Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

thehandofguido 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.

AleaClint When I first heard about this movie, and the fact that it was released straight to video, I was not optimistic. Then I noticed that Lance Henriksen was in it, and that Bill Moseley was joining the cast. Definitely it is not supposed to be a masterpiece, but there are some good points in the movie like the demonstration of how somebody who fights against evil becomes evil himself. The acting was fine and the plot was decent, although the CGI wasn't anything special but it was okay, believe me there are far worse examples of of CGI animation out there. This movie may not win any awards but it was definitely worth watching.There's really not a lot of gore here, and no sex whatsoever. The ever-brilliant Lance Henrikson (the man with THE coolest voice in the world) turns in a great performance as disenchanted old witch hunter. The plot prefers to turn slowly into a gnarled tale of battling with an inner demon.

ajohan-1 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.

Aka_Who 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.