Alone in the Dark II

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.