug · 4/10 · 28 May 2018]

...it had made sense. The story was too convoluted. None of the three of us ever understood what Alex, Marc and Veronique had to do with any of it, nor why Radic hated Veronique. Plus, the sex scene was completely unnecessary and seemed to be there for Natalie Dormer to show off.

The Movie Explained... Massive Spoilers

[Mehki_Girl · 6/10 · 17 October 2018]

Read this only after you've watched the movie and are thinking, what the heck???

First clue: she couldn't hear the announcement on the train.

Second: She watched the news on TV when buying coffee.

Third: She looks at herself in the mirror. Yeah, she really is, in hindsight.

Fourth: She knows Veronica and moved downstairs to follow what's going on. She heard what happened because she didn't have her earphones on and was listening. Not clear she saw her fall past the window. Her hearing isn't super sharp.

Fifth: when the cop turns around and looks to the back of the room, she looks, too.

Sixth: She moves her eyes with purpose at times. They are clear and she doesn't have any of the involuntary movement normally seen.

Seventh: she glances around when the brother saves her through the streets.

Goes on and on.

There are huge plotholes around the devices they used.

The inconsistent plothole devices, some explained:

She continued her role even at home the better to play her role in public, plus you never who's watching ever. That's why she doesn't look down at Veronica's body. A neighbor could notice if she does.

The Serb dude is a bad guy and killed her family. He's running guns through his fake charity. Veronica and the brother and sister team want to bring him down. They want the info that Veronica had. She wants him dead because he killed her Bosnian family.

Questions. Some possible answers: If the brother and Veronica were lovers and working together, why is she acting afraid and kills herself (I believe she did based in the sound of only her footsteps)? Maybe she thought the boyfriend turned on her? Would kill her?

The protagonist has nerves of steel. She knows the brother is in the apartment. She doesn't break her role.

Inconsistancies: Why when talking to the sister at the party, the brother says he hopes the bad guy didn't kill Veronica if he knew she was pregnant? If the bad guy kill her. Did he lie when he said Veronica killed herself???

Why did the protagonist continue the role when she dropped the bottle? All she had to do was knock over her glass and palm the bottle. Or glance down. Because her back was turned, she wouldn't know if they glanced over. If she dropped something like an earring and started groping for it he might come over to help.

Why continue the act while fighting the bad guy in the end? Wouldn't it be a cherry on top to the revenge?

Is the street guy in on it? Probably not. Just did a favor giving the brother a scarf.

The cop realizes that in the station she saw the pic of the brother, so he knew the truth.

One puzzle, everything can't be logically explained. So one may think, was it hysterical? Did she really suddenly realize who the brother was? Well, no, because the flashbacks shows and looked at him at the party. She might not have clearly seen him from elevator, which was lit and he was in darkness. But she didn't she know he was one and the same when he said he was in the apartment with Veronica??? Why wasn't there a police guard on her in the hospital? Why not just walk out of the hospital? If security cameras are checked, it would expose the secret.

The movie was good with holding you. And if they kept it straightforward or else consistent throughout, then the reveal would have been cool.

Too complicated for its own good

[jtindahouse · 5/10 · 1 June 2018]

Sometimes when actors play a part in writing a movie that they know they will be acting in they spend too much time trying to give their character room to flourish and not enough time on making the rest of the film sustainable. I think that is a little bit of what happened here. Lead actress Natalie Dormer co-wrote the movie with her husband (who also directed the film) and it has to be said she turns in a very impressive performance as a blind woman. The rest of the movie though leaves a lot to be desired.

The biggest problem is has is that it's over-complicated. Many previous films have fallen into the trap of over-complication and it has almost always harmed them. Unless you are Christopher Nolan who seems to be able to simplify even the most complex of storylines, you really shouldn't try too hard in that respect. 'Ocean's Twelve' was a prime example of that. It got so complicated that it was no longer fun. 'In Darkness' is very similar. You're working so hard to keep up with everything that you're never actually able to just sit back and enjoy yourself.

The movie is made with some nice style and I liked the amount of ambition that went into it. It wasn't done on the cheap and nasty, that's for sure. Unfortunately though it just didn't really work for me. It tried to have some "knock your socks off" moments but none of them really landed and the end result was a pretty forgettable film.

What a mess

[VoyagerMN1986 · 12 July 2018]

No British thriller can be done without the most absurd, ham-handed and obvious conspiracy thrown in. I won't spoil the "twist" at the end other than to say it is childish.

I Like It

[Tweetienator · 7/10 · 14 April 2019]

Rock solid little thriller with a great Natalie Dormer playing a blind pianist. In Darkness does not play in the top league of the genre, nevertheless, it is an entertaining one delivering some suspense and twists.

Last note: I don't agree with all those critics regarding the complexity or comprehensibility of the story - 1st watching In Darkness, I got it, and I don't consider myself a genius (but I'm working on it).

What a silly ending!

[jeanbal54800 · 5/10 · 24 June 2018]

At the beginning, In Darkness plays like a good thriller centered on a blind musician who witnesses an horrible crime (with her ears) and then lives in a permanent paranoïa. Natalie acts - reasonnably - well. The director knows his jobs. Fine. And then things begin to unravel. Deeply. The plot turns to farce. Useless violent scenes are followed by useless dialogues. Just an example: would you torture a woman in van driving on a road, after kidnapping in a crowded street? Would you do that or, first, ask to give you what you want? Non, overkill, of course. Don't you think you could have met your victim, at night, in her appartment, without risking to be arrested by the police? Oh my... And that is far from being the sole inconsistency of this mediocre scenario. The worst being the so called BIG FINAL TWIST (Night Shyamala get out of this picture!) Silly. Meaningless. Laughable. You're left exhausted and bewildered by a big big mess. The scanrio has been co-written by Miss Dormer, and I guess she has managed to have some big melodramatic scenes, like actors competing for the Academy Awards like to play. Well, when a melodramatic scene makes no sense whatsoever and destroys the credibility of your character, you could do better without. Why a "5" note? Because of the photography, the level of acting and the idea at the start. I would give a much lower note to the script alone.

Decent thriller with a nice lil twist, the sex scene n nudity was required....

[Fella_shibby · 8/10 · 24 November 2018]

Dormer's earlier film The Forest was boring n lousy but in this film she gave a good performance. I liked this film's suspense n story. This movie will keep u glued till the end. The sex scene was necessary to establish the connection between the characters n the nudity to show off the tattoos.

Uneven thriller with some good things about it

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 1 July 2018]

A blind pianist is the only witness to the murder of her upstairs neighbour. The killing seems to be connected to a Serbian war criminal who is the father of the dead girl.

This movie started off quite strongly as a tense psychological thriller but about half-way in, it took a bit of a sudden change of direction into spy film territory. It was at this point that I felt it started to lose steam somewhat. Part of this is simply down to my personal view that spy films tend to be exposition-driven and a little tedious, whereas psychological thrillers by contrast offer up more intrigue while being a lot less routine. So, this change of direction, while unpredictable, was not to an overall benefit to the movie as a whole I thought. Character motivations also were somewhat unclear at times too, and it did feel that the script could have been re-worked to some extent. It was still an enjoyable enough thriller however, with some suspenseful scenes and an interesting central character. Although, it has to be said that the big reveal in the finale was a bit bonkers and throws up a few questions given what we have seen before. I am sort of quite forgiving of thrillers throwing in far-fetched stuff like this though which can be kind of fun and it did get me discussing the movie afterwards at length which led me to deciding to add an extra star rating to it for this reason alone. My concerns for the film were less to do with unrealistic plot developments though and more to do with tired spy film tropes. The result is a film which is a bit uneven. But it is one which still is a good enough watch if you like thrillers.

Ridiculous script, sluggish pacing, dark obtuse direction

[msghall · 3/10 · 7 November 2019]

I gave up on this when the blind protagonist, after a murder of her neighbor and someone prowling in her apartment, goes for a walk at night in a rough neighborhood alone. And that's only one example of a script that makes us out to be idiots. Just silly.

A one -time watch movie

[damgadmansour · 6/10 · 14 October 2018]

Good but not outstanding.its plot is weak and not completely connected

a different plot twist besides the obvious?

[manojoe · 7/10 · 23 July 2018]

I believe everyone expected she wasn´t really blind, but get conformed she in fact was, when you get the revelation she isn´t, that is not the twist anymore, the twist is she's actually the sister, or im wrong?

what a mess

[davish_wulf-1 · 2/10 · 27 May 2018]

Movie kept me interested until about a third, then the plot holes start to appear, one after another, repeated scenes over and over again, repeated dialogues and gets worse and worse until the end. Fish-eyed posture of Dormer worked well in terms of acting, the rest of the actors were completelly passable and lacked charisma, specially the "big boss". The plot holes are huge but nothing surpases the predictable huge plot hole in the end, you will see what I mean and stop reading now if you don't want a predictable spoiler.



How the hell, during a fight with the person that you wanted dead for the past 20+ years, you are still pretending to be a blind person?

Shame on you script-writes, at least put some logic in what you write. How Natalie Dormer accepted to be on this utterly homage to boredom and child-script escapes me.

Terrible effort, not worth my time.

Why...

[VeganVag · 6/10 · 8 December 2018]

...would directors drop the ball when it came to the lead actress in this pretty good suspence film, where 2/3 down the field someone fumbled the ball.

I just don't get it, how it appears directors and or script writers are more robotic than human when it comes to simple logic. It could have something to do with narcissm.

Maybe all directors and writers should have prerequisite to learn how to play football, so they get an upclose sensation on how it feels to drop a football vs making a touchdown. lol!

Guess I am not the only one confused....

[sugarnspices · 4/10 · 17 October 2018]

Judging by the other comments and reviews on this page, everyone else is confused and disappointed by the "twist" and "turns" throughout the movie.

Firstly, I am not very familiar with the actress that played the main girl. I think I am one of the very few who never watched GOT or The Tudors, with that being said, I think she did an OK job. Wasn't a phenomenal actress, but she wasn't wooden or horrible either. I would say just kind of...dull?

Real Spoilers Below:

I knew from one of her first flash backs when I saw 2 little girls hiding in the closet, that she wouldn't actually be blind and take the one kid who died (who was actually blind) spot. (Also figured that kid died considering they also show in her flashback she is the only one being carried away.) I paid very close attention to see if she ever gave off any clues she wasn't actually blind. As far as I could tell, although me not actually being blind and all, she didn't ever slip up or give up the notion, even while not being watched at all, that she did have sight. Like when slipping the poison into the bad guys drink, why not just break character for 10 seconds to complete your "24 year" old mission?? There's a difference between tricking the audience and misleading the audience.

I am not a history buff and don't know tons about the Bosnian War, but why did the bad guy come and blow away her whole family? Also, did he know that it was his supposed daughter and the woman he raped? Was that why he killed them? Or was it random?

Who was the old man that coughed non-stop and the one that took her away in her flashback? Is that her father? How did the bad guy know that some woman he raped ever had a kid that was blind? Did he follow up on her? Did he love/know her? But also, how do you end up being raped 2 times by the same person randomly? He had to of "known" her? So his real daughter is the one that died in the shooting in her flashback.

One final thing about who was who's daughter. So the woman upstairs that is murdered, bad guys daughter...did our main girl know this before moving in? Or did it just so happen she moved in below her? I am assuming she knew which is why she was so new to the building and had been stalking/wanting to kill the bad guy since she was a small child?

Also, did the identity she stole, was that right after the coughing old guy saved her? Or did she do that recently to better help stalk the bad guy?

What was up with the brother sister combo? Why was the sister hated by the bad guy towards the end? Wasn't she one of his minions throughout? Why did our main girl and this guy act madly in love after only knowing each other, what seemed to be a few days? Did they try to solidify that by the sex scene?

This movie, I think, could have been fairly good, had they not left so many things unanswered and plot holes. Also, I need a drink.....

Overall Good But A Few Issues

[larsenkandys · 6/10 · 3 July 2022]

Overall I enjoyed this movie. However, the plot twist didn't hold up. SPOILERS AHEAD

I think the whole twist was it was her SISTER who was blind, not her. Then she took on her sisters blind persona after the massacre of her family. The biggest reason the reveal at the end didn't work for me was because of the scene where she drops the poison, if she had actually been able to see, she would have picked it up and used it immediately rather than give up her opportunity to kill him. I also don't like that we never find out what was really on the USB when it was a fairly big part of the storyline. The quality of the film and the acting was good but the storyline itself needed some tweaking.

Too many twists degrade the film

[byron-116 · 3/10 · 27 May 2018]

Too many twists to an otherwise watchable movie. However, why oh why so many twists to the story???

Quite an excellent thriller...

[kevcoe · 8/10 · 25 May 2018]

Just watched it. It really is a rather good film. Well acted, well written and with a couple of twists that you might not see coming. I'm a huge fan of Natalie Dormer and she's just terrific here. I don't want to say anymore because I don't want to post any spoilers, but if you fancy watching a tight and exciting UK thriller, I doubt you'll be disappointed. Give it a shot, eh?

That was Croatian-Serbian language?!?!?

[iwanameca · 7/10 · 26 November 2018]

Ok,my english is not best,i watched this movie on German language,but when they talked Croatian-Serbian language (i'm from Croatia) i was sure they speak russian..then i reapeted that scene like 10 times to understand what they talk on my own language...Germans didnt translate this scene,that was their voices..nobody talks like that 😂 words are ok,but so bad how they say it 😂 i know is a verry dificult language,but if is not correct,better leave it ...

Poorly developed, confusing plot line spoiled the movie for me

[joandoyle-91721 · 3/10 · 26 August 2018]

The acting was excellent but the plot was confusing from start to finish. Maybe some movie watchers don't mind if a movie doesn't make sense, as long as it keeps your interest, but I strongly object to a movie ending where I don't understand the answers to all my questions. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. I hung in there hoping it would all eventually make sense but it did not! Very disappointing!

Even when you lie, you tell the truth.

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 5 June 2018]

Sofia (Natalie Dormer) is a blind pianist. She plays horror movie soundtracks and is capable of navigating herself through London with just a stick. When Blackhart Garden's neighbor Veronique (Emily Ratajkowski) falls from a window, the plot complexity picks up with numerous twists involving the police and Serbian war criminals.

It was a fairly good drama. Not one you will remember a month from now. Dormer gives a good performance.

Guide: No swearing as I recall. Sex and nudity (Emily Ratajkowski, Natalie Dormer)