Maléfique, Les Couloirs de l'Enfer

As one who is incredibly supportive of any independent film endeavors and who is always looking for new "twists" to an old theme I embraced this movie with open arms... that is until I saw the actual product. My warm embrace turned cold with each passing minute of this available only for home viewing project.

The concept itself is quite thought provoking: Who is the monster? The killer who is believed to be a vampire... or the doctor who is suppose to heal, who instead participates in testing this "specimen". But for all the internet talk etc... this film just did not measure up to what it could have been. There were many scenes that did nothing to move the story along. And the main point of the film was never really addressed to my satisfaction. It seems to have been thrown together ie: written quickly, filmed quickly. The ending was no doubt in contemplation of a sequel. And that seemed to be the strongest point that came across with this movie.

I am not, as another reviewer suggests someone who has a bone to pick with the producer, nor am I someone who requires every nuance of a movie explained to me. It is a low quality attempt and blaming viewers for not liking it is not the way to improve on it.

It seems a waste of money for the company and for anyone who made the purchase.

I saw the premier of this movie and was completely caught up in the story - a story which is a new twist on the classic vampire tale. The cast of characters, especially the main 4, are well cast and well played and complimented by some stellar supporting players.

Garett Maggart proves there is more in his repertoire than the lead character he played on The Sentinel, and Jason Carter as Simon Molinar 2000-year old vampire, is as far from Ranger Marcus Cole (Babylon 5) as it is possible to be. Denise Hurd is truly driven as the police officer (wish we could see more of her onscreen), and Jack Donner lets us fall with his Dr Bassett deeper into scientific double-think without realizing how quickly we're falling.

If you like this genre, I think you'll really like Demon Under Glass - and like me want to see it more than once.

This film has a few flaws, especially the sound & raw video-vs-grainy film look, as well as some ho-hum acting on the part of some minor characters, but I found myself watching it =twice,= it was so thought-provoking. I don't care for vampires (drinking of blood sickens me), but there were surprisingly few of the usual clichés.

Actors I especially enjoyed were those who played Dr. McKay, the vampire himself, whose subtle voice & movements were especially poignant, the female cop, & the man whose daughter's death left him in such anguish.

Very little scenery chewing, here, & a slow pace that was filled with meaning, not flashy special effects, the better to allow the mind to expand, & question itself. I give it a 7. Better acting in the rest of the crew & better production values would make it a 9!

This ultra-low budget flick is simply boring. I can't understand any of the positive reviews. How did you people stay awake for the whole thing? This is the most dull horror flick in years, even worse than all the awful TV movies being pushed off on Horror fans these days. Jason Carter (Marcus Cole from Babylon 5) playing a vampire sounds like it would make for a great movie, but the script is so lame it doesn't give him anything to do but look menacing. Garett Maggart as a doctor is a very poor casting choice, why not just cast Jaleel "Urkel" White as James Bond? How about Fred "Rerun" Berry as Indiana Jones? Save your time and money.

A vampire film, shot on digital, that's nearly two hours long? Hmm. I'm not the biggest vampire film fan in the world. George Romero's Martin was good, as was the original Salem's Lot, and Vamp, when I think of it, but mostly I just don't go for them. Still, I always give them a chance.

This one starts of with a police sting capturing a serial killer whom they've dubbed 'Vlad'. Instead of taking him down to the station for a kicking, a government agency steps in and whisks him off to a laboratory somewhere, where they start to experiment on him. This sets up some sort of moral play where the doctor (replacing the original doctor killed by the vampire) has to struggle with his vows to take care of his patient, and the demands of the government agency in experimenting on the bloodsucker.

That's a pretty good premise, and there's a good set up as they keep the vampire in check by threatening to expose him to sunlight if he steps out of line (crosses and garlic are useless, as they find out). The interaction between the moralistic doctor and the vampire is rather good, with the vampire guy going for 'subtle' rather than 'awful'. So you've got a 'who are the real monsters here' kind of thing going on. Got that? Fine.

Problem: This film is nearly two hours long, and set mostly in a laboratory. That's an awful long time to keep someone's attention. Worse still, there's a subplot regarding the female police officer who helped capture Vlad (she's fallen in love with him) which the film could have done without, and, sadly, the film just sort of descends into predictability. Which is a shame, because I was enjoying this one. It's fairly well acted and well made, but ultimately commits the worst offence of filmmaking: it's boring. A bit of trimming and this could have been good.