jacobjohntaylor1 I did not like the first movie of Alone in the dark. But I really like this movie. I do not why it got a 3.4. It one the horror movie I have seen. I give it 10. I had nothing to do the first movie of Alone it the dark. Which is probably why it is a good movie. Do not see the first movie of Alone in the dark. Just see this movie. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It is scarier then The Shining and that is not easy to do. Rcik Yune is a great actor. Rachel Specter is a great actress. This is a great horror film. If you want to see a really scary movie you should see this movie.

grandmastersik I always rate films I turned off as the lowest possible, and with Alone in the Dark 2, I could bear no more after only 35 minutes!I'm not a harsh judge of films, and I like to give them a chance to improve (hell, I sat through the entirety of the first one), but when the writing is such an absolute mess as this was, I knew already after 10 minutes that it had the go, and had totally given up on it after 20. The next 15 minutes were spent on me trying to use The Force to get the controller from the table.Hmm, so what's this film all about?Who cares? No, seriously, if you're curious or dumb enough to give it a go, you'll soon realise that this is a spot-on assessment.Some people die, there's some CGI mist, meant to be a ghostly witch, a dagger, some kind of infection, some weird racial transformation of the lead from the first film, some boring stuff, some nonsensical stuff... You get the point.Anyway, my summary above really does sum it all up, but for those who still need further warning: AVOID!

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.