Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke

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.

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.

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.

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

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)