Alien Evolution II

Having watched and enjoyed Epoch last week, I was looking forward to this. It wasn't too disappointing, but the first one was definitely better. The actors were actually worse than in the first, which is quite a feat. The plot was somewhat interesting, but once again not nearly as good as the original. The director took this in a much more religious direction, which I think was a very bad idea. The introduction of Mason's kid was a horribly contrived plot point, that lead up to a horribly predictable conclusion. It wasn't all bad though...the Torus's looked as good as ever, and I quite liked the idea of an "evil" Torus. Overall this is worth watching if you're a fan of the first one, but don't be expecting much.

5.5/10

While this film was not the film the original was it was still entertaining and David Keith was still on his game. The plot did repeat a great deal of the first film but with interesting differences. I would like to have known who the actor was who played the son, David, which was not listed in the film's credits for some reason. The effects were excellent and it is always a treat to see Billy Dee Williams in action. As always the Torus effect was amazing. This film would really have been something if presented on an Imax screen. The villain, Doyle was the one weak link in the film. He was too whiny to be credible and did not seem very threatening, just dumb.

This is a good film to waste an hour and a half on.

9 June 2012. Poor acting in places, illogical jumps of believable plot outcomes make for a by the numbers sequel. The beginning sequences of an assassin who really doesn't look much like a very good one starts out losing most of the movie's steam by the time the potentially intriguing torus appears again, and yet the international military conflict seems oddly manipulatively even though the hoped for tight script shows through briefly. There are just too many pat answers, predictable outcomes to make this movie really that enjoyable or interesting. This movie is a let down and disappointment. The special effects, especially of the torus which seems a lot worse for wear is perhaps the real disaster. There is too much warmed over from the original to keep a sustained interest.

I wish I could've seen this high budget movie in theaters, i loved the first one, and it kept me interested throughout. The plot was very much the same as the first one mixed with a bit of Taken, but that isn't bad, very good in fact, the plot was good, the religious overtones worked real well like in the first movie. There was also good acting, David Keith was real natural in his role, and just about all the characters likable when supposed to be and dislikable when supposed to be. All in all, the best tho hours I've had in recent weeks. A good watch.

The previous commenter got confused somehow.

There were two devices. The one in Paris healed people but the one in Russia killed people. The men that injured and killed and then stayed so were at the Russian site. I wonder why they didn't bring up this difference when considering which of the devices they should attack, but I suppose that is asking for too much from a movie like this.

Now if the poster wanted to talk about the bad things in the movie he could have brought up the dialog or perhaps the poorly thought out bad guys, or some of the other quick fixes the movie took. The bad guys didn't seem to have much reason for their decisions other than a fear of something different. They also seemed to miss a major plot point after all of their study.

So while the movie isn't that good it did at least stay consistent. I wonder if we will be seeing a third movie in a few years to help further explain/muddy the water.