Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

jacobjohntaylor1 I did not like the first movie of Alone in the dark. But I really like this movie. I do not why it got a 3.4. It one the horror movie I have seen. I give it 10. I had nothing to do the first movie of Alone it the dark. Which is probably why it is a good movie. Do not see the first movie of Alone in the dark. Just see this movie. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is scarier then The Shining and that is not easy to do. Rcik Yune is a great actor. Rachel Specter is a great actress. This is a great horror film. If you want to see a really scary movie you should see this movie.

doric-longhair Okay so I tried to watch both films back to back, thinking I'd enjoy them given I've liked so far of what I have played of the first game. Now I disagree with most people on that I did enjoy the first film a lot, though it had cheesy moments like that scene with Seven Seconds Away playing over what was happening, so not the song to be playing during one of those moments let me tell you, overall I really enjoyed the first one.So, I was really excited about seeing the second one, and I have to say, what a heap of ****. I won't bother typing out my own review, all I will tell you is read the review by grandmastersik because mine is exactly like his, minus spending 15 minutes trying to use the force to get the remote, I just couldn't remember where I'd put mine down to be able to turn it off.

zxgerard The first "Alone in the dark" featured new ammo to shoot the ghosts (bullets made of lights). Hard to believe, but logic.In this sequel, they use ordinary ammo, so, of course, it's useless against the ghost of the witch. Nevertheless, they try again and again, everybody has his gun and shoot on the ghost, there is even a big machine gun in the panic room with the same uselessness.So all the action is based on a non-sense but in reading the reviews I saw nobody noticed it. Is this cultural ? Is American audience find normal to have characters with guns shooting all time for nothing ? Is this for made a good trailer ? (maybe if there is no shooting guns that means there is no action ?) Conclusion : this movie seemed to me really incoherent in spite the beginning is better than the first opus.

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.