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.
Melanie82-1
I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THEY MADE A 2nd FILM until I seen it on the supermarket shelf... Plotwise it actually has one. And one that is reasonably well fleshed out. Characters are given good reasons for their actions and are developed quite well, given the constraints of the budget. The effects, though looking a little poor in some scenes, never dominate the movie anyhow and are there purely to further the story. Acting-wise, there are a few less than stellar performances and when you can say, with complete certainty that Lance Henriksen gives the most convincing performance of the cast. The fact is, I never expect much with sequels so I was pleasantly surprised by this one. While it is not the best movie I've ever seen, it is no slouch and far better than the last horror movie I saw, Boogeyman. No comparison whatsoever.
Mariso Shamar
I'll watch just about anything that has Lance Henriksen in it because he's one of my favorite actors. The movies can range from good quality to bottom-of-the-barrel quality, but even in the stinkers, Lance manages to keep them entertaining with his own unique style of doing things.I'll say that this movie was somewhat better than i expected. What i got was an interesting piece which i might sooner qualify as a supernatural thriller than a horror movie. The movie was enjoyable in a not-to-be-taken-too-seriously sort of way. This movie had potential. The story and especially the themes are interesting and the movie did have a huge cast of names. Lance Henriksen, Bill Moseley, just to name a few. The only important drawback of this film that it's not scary enough.To summarize, "Alone in the Dark Two" had a promising beginning and if the premise could be better utilized, it could have even been a great horror film.
ajohan-1
This movie was bad, but not horrible.I enjoyed Bill Moseleys performance, because, well he's awesome, but besides that, the movie was pretty shite. Plus they kill his character off pretty early on(Yeah, they kill the one interesting character in the movie less than half way through!!!) The main thing that ticked me off was that the characters made stupid choices that no logical person would think were a good idea. It was established pretty early on in the movie that bullets don't work against ghosts, so why do the the Protagonists fail to realize this, constantly trying to mow down the witchy phantom with machine gun fire?! Its like trying to kill the Blob with a knife, it ain't gonna work folks.I didn't see the ending because I was watching it online and once I reached 70 min in the movie the website showing it pulled the good ol' you must pay to watch the rest of this movie. I assume the remaining characters all die horribly and in a manner so that an Alone in the Dark 3 can never be made.
AD
