Alone in the Dark 2 (2008 Video) User Reviews

It was even worse the its predecessor...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 9 June 2018]

Okay. Well, while the first "Alone in the Dark" movie, you know, the one with Christian Slater and Tara Reid, was hardly a masterpiece, then I had expected the sequel to at least be equally 'good', if not better.

That was not the case.

"Alone in the Dark II" was even less interesting in story and plot than its predecessor, however unlikely that was. But alas, it was.

I will say that they had an interesting cast, which included Bill Moseley and Lance Henriksen! Two of the more iconic names and faces in the horror genre. But even their appearances did little to lift up the train wreck that is known as "Alone in the Dark II".

It should be said, though, that the movie had rather good special effects, which at least added some element of enjoyment to it.

The evil force that was supposed to be threatening the world in the movie, was just simply not interesting enough to even present anything even remotely worthwhile to the story.

"Alone in the Dark II" is simply just not worth it. And if you are a fan of the game franchise, do yourself an immense favor and stay well clear of this one.

Rubbishy sequel with cameoing stars and bad effects

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 7 November 2015]

Uwe Boll's original video game adaptation of ALONE IN THE DARK was bad enough, but this sequel reaches new levels of low. Gone are Christian Slater and Tara Reid from the original film, jettisoned in favour of an entirely cheaper cast and an even more nonsensical storyline involving the hunt for a magical dagger and an evil witch.

Bizarrely, the central character of Edward Carnby has changed race, now being played by the Chinese-American actor Rick Yune. Carnby's very soul is in peril thanks to a sinister infection that causes some dodgy-looking veins to stick out of his chest, so a crack team must infiltrate a haunted manor and lay to rest the spirit of an evil witch who's causing all kinds of trouble.

This is a poorly-directed, poorly-written mess through and through, reliant on sub-par CGI and bad acting from beginning to end. All it can offer the viewer is a string of celebrity cameos from various personalities, so we get the likes of Bill Moseley, Jason Connery, former CONAN Ralf Moeller, and CARRIE's P.J. Soles. Even Danny Trejo shows up for just a single scene. Best of the lot is Lance Henriksen, who bags something of a meatier exposition-spouting role, but even he's on autopilot, and nothing about ALONE IN THE DARK 2 is good.

What we have all been waiting for....

[Aka_Who · 2/10 · 6 May 2009]

Because, you know...Alone in the Dark 1 was such a great film and all. Was it really necessary to make an even worse sequel to an already horrible film? This one is shockingly good at being completely worthless. The special effects were a complete mess. The acting was very hit or miss (some did a fairly decent job however it's not worth sticking up for them as they agreed to work on this filth). The story is all over the place. I've never seen a movie that felt like those involved realized nothing good was going to come of it so they just gave up and threw together what had been done and submitted it as a finished product. Now I have.

Makes for good entertainment, if you walk in with low-expectations

[freddyjoyce · 1 October 2008]

With a DVD follow-up of the original "Alone in the Dark" movie, my prejudgment whispered in my ear that this will be just another worthless follower. Actually, it wasn't that bad. The film had a much smaller budget than the original, but you could probably guess that since this was a straight to video movie. The cast is great and fun to watch. OK, this film is never going to win an Oscar. It takes itself to seriously, the effects are occasionally ropey (but good considering the budget) and the acting is not always up to De Nero's standard. But this is a great B movie. The cinematography is actually quite good considering the shooting time and the lighting in extremely good.

An absolute mess of a film, makes the original look like a masterpiece.

[poolandrews · 1/10 · 8 July 2010]

Alone in the Dark II starts as paranormal detective Edward Carnby (Rick Yune) helps some guy into a hospital morgue, in return the guy is going to give Carnby an ancient cursed dagger. During a scuffle with some Witch hunters Carnby is stabbed with the dagger & gets infected with 'lines' & has dreams & visions of a woman named Elisabeth Dexter (Allison Lange) being scarified with said dagger during a supernatural ceremony. Now Elisabeth is back as an evil ghost Witch who kills anyone who has become infected with the 'lines' & Elisabeth also wants to possess her ancestor Natalie Dexter (Rachel Spector) who along with her worried father (Bill Moseley) form half the Witch hunting team. The Witch hunters believe that by finding Elisabeth's remains she can be laid to rest for good & that Carnby's visions hold to key to where Elisabeth is buried but the evil ghost Witch tries to kill them all before they get to her remains...

Written & directed by the duo of Michael Roesch & Peter Scheerer this is the direct to video sequel to Alone in the Dark (2005) which itself was based on a video game of the same name although had very little to do with the video game besides featuring lead character Edward Carnby & Alone in the Dark II has nothing to do with the game either but also has nothing to do with the original Alone in the Dark beside the returning character of Edward Carnby. Got that? Good. Alone in the Dark II is a spectacularly bad film on all levels, from the incomprehensible script to the cheap production values to a wasted cast of veterans who deserve to be in better films than Alone in the Dark II. The script is a mess from start to finish, there's so much supernatural nonsense that the makers keep bombarding the audience with that it becomes hard to keep up. By the time the end came & Carnby was holding that birds head in a wooden barrel with light shooting out I was thinking just who the hell did the film end up at this point? From things like a disintegrating dagger (that never does disintegrate at all) to an infection that causes'lines' on a person body that move for some reason to the ability of the Witch to track the infected to moving foundations of laboratories to character's firing machine guns at the ghost even though bullets don't do anything at all to people trying to look scared in a wire fenced cage to a guy who has kidnapped Carnby leaving his gun next to where Carnby is sleeping to a trap filled laboratory where all the answers to the traps are written on a piece of paper in plain sight to a senseless twist ending in which the Witch wanted the events that happened to happen exactly the way that they did & a climax where to bring his girlfriend back from the dead Carnby has to stab her in the chest with a dagger. At 80 odd minutes long I was throughly bored, it tries to be a mystery but each new part of the puzzle the script gives us just confuses things even more & the script ends up being a complete mess of character's talking supernatural rubbish that means nothing & trying to look serious &/or scared at the appropriate time.

There isn't even any decent horror scenes here, to get a kiddie friendly PG rating there's no blood or gore apart from a leg wound & a dead body. The CGI computer effects are OK but a swirling mass of lines that merge to form a CGI Witch just doesn't look that impressive. There's no real build-up or tension or atmosphere, the whole film is quite bright & just looks like no-one involved tried that hard. Surely fans of the video game series & film fans in general won't be happy with this senseless & confused supernatural ghost story that lacks logic, scares & any sort of gore.

The IMDb says this had a budget of about $4,600,000 which I find hard to believe, surely it was a lot less than that? Where did all the money go? Sure it's competently made but totally uninvolving & bland. Apparently shot in California & New York. There's a good cast here with the likes of Lance Henriksen, Danny Trejo, Bill Moseley & Jason Connery but the material is awful & they are slumming it here.

Alone in the Dark II is an awful fantasy horror thriller that is a total mess from start to finish with a senseless script that tries to do too much. No real horror thanks to the PG rating, several well liked stars wasted & a really boredom to the whole affair I would say that the original Alone in the Dark is far better than this.

incredibly poor film-making

[capcanuk · 1/10 · 31 July 2010]

Now THIS film should be tossed onto the dung heap of "worst films ever made". The anti Uwe Boll brigade obviously want to rub it in by giving this film a higher rating than its predecessor. Why the first AitD gets such a poor rating, while this one gets almost double is completely beyond me. In this film the story makes absolutely no sense. The actors are dreadful. The script is just god awful. The SFX are practically non-existent. I was amused when I saw that Lance Henrikson was in this film... he has this tendency to be in just about every bad movie ever made (he's managed to be in three good/great films so far - Aliens; Powder; Close Encounters of the Third Kind). So seeing his name is sort of a warning bell to me. Now, I actually BOUGHT this DVD after reading so many positive things about it, about how it was far superior to the first AitD, how the effects were so much better, the script, the acting... well, I want my money back. I'm thinking of sending a bill to everyone who posted on IMDb about this film. All that to say: rent it if it's at the video club. Buy it if you ABSOLUTELY must have everything that Lance Henrikson ever played in. Skip it if you really, really thought the first film was "bad"... because honey, this one ain't any better, it's FAR worse.

Alone in the dark....too

[domindubai · 1/10 · 30 March 2009]

I did not know what to do last night, as it was unexpectedly raining in Dubai. I stopped by the Grand Cinemas at the Mercato Mall and for some unknown reason, decided to spend...sorry waste 30 dirhams to see that movie.

Yes, i found myself alone in the dark too ! The only guy in that movie theatre. At first i thought i was early, which actually was the case, then as the movie started, i realized that i was still alone in the dark.

Then after half an hour watching that movie, i did understand why...But never did understand the story of that movie, if any. Anyway, arriving early was also good in itself, as i did at least enjoyed the commercials and movies preview.

But Alone in the Dark 2, was absolutely crap ! Bad acting, with newbie actors staring from time to time at the camera ( Damned ! they told me already it is not a prop ! ), the worst special effects i have ever seen so far, the worst CG, the worst story and i still wonder how they managed to make a sequel.

The veins appearing on that Chinese guy are amazing !!! You can even see the glue to stick them to the skin !!!! 1 (awful) out of 10, but honestly it deserves a 0 or minus something...

Unwatchable

[grandmastersik · 1/10 · 15 April 2010]

I always rate films I turned off as the lowest possible, and with Alone in the Dark 2, I could bear no more after only 35 minutes!

I'm not a harsh judge of films, and I like to give them a chance to improve (hell, I sat through the entirety of the first one), but when the writing is such an absolute mess as this was, I knew already after 10 minutes that it had the go, and had totally given up on it after 20. The next 15 minutes were spent on me trying to use The Force to get the controller from the table.

Hmm, so what's this film all about?

Who cares? No, seriously, if you're curious or dumb enough to give it a go, you'll soon realise that this is a spot-on assessment.

Some people die, there's some CGI mist, meant to be a ghostly witch, a dagger, some kind of infection, some weird racial transformation of the lead from the first film, some boring stuff, some nonsensical stuff... You get the point.

Anyway, my summary above really does sum it all up, but for those who still need further warning: AVOID!

Tittle misleading: never are the characters alone or in the dark.

[ajohan-1 · 4/10 · 5 June 2009]

This movie was bad, but not horrible.

I enjoyed Bill Moseleys performance, because, well he's awesome, but besides that, the movie was pretty shite. Plus they kill his character off pretty early on(Yeah, they kill the one interesting character in the movie less than half way through!!!) The main thing that ticked me off was that the characters made stupid choices that no logical person would think were a good idea. It was established pretty early on in the movie that bullets don't work against ghosts, so why do the the Protagonists fail to realize this, constantly trying to mow down the witchy phantom with machine gun fire?! Its like trying to kill the Blob with a knife, it ain't gonna work folks.

I didn't see the ending because I was watching it online and once I reached 70 min in the movie the website showing it pulled the good ol' you must pay to watch the rest of this movie. I assume the remaining characters all die horribly and in a manner so that an Alone in the Dark 3 can never be made.

Watching this film prompted me to create an IMDb account...

[thehandofguido · 1/10 · 12 April 2010]

because it was so bad. I felt that I could not in good conscience allow many of the other reviews that have showered this travesty of a film in praise stand as the only accounts of the work.

I have been trying to think of a reason that someone would like this movie. I personally have a broad range of interests in film; I am obsessed with a lot of the current and older horror and slasher-type films in addition to blockbusters, documentaries, art films, and so on, but this film lacks appeal to any demographic I can think of. Film snobs obviously will think it sucks, but people who love a good campy horror film will be bored out of their mind as well. I saw shorts and full-lengths at the Philadelphia Terror Film fest last fall that had an eighth of the budget of this film, and they blew it away, so any commentary about the smaller budget Alone in the Dark II had is null and void.

I will cede that the first Alone in the Dark was pretty bad, but that a lot of people liked this film simply because it was not directed by Uwe Boll is beyond me. Perhaps we have traded out the bad from the previous film (actually, everything aside from the name has been taken out of the last film and the games), but what have we gained in return?

In this story, Edward Carnby has somehow transformed from Christian Slater into Rick Yune, whose only relevance to the Alone in the Dark universe seems to be his name. He accidentally gets stabbed by some crazy guy with a magic knife (it looks like a decorative butter knife), An immortal witch stalks Carby in "visions," and some random family and their animal husbanding friend decide to protect him owing to family history. Despite being Carnby's protectors, they threaten to kill him, some generic "captain of the guards" type goon talks tough to him, and everyone generally yells at him at a moderate volume; I've never seen so many people so angry at random things yelling so quietly. Then again, I've not seen many films with acting this bad.

What baffled me most of all about the reviews I read was the acclaim for Bill Moseley. I love a lot of things he has done, but a combination of the worst character and a general lack of enthusiasm made his role one of the least appealing parts of this film. He is constantly angry at the most moronic things (like at Carnby for getting stabbed and being hunted by an immortal witch), and deals with it by speaking loudly in a monotone at everyone.

The bottom line: the plot is stupid and barely justified, the script amateurish, the acting ranging from acceptable to atrocious, and there isn't even enough gore or jumps in the dark to make it fun to laugh at. As others have noted, nobody is alone because they all stand around in bovine-like herds, the sets are rarely very dark, and everyone unloads machine guns into the walls separating them from ephemeral ghost witches. Dumb.

Alone in the what?

[p-krieg · 1/10 · 17 December 2008]

I played the games, and i always thought, that they would be amusing horror movies..long before Dr Boll started to produce all that trash. All of them, every single game calling itself "alone in the dark"..take place at night, and hey..you were a-l-o-n-e...

So what kind of movie have we got here? Without any connection to part one, though there was an open ending with carnby (slater) being attacked by some kind of monster, this new "masterpiece of German wanna-be-movie makers" has nothing, i repeat nothing to do with part one...

what we get is some weird witch story..about a crappy looking knife..and some rotting b- or c-movie actors like ralf -i want to be like arnold- möller. there's no story..believe me, and if there were one you wouldn't like to follow it.

but: there are some amusing elements to be found in alone in the dark: so, slater (poor guy lost all his reputation after his boll engagement)has converted to (wtf?) rick yune..the guy from "die another day" or "fast and the furious"..so why did they take an Asian actor? 90 percent of this pile of **** is shot at daylight..so why do they call it "alone in the dark"?? but for god's sake there's even more things to tell about this disaster..but it would waste your time reading it as it were a waste of time to write it down..

there is no reason to watch "alone in the dark2"..even for trash freaks!

Amazing cast

[theodoremartin · 9/10 · 1 October 2008]

Alone in the Dark is one of my all-time favorite movies (OK, just kidding).

Yeah, this movie isn't perfect, but it's not too bad either. Going in to this movie, I was fully expecting the same complete rubbish that Alone in the Dark was. However, I was fairly surprised. It was by no means perfect, but it wasn't that bad. It seems like a decent movie that was made with a really low budget.

Only thing I don't know is, why is this movie called Alone in the Dark 2? It has not much similarities with the first film.. anyway its a good movie with some great actors :)

Somewhat entertaining

[TdSmth5 · 6/10 · 28 February 2011]

A group of highly armed investigators end up somewhere in park escaping into a restroom. One of them suffers from some condition that makes his veins pop out. They are being chased by some smoke that also materializes into a woman. We find out that she's a witch. Some dagger is of importance, a dagger that has a piece of the witch's heart in it. Some guy ends up witnessing the massacre of this group by the smoke.

Later he's stumbling through New York as he suffers from the same vein-popping condition. He finds an expert in occult matters who perhaps can help him, named Edward. But the investigator ends up infected himself. Another group of investigators comes to their rescue and takes them to the country. This group involves the leader, played by Bill Moseley, his daughter played by the delicious Rachel Specter, Danny Trejo, and the giant Ralf Moeller. They are trying to capture the witch but are somewhat overwhelmed so they seek the help of someone who has faced the witch before, a retired expert in the occult played by Lance Henriksen, who reluctantly agrees to help.

It all turns into a race to kill the with before Edward dies. We learn the witch is after the Rachel's character. In flashbacks we learn that a relative of hers confronted the witch before.

There's a lot of story in this movie that gets somewhat confusing. The dagger is important, the piece of heart in it, the witches heart itself, the flashbacks of Rachel's relatives, and so on. One gets the impression that the story doesn't work out quite well. But we're dealing with witches, ghosts, and the supernatural, so perhaps it's pointless to expect realism and logic. The special effects are very good. The menacing smoke looks very neat. Rachel Specter is so gorgeous, she steals the show. She has a great body, not just skin and bones. And while her acting is iffy, Lance Henriksen's acting makes up for it, and then some. His acting is just superb. This movie has its moments and highlights but also its weaknesses.

Just disappointing...

[jandrika · 3/10 · 19 March 2019]

Oddly enough I was a fan of part 1. It had a good budget and special effects. Part 2 recasts our hero with an Asian actor. okay... You get used to it after a few minutes. This is far below budget from part 1. It really has very little connections to part 1 aside from the main character.

This time around a small group is trying to thwart an ancient Witch (played by Allision Lange) from gaining an enchanted Knife. And coming back into our world... As cheesy as it sounds on paper I was looking forward to it if not for Lange's performance. Sadly she isn't given much to do besides walk around in fog and a glowing light snarling. She is also Played by someone else in flashbacks.

Sadly the plot of an evil Witch actually had potential to be creepy. But the budget (or maybe it's the script) never really goes anywhere aside from the usual group of people stuck in an area cliche. Say what you want about part 1 but at least it was entertaining and had a good budget. Poor Lance Hendrickson and Bill Moseley have been in better films.

If you like lower budget films with not alot of action you may like this. If you are expecting an action packed battle like part 1's second half I would look elsewhere.

Much Better than the First

[Sasha_5 · 1 October 2008]

Didn't hope for much when I sat down to watch this but, as said, it was a better than expected. I found this sequel to be a competent little B-movie in its own right. Expect low budget, but not too bad - i've seen much worse in special effects and overall production. However, on its own terms it's a successful movie. It is much smaller in scale due to the lower budget, and is basically a retreat of the "group of people trapped" formula. There can't be any doubt that the movie could have been made better with more time and money its still however a considerate addition to a storyline with vast potential. The new cast is very good, possibly better than the cast in the first movie. Not the best movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely a keeper.

Abysmal on every conceivable level!

[Jay_Rusty · 1/10 · 8 June 2021]

Bad script, bad acting, bad dialogue, bad effects; really, no redeemable qualities whatsoever. Total & complete waste of time! Avoid at all costs!

Massively disappointing sequel

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 5/10 · 30 January 2014]

After coming upon a mystical dagger, a paranormal enthusiast learns of it's deadly heritage with a vengeful witch and a family curse and tries to help stop the witch from carrying out her evil plans before they come to fruition.

This is an overblown and rather disappointing effort, as this was pretty hard to get into for the majority of the film with him merely suffering from the effects without really developing a sense of fear from what's going on. Though the witch attacks are pretty fun and engaging when they kick in during the final half, the fact that they're so tame and lifeless by the rating restriction really ruins whatever this could've had by not really reveling in what it could've done, which is especially true in the house attack due to the number of fallen during the scene, but the supernatural elements and a nice atmosphere keep it afloat somewhat. While it has a pretty decent mystery unraveling in the middle of the film, this also takes too long and really could've gone by much faster to get to the witch's attacks, which again are fun and pretty much all that works for this one. A pretty big disappointment.

Rated PG-13: Violence and Language.

Sooooo dull. Hard to get through. Makes the first a masterpiece in comparison.

[Jester222 · 1/10 · 24 November 2019]

Those giving this film anything other than 2 or lower need psychiatric help. This has zero to do with Alone in the Dark. It is dreadful. Wooden acting. Pathetic FX and a storyline written by a child. The witch isn't close to being scary or in anyway intimidating.

This film makes the first film a masterpiece in comparison. The first film had some great actionz fights and FX. Actually had so ethi g to do with the game and nice gore.

This was like a bad TV movie.

Why did they all keep shooting at the bad cgi witch when it was clear throughout that bullets had zero effect on her!? B movie actors come into a scene and then go as if some sort of crap cameo. Lance Henrickson tries his best to bring some class to this film. But fails. The two young leads are terrible. Deadpan zzzzzz emotionless wooden college student film level. Not the worst I've seen but certainly down there with them as difficult to get through. This supposedly special uncut edition blu ray will be going to the second hand store asap. I'll stick with the first as apart from Tara Reid it was actually fun and good FX etc.

This turd needs flushing.

A slight improvement

[ericstevenson · 2/10 · 15 June 2017]

I think this in fact better than the original, but it's still an awful movie. The worst thing about it might actually be its strongest point! Not only does this sequel once again have nothing to do with the games, but it has nothing to do with the original movie! Well, that might be a good thing? At least we didn't get to see that awful CGI in this film...as much. There also wasn't any use of that terrible slow motion. That being said, it's still stupid. I mean, you seriously couldn't make a movie based on either the actual source material or the original film? How lame is that?

This movie's plot features characters that are looking for a witch who has a dagger and uh, that's about it. I guess it's not that stupid of a plot, but it's unbelievably dull. This movie wasn't that unpleasant to watch, mostly because there wasn't much going on screen! I found myself relaxing more watching this movie just seeing as how nothing was going on. The acting is still really bad. Like "The Mummy" it looks like there's going to be a big climax but it turns out to be very dull. Don't really expect anything good from an Uwe Boll movie.

I've actually done more research on him and found out that he actually has made a few movies that aren't that bad. Whether he really tried harder or was just mocking us with this is open to interpretation. I couldn't remember any characters' names or even any actors in this movie. I guess I'm glad it wasn't a continuation of the original film. The bar for these movies is so phenomenally low I'm willing to look for any improvement at all. This is still a waste of time and hasn't made Video Game Month any easier for me. *

Best avoid this sequel like Christian Slater

[iandburrell · 2/10 · 4 September 2023]

ALONE IN THE DARK 2

Christian Slater was wise to forego the lead in this sequel to Alone in the Dark. The first film could have been better, and as is often the case, the sequel is worse.

The plot is dull and uninspiring and despite a couple of good actors in the cast, the acting is generally wooden and uninspiring.

I am increasingly confirmed in my conviction that movies based on video games are not a good idea. Strong character development isn't to be seen. At least in the first film there was some, with the explanation of Carnby's background.

My attention wandered and the film increasing became background noise with little to recommend it.

Worse than the previous film

[Elvis-Del-Valle · 4/10 · 21 March 2023]

While the first movie was a poor adaptation, this one sticks closer to the source material, as it revisits the psychological and supernatural horror of video games. Unfortunately as a movie it is quite bad and worse than its predecessor. It has notable actors, since there are some familiar faces. The problem is that this film lacks meaning and incoherence. It's not fully understandable and it's pretty boring. In the case of a film for video, it is not surprising. As much as the first movie wasn't a gem, at least it was entertaining for its action scenes and monsters. This, on the other hand, is a supernatural thriller that, instead of exciting, bores. Alone In The Dark 2 is a lousy sequel that makes the first one look like a good movie. My rating for this movie is 4/10.

Someone should have told them they were in a B-Movie!

[icocleric · 3/10 · 15 June 2022]

So this film was like a B-Movie that didn't know it was a B-Movie. So it's playing everything really straight, and serious when the script is kind of ridiculous.

The special effects are awful, if some of them would have spent time alone in the dark. Then maybe they could have hid some of the bad CGI. They were so bad I was shocked by how late the film is, because the overall quality also seems like it was filmed years ago.

I think if you like terrible films, you might find it a little entertaining. Some moments do seem really over the top, and the music choices are often over dramatic as well. I don't think it was a complete waste of time, but I do wish I would have been drunk with friends whilst watching it.

Not Bad For A Straight To DVD Release

[Drew48 · 9/10 · 1 October 2008]

I just can't believe that a sequel to an absolute rubbish film would turn out to be good. After watching the first crappy ALONE IN TE DARK I thought this one will also be the same, I rented it because I couldn't find another movie that looks good. Uwe Boll did not direct it so I was saying to myself "It shouldn't be bad as the first one".

The film was better than I expected. The story has a good pace with plenty of "plot" and action through-out the movie, and the acting was surprisingly good. And with that I mean that some of the actors were actually really good and the others decent! So don't expect a perfect movie.

Has Its Moments

[Melanie82-1 · 7/10 · 8 September 2009]

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY MADE A 2nd FILM until I seen it on the supermarket shelf... Plotwise it actually has one. And one that is reasonably well fleshed out. Characters are given good reasons for their actions and are developed quite well, given the constraints of the budget. The effects, though looking a little poor in some scenes, never dominate the movie anyhow and are there purely to further the story. Acting-wise, there are a few less than stellar performances and when you can say, with complete certainty that Lance Henriksen gives the most convincing performance of the cast. The fact is, I never expect much with sequels so I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it is not the best movie I've ever seen, it is no slouch and far better than the last horror movie I saw, Boogeyman. No comparison whatsoever.

incoherent rubbish

[cartza · 3/10 · 22 October 2008]

Are you people serious? Reading other people's reviews of this movie, i couldn't believe majority enjoyed this movie, despite it's low rating (or as it would seem). While not everything about this film is a loss, majority of it is. On a positive note, the visual effects are quite good however due to the small budget they were used sparingly. Also, Lance Henrikson did the best he could with this Cleveland steamer of a film. Rick Yune is more wooden than a tree with no charisma at all. Ralf Moeller has fallen very far from his great performance in Gladiator and Rachel Specter is just plain bad. B movie regulars Michael Pare, Natassia Malthe and Danny Trejo all have very limited screen time in this flick too. The film is all over the place, making one wonder if they had missed some important information in a previous scene, but you don't. The new info appears out of nowhere. At no point was i even startled by the "witch". This i blame on the directors, as very little tension or atmosphere was created for action scenes. This film just plods along, quite slowly in fact. I was glad to see it end at 80 minutes. Dare i say it, I enjoyed number one much better. Shoot me now, for i just said i liked a Uwe Boll film!