Alone in the Dark 2

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.

Didn't hope for much when I sat down to watch this but, as said, it was a better than expected. I found this sequel to be a competent little B-movie in its own right. Expect low budget, but not too bad - i've seen much worse in special effects and overall production. However, on its own terms it's a successful movie. It is much smaller in scale due to the lower budget, and is basically a retreat of the "group of people trapped" formula. There can't be any doubt that the movie could have been made better with more time and money its still however a considerate addition to a storyline with vast potential. The new cast is very good, possibly better than the cast in the first movie. Not the best movie I've ever seen, but it's definitely a keeper.

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.

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.

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.