Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

John Smith A virus has wiped out most of the world's population. The virus turns its victims into blood thirsty zombies and is spread by fluid contact into a cut or wound. There is no cure. The military are trying to control the virus by destroying infected areas. A team of zombie hunters are conducting a sweep of a zombie infested hospital for survivors before the facility is bombed by the military.The movie was released direct to video and had a budget of $US7 million.The zombie hunters led by Steven Seagal are constrained by the virus, so there is minimal physical contact during the fighting and the predominant use of guns and a long (kitana) sword (although knives are also used).The film (horror genre) creates tension through use of dark lighting as the survivors make their way through the locked down hospital with the power threatening to fail, while under constant attack by the zombies. The hunters meanwhile are trying to find them. And the military are about to destroy the building.The script however is the biggest problem. There is inconsistency about those infected - are they zombies, mutants or vampires. Steven Seagal's fights are constrained to a sword and shot gun by the threat of the virus, and not the usual hand to hand combat, which is fair enough. However he appears to have attempted to reduce the visibility of his weight gain by wearing a full length leather coat. The survivors never pick up a club to defend themselves and have a habit of constantly getting separated from each other as a plot technique to create additional tension. There is plenty of gore - low budget gore however.If you ignore the script and ignore the survivors that don't know how to defend themselves and have many lucky escapes, the film does create tension and has plenty of gore. As a fan of Steven Seagal, I have given a generous 4 out of 10.

Jahn Well where to start. I am a big fan of Steven Seagal movies, he's my idol. Love all his work including some of the music he's created.Now the movie.. don't know if this is a spoiler or not because it's such a terrible film.. The plot is A group of people are hold=up in an Hospital during an epidemic where the world is suffering from a virus outbreak that turns the infected into well here's the confusing part.. they look more like zombies but i think they are supposed to be vampires. The actors, as far as i know are all unknown, the casting has gone with new actors rather than the usual A or B-list actors who do TV films.The acting is terrible like they picked them off the street and handed them a script, like getting a pilot to drive a bus or a brain surgeon to work as a vet, the two don't mix. The whole films lighting is dark.. I'm guessing out of the 8-9mil$ budget they didn't spend any on bulbs.I'm a big movie fan and a Steven seagal fan and can honestly say this is the worst movie I've seen in a long time, not ever, there are worse.Steven seagal was the only decent actor in the whole movie, the sword fight scenes were well done. I only watched the film because Steven Seagal was in it.. Well let me tell you he is only in it a few times, a cameo part at best. On the whole a very disappointing movie. Under Siege was the high-point of Seagal's career, Against the dark must be his lowest.If Steven seagal wasn't in this film then I'd rate it Zero but you can only choose 1-10 so Steven is a 10 but the movie is a 1 because Steven's in-it.This was my first review.

David_Brown I have a basic rule about films: I always see the ending. It does not matter if I like them, or even detest them ("The Snake People", "Hot Tub Time Machine" "The Adventures Of Pluto Nash", "Bowfinger", "Teenage Catgirls In Heat", "Walk On The Wild Side", "Jewel Robbery", "Billy Jack", and Valley Of The Dolls" are a few that come to mind), I always catch the ending (Even if it is just the last 10-15 minutes) to know how the film ended. "Against The Dark" is different, I could not even go back to watch the ending. There is nothing redeemable about it: No beautiful women, no humor, no catchy phrases, no suspense, no character to care one iota about, it did not even have a decent song for the credits (Like "Billy Jack & "Valley Of The Dolls" had). It is without question the worst film this side of "Machete" in Seagal's car (I would sooner sit down and watch stupid reality TV like "America's Next Top Model" or "Bridezilla's" above this film (At least some of the women are hot)). The only thing that could possibly be worse to watch is "Machete", "Walk On The Wild Side" and gay porn (Since I have never seen that (Nor intend to), I can only guess at that). As for Seagal, there is not a single "A-List" star in motion picture history whose career has fallen further, from when he was on top. This includes Boris Karloff who went from "Frankenstein" & "The Mummy" to "Isle Of The Snake People" and the "Ghost In The Invisible Bikini", Van Damme, or even Corey Feldman from "The Burbs" & "The Lost Boys" to "The Two Corey's". Seagal's performances in films like "Against The Dark", and "Attack Force" make the worst Charles Bronson movies at Cannon Films (Such as "Kinjite" and "Messenger Of Death") look like "Death Wish" or "Once Upon A Time In The West". The last Seagal film that was any good, "Half Past Dead" was made in 2002, which should tell him, it is time to retire, and never make anyone suffer through any of films again. I will never watch another Seagal film again

Arlis Fuson A virus spreads and makes people everywhere go mad with a blood thirst rage. Many people are trapped through out the city and the few that survive are fighting for their lives. There is also a group of "hunters" led by Steven Seagal and the hunters are killing these infected with sword and guns. The government is also involved and ready to bomb the city and kill whats left and hope the hunters get the survivors and themselves out first.I have seen so many movies like this with 28 Days Later coming to mind first. The movie tried ripping off Balde as far as the action goes, but it is way better than Blade cause that movie sucked. It also had a very Day Of The Dead feel to it. Keep in mind though that these are infected people who crave blood and don't like sunlight, but they are not vampires or zombies. They talk and they think and they plan and organize, they are smart. Why the hunters didn't just use machine guns is a good question, as most seemed rather easy to kill. They claimed at times not wanting to use guns for the sake of not making noise, but yet after fighting with swords for 10 minutes they usually ended up shooting one anyway...very silly.The directing was really bad at times here and the very unoriginal story mixed with bad directing makes for a bad movie. Seagal was the star although he wasn't on screen a lot. He is known for his three titled straight to video flops so I guess he was an appropriate choice. This movie ripped off tons of movies, and uses the hospital from Stephen Kings Kingdom Hospital miniseries and even uses clips from that film. It also references Day of the Dead which it obviously rips off at times. I also hate how the lead girl favors Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame, that was a cheesy marketing move. I did like Keith David in his small role because I am a fan of his.This movie offers nothing new, it wasn't horrible but it definitely wasn't great...I will honestly say I would recommend it to people with a warning attached, that you've seen this before, but it is okay.. The creatures never got scary nor did it focus on any of them long enough for you to get a feel of what they were. One key ingredient in making these films work is having a creature/zombie/vampire or whatever having a reoccurring part all through the movie to keep people looking and waiting for them. 3/10 stars, good for a one time viewing and nice to see Seagall smacking around on some fanged men.