IMDb RATING
4.1/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
In the 1580's English colonists arrive in what was to become North Carolina and find supernatural terror.In the 1580's English colonists arrive in what was to become North Carolina and find supernatural terror.In the 1580's English colonists arrive in what was to become North Carolina and find supernatural terror.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Stumbling upon the 2007 movie "Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" by random luck here in 2025, and never actually having heard about it, of course I opted to watch the movie, on account of it being a horror movie of sorts, and a movie that I hadn't already seen.
Of course I am familiar with the story of the Roanoke settlement, so I did have an idea of what I was in for here, more or less.
Writer Rafael Jordan put together an okay enough script. The movie boasts it is based on real events, yeah, well let's just let the simmer for a bit, shall we? The movie proved to be entertaining enough for what it was, a relatively low budget horror movie, so don't get your hopes up here.
There were a couple of familiar faces on the cast list, with the likes of Adrian Paul, Frida Farrell, Rhett Giles and Michael Teh. The acting performances in the movie were fair.
"Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" looked and felt like a TV movie, for better or worse. The special effects in the movie were okay, but a bit on the cheap and cheesy side.
My rating of director Matt Codd's 2007 movie "Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" lands on a generous four out of ten stars.
Of course I am familiar with the story of the Roanoke settlement, so I did have an idea of what I was in for here, more or less.
Writer Rafael Jordan put together an okay enough script. The movie boasts it is based on real events, yeah, well let's just let the simmer for a bit, shall we? The movie proved to be entertaining enough for what it was, a relatively low budget horror movie, so don't get your hopes up here.
There were a couple of familiar faces on the cast list, with the likes of Adrian Paul, Frida Farrell, Rhett Giles and Michael Teh. The acting performances in the movie were fair.
"Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" looked and felt like a TV movie, for better or worse. The special effects in the movie were okay, but a bit on the cheap and cheesy side.
My rating of director Matt Codd's 2007 movie "Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" lands on a generous four out of ten stars.
I ended up liking this movie. I liked the spooky atmosphere and the acting from the lead characters the most. It is a loose retelling of the Roanoke colony disappearance and introduces some Viking mystical mumbo-jumbo to the legend.
Adrian Paul does a really good job as the leader of the colony. The other actors in supporting roles seemed to take this movie seriously, which doesn't happen in a lot of Sci-Fi channel movies.
The monster effects aren't the best. They don't really look scary. Also, a few writing choices didn't make sense. The most notable choices were when characters would seemingly just wander off to chase ghosts or fight with natives.
Overall, I recommend this movie.
Adrian Paul does a really good job as the leader of the colony. The other actors in supporting roles seemed to take this movie seriously, which doesn't happen in a lot of Sci-Fi channel movies.
The monster effects aren't the best. They don't really look scary. Also, a few writing choices didn't make sense. The most notable choices were when characters would seemingly just wander off to chase ghosts or fight with natives.
Overall, I recommend this movie.
Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke did actually look as though it would be somewhat tolerable. And while nothing great, considering SyFy's dubious track-record it is. This is by far one of the better-looking SyFy projects, with stunning locations and scenery and photography that does look as though care went into it instead of the usual dull, slapdash kind. The score is decent, not too over-bearing or sluggish and the acting shows a sense of spirit and an effort to not be too bland or overdone. However, while I appreciated the moral and philosophical aspects, the script could have done with being more thoughtful and less cheesy and stilted, the story suffers from a lack of atmosphere and poorly choreographed and less-than-thrilling battles and while the characters are less stereotypical than characters in other SyFy movies(the creature and disaster movies of theirs are the worst when it comes to this) not much is done to make them interesting to let us relate to them.
Overall, not bad but not desperately good either, just average. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Overall, not bad but not desperately good either, just average. 5/10 Bethany Cox
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.
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.
My god this film is bad, however it is strangely watchable. Especially if you have a DVD player in your room, you're ill on a weekday or pulling a sickie. I like watching bad ghost films on a cold miserable day. This wasn't scary apart from watching the wasted potential of Adrian Paul's career ! The ghosts in questions resemble something out of a rundown ghost train attraction or a half baked equalivent of the ghost army from 'Return Of The King'. Still it's watchable as it does have some very mild suspense. For the duriation of the film I would recommend some hot soup and a toasted cheese sandwich, or 1 low volume alcoholic beer- depends on your mood!
Did you know
- TriviaDuring the scene where a British soldier is attacked by several natives, one of the natives' axes had a nail sticking out of it. The stuntman playing the soldier would have been seriously injured as he was hit repeatedly with the axe, but his chainmail armor actually protected him.
- GoofsThe soldiers are seen wearing medieval kettle hats (Chapel de Fer), plus chain mail coifs. Both are several hundred years out of date. The correct helmet (if any) would be morions or cabassets.
- Quotes
Ananias Dare: Save your soul, before they take it from you.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Best of the Worst: Our DVD and Blu-ray Collection (2019)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $2,000,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content