Wraiths of Roanoke

This movie is an entertaining flick that one can see once but not more. I would suggest you to loan this movie if you are interested in a short and action filled movie with a few fantasy and horror elements in a beautiful geographical and historical setting. This is a perfect movie if you are looking for a last film to rent or buy to get a special price reduction or guarantee bonus in the usual shops. It's also a perfect movie to watch something relaxing on a lonely night on television before you go to bed as it is no disturbing flick at all where it isn't ultimately important if you close your eyes from time to time. It's the perfect movie too softly switch your brain off at night.

I give already one point to the magnificent landscapes and locations of the flick. The places are well captured and the camera crew delivers a solid job. Another point goes the cultural, historical and mythological background of the movie that is not always that plausible but at least intriguing. The philosophical and moral touch concerning values of friendship, trust, faith and strength adds another interesting level to this low budget movie. A fourth point goes out to the acting. Even though it is not stunning, the rather unknown actors are doing what they can with what they get and I have seen much worse performances. I could maybe give half a point to the ending of the movie that is not ultimately surprising but well chosen.

The problem with this flick is the constant lack of atmosphere. There is no suspense or horror in the air, the most frightening scene is already the opening sequence. As soon as you see what attacks the lost colony, any degree of suspense is erased as the special effects are horrible and make you rather laugh out loud than fear. The whole plot doesn't always seem coherent and intriguing to carry over the whole length of the movie. Concerning the action or slash factor, this one is surprisingly low and the battles are really poor and almost boring. Now, as the story is not intriguing and as there is no true suspense, no action and no horror, there is not much left that carries this movie on to be honest. The movie seems to slightly touch any of the mentioned genres without building up something concrete. Some horror scenes, some fantasy moments, some action sequences, some drama dialogues and from time to time some landscape shots are mixed together to a whole mediocre movie of chilled entertainment.

Scifi channel has a reputation for picking up awful B-listers to fill out its empty Saturday nights. Unfortunately, Wraiths of Roanoke is no exception. Within the first ten minutes, the acting will tip you off that this'll be an unimpressive title; indeed, the acting is very similar to such mid-budget series as Stargate SG1 and Painkiller Jane. Of course, the fault doesn't lie entirely with the actors, only so much can be done with the stale and entirely trite dialogue.

The story isn't much better. The basic outline involves British colonials, who intend to inhabit an island, finding their old garrison "abandoned" (read: dead). The Native Americans (Croats) give vague warnings about some mysterious danger, only clarifying things when the first people die. From then on, the settlers (who can't abandon the island for a few reasons, some of which are inconsequential given the threat) are forced to contend with evil spirits.

It's supposedly based on true events, which seems to be a big selling point. However, given the film, I can't imagine how many liberties were taken. I imagine the only truth involves the abandoned fort--which could've just been sacked or what have you. Wraiths happens to be one of those films where you can see budgetary constraints in everything and it suffers for it.

I wouldn't be so hard on this film. No one has ever been able to give a good account of what really happened, and the whole mystery is there to speculate and to guess and write stories about. Sci-fi channel has had it's good stories and dull ones, and this is not at good as I was hoping for, but I don't believe it was half bad. It could have been better if they had a seasoned director and producer who is use to doing mystery/suspense thrillers, but I don't think that was the case. I wonder what George Lucas could have done with it or someone with a little more imagination. Besides, think about it, we didn't see the entire movie, we saw the edited version and I willing to bet that it would have been a lot more scarier and would have made a lot more reasonable sense if those parts were in there. Sometimes I wish when they came out with movies on DVD, they would give you a choice of seeing the extended version with the deleted scenes or the theater movie.

As for the acting, the movie, just like X-men III, it seemed very rushed and I am sure they were times constraints. However, actors do a better job when they have more time to get into the part and make some suggestions of their own and I am not sure that happened. I think they were just given the part and told to "do it!" which also does not make for a good movie. But, you can't blame the actors who are given a script that they can only do so much with and I think the actors did the best they could and were not able to live up to their talent.

I also think if just a little bit more money was put into it, it would have been a better picture. I hate it when things "happen" and there is a reason why they may be happening, but no one tells or says what it is. You see that in a lot of horror movies. People want to know background history, legends, etc. I thought a halfway descent effort was made for this. But like Eddie Murphy says, "Why do white people stay in a place that is haunted?" I am white but I would have gotten the HE** out.

The whole incident is a bit haunting itself. It is very hard to really know how many Native American nations and tribes there really were. Many died out before the settlers came and some were dying off about that time. But, the word on the tree, "Croatian" (SP) does seem familiar and I do believe it was the name of a Native American tribe that may have befriended the colonist and took them into their tribe and that word was put on their so that the coming settlers would know where to find them. But, instead, the just left it a mystery and may have wanted to on purpose because they may have wanted a plan or something to scare people about in the event of any indigenous people in the area they wanted to get rid of. I mean, look what happened after wards? I believe that those colonist did not want to return and stayed with the Croatians since a lot of tribes were nomadic during the seasons. That is just a theory with no scientific backing. But it beats thinking that they were slaughtered because the Native Americans were blamed for a lot of things they didn't do and we nearly committed Genocide.

At the very least, one has to give this film credit for originality, and, I suppose, since this is based around a very real and unsolved mystery anyone who makes a movie about it has total license to do with the story whatever they want. Having said that, "Lost Colony" is a rather silly movie, with a few chills included and a fair but not overwhelming amount of blood and gore, but it certainly isn't anything that should be taken at all seriously. It's based on the mystery of the lost colony on Roanoke Island off the coast of what is now North Carolina in the 16th century. It makes a claim at the beginning to be "based on actual events." I suppose that's true in the sense that there was an English colony on Roanoke Island in the 16th century and it did disappear without a trace so that to this day - although there's a lot of speculation - no one knows for certain what happened to it. I am reasonably certain, though ...

I'm reasonably certain that what happened on Roanoke Island didn't involve "wraiths" - the spirits of Vikings who are trapped in this world, having been unable to make the passage to Valhalla, and who are rather vicious creatures, literally sucking the life out of the living, and looking for a perfect innocent (in this case, little Virginia Dare - who really was the first English child born in the new world) whose life will apparently be able to set them free. That's not likely - but as I said, one gives credit for imagination, when the more likely explanation for the colony's disappearance was simply that it ran out of food and its inhabitants joined with a local native tribe. But that's not as much fun as this bit of conjecture.

This really isn't as bad as some might say. Its basic problem is its silliness - and the fact that it never really overcomes its silliness to really reach the level of a good thriller or horror movie. The performances in it are all right, and the setting seemed quite authentic. It's just too silly! (5/10)

In 1587, 117 brave men and women set sail from Britain to establish the first English colony in Americas. They land on Roanoke Island, off the coast of Virginia. They build a settlement and plant crops. After a period, a group of colonists finds the local fortress deserted with the corpse of a suicidal hanged in decomposition and a warning written with blood on the ceiling. Ananias Dare (Adrian Paul) is assigned to be in charge of the colony while their leader will bring supplies. Sooner Ananias learns that the forest is haunted by evil spirits that feed themselves of human soul and that they are chasing his new-born daughter that has a pure soul.

"Wraiths of Roanoke" is a lame and boring film with a terrible story, bad acting and direction, awful art direction and costumes and poor special effects. Further, it is too long and repetitive along 95 minutes running time, giving the sensation that the annoying story will never end. This flick is highly recommended for insomnious viewers that do not want to swallow sleeping pills. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Espíritos da Floresta" ("Spirits of the Forest")