Karry
Best movie of this year hands down!
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
snakes3992
This movie looks nothing like the first one, because this film is just like Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, Yeah they made a totally different movie, and slapped the word Alone in the Dark 2 on it. This movie has even more bigger problems, it has too many plot holes, really bad CGI for the witch, worst direction, worst casting choices, horrible editing, it's really poorly shot, because this film is PG-13, and this movie fails for being PG-13. The first one was a lot better, and it makes more sense, and this one was doesn't, because the script for this movie is really horrendous, and also I didn't think Alone in the Dark didn't need a sequel, because the main characters died, so how in the world did Edward Carnby survive? Oh God this film is really horrible, no one should watch it at all, because it makes no sense, so I suggest you watch the first one, because that one is a lot better, this one is worse. They should have let Uwe Boll direct the sequel, so there goes to show that they should not let the writers of the first Alone in the Dark direct the sequel, because they did it more horrible.
superainbow
So..there's a witch..something to do with a knife, and an old man sacrificing his family for some kind of immortality. I just made the plot sound 100 times better than the film does.Terrible, terrible CGI (everyone hates it, why is it even added to films) and the other "special" effects...glued on veins, I'll say no more.Even if you are looking for a laugh, don't watch this film, you will be too busy trying to work out why on earth this was made to be able to poke fun.I didn't see the first film, but Im not seeing that as a bad thing.
AleaClint
When I first heard about this movie, and the fact that it was released straight to video, I was not optimistic. Then I noticed that Lance Henriksen was in it, and that Bill Moseley was joining the cast. Definitely it is not supposed to be a masterpiece, but there are some good points in the movie like the demonstration of how somebody who fights against evil becomes evil himself. The acting was fine and the plot was decent, although the CGI wasn't anything special but it was okay, believe me there are far worse examples of of CGI animation out there. This movie may not win any awards but it was definitely worth watching.There's really not a lot of gore here, and no sex whatsoever. The ever-brilliant Lance Henrikson (the man with THE coolest voice in the world) turns in a great performance as disenchanted old witch hunter. The plot prefers to turn slowly into a gnarled tale of battling with an inner demon.
Aka_Who
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.
