Stuart Fisher I'm giving Demon Under Glass a generous 6 out of 10. The idea behind it is original and has a lot of potential. The opening scenes are quite good, although they reminded me of the scenes in Predator 2 when the feds are trying to capture the Predator. I have mixed feelings about Predator 2 but I thought it was a promising start.It gets better after that and it's initially quite engaging. As the film progresses though, you get the sense that the situations are becoming more and more contrived.At first, the dialog seems to be making the point that the vampire isn't supernatural but then the writers change their mind and need to use his supernatural powers to advance the plot. That part just doesn't really work and it felt rushed. I thought it could have worked if there had been more dialog with the vampire and if they could have done things a bit more intelligently.I reckon this is the kind of film that could actually do with a reboot. If you fix the flaws and deal better with the supernatural elements I think Demon Under Glass could be a great vampire movie!

CountVladDracula I'd like to review the film Demon Under Glass. First let me start by saying the story is good, the writing isn't bad. The Demon Under Glass film was written by the same people who wrote the novel, D. L. Warner. She actually wrote the novel at the same time as she wrote the film. The novel however has double the plot length, and, though obscure, bears an interesting plot. The film Demon Under Glass was a low budget horror film of the early 2000s and the plot of the film is only about half the plot. First, a comparison of the film to the novel since both were written at the same time. The novel is about double the length, in regard to story content. Demon under glass is a very unique story. A vampire going by the name of Simon Molinar gets captured by the government. He's kept in a high tech cell where doctors study him in secret while the general public remains unaware that vampires truly exist. Molinar under-goes several cruel experiments which cause the reader to question: Who are the monsters here? The vampire actually befriends one of his captors, a Dr. Joe McKay. McKay was a last minute replacement for a doctor who had been killed while they were trying to capture Molinar. Despite being a killer, you start to see the vampire as tragic anti-hero. Molinar is unashamed of who and what he is and is a survivor. You come to realize he's not the most evil being in the story. Molinar is cruelly experimented on. His confinement consists of a small room with a two way mirror and a metal casket-type of box that is locked from the outside while he is sleeping. They keep him in the casket by night, throwing off his sleep pattern, as to be certain he can't escape while they are studying him by daylight (which will burn him). One particularly cruel test is when they expose a section of his arm to varying degrees of sunlight to see how severely it would burn him and then when it is over they refuse to feed him blood as to see how quickly he can heal without feeding. After a time the group decide to destroy the vampire now that they have finished studying him. Since he is a killer they would rather keep in captivity a specimen that has not taken human lives. It's mostly politics at this point. Molinar manages to escape and this is where the film version ends. I feel at this point D. L. Warner felt her liberty as a writer and started to stretch her legs into the world of Gothic horror / Scifi but you would have to read the novel to know the rest of the story. It's a refreshingly unique take on the vampire story. The symbolism is a little heavy-handed. Characters like Joe McKay spell things out for you with dialog that might as well be shouts of 'The vampire's not evil! My bosses are!' The novel's ending felt like the start of an ongoing book series which never actually happened. Other than these flaws I really do like the book and film. Te film gets points for being a verbal translation of the novel, unlike Queen of the damned, which had nothing to do with the novel of the same name or the 1944 version of The Canterville Ghost which was nothing more than World War 2 propaganda. The biggest problem with Demon Under glass is the budget must have been a literal shoe string. The film Demon Under Glass has a laughable budget. The first time we see Molinar in the film it's before his capture. He's roaming a city looking for a prostitute to feed upon. the film makers had to tell us he's a vampire immediately by having him pause to lick his fangs. The next flaw is during Simon's capture as the men are 'beating' him there is no sound. I don't know if this is meant for dramatic emphasize but it just makes it all the more obvious that they are pounding on nothing. The 'High tech' facility holding Molinar isn't very High tech at all. As I said, it appears to have been filmed in someone's garage and the visuals work much better in the novel. The budget was unquestionably low. The telephones used were out of the late eighties at best. Even the cell phones were out of date, looking like the lower quality ones sold in the mid-nineties, the disposable kind. I always figured a secret government agency would have nicer cell phones. Even Joe Dawson's mobile phone on Highlander the series (1995) is more modern than what we see in Demon Under Glass. Also for a film made in 2002 and set in a high tech lab their computers look to be at least ten years old. I like the ideas projected in Demon Under Glass. And the actual story is very good. With a higher budget this could have been a fine movie. I was disappointed that the story of the film is only half of what's in the novel though what is in the film surprisingly IS faithful to the first half of the novel. It's as faithful as you can get with a very limited budget. If you can get past the weak moments the actual story and ideas behind it are very interesting. It's certainly a unique vampire film and I'd rather watch it than Queen of the damned or Twilight. I actually sincerely wish the Rifftrax guys (formerly Mystery Science theatre) would heckle Demon Under Glass. It would be such a pleasure to watch their heckling of this. I like Demon Under Glass but I love watching things I like get made fun of. It's better than some of the successful vampire films out there. It's the vampire equivalent of Plan 9 from Outer Space only with meaning and substance.

KHayes666 This movie was a lot different from other vampire movies and I think that's what makes it so good. I figured it was about capturing an evil vampire and they do tests on it until it escapes and attacks everyone. Its really about a vampire just trying to stay alive in an unfriendly environment and is tested on by a mad scientist.The idea of a intelligent vampire is brilliant and the plot of how the doctor pleads with the scientist to leave the vampire alone really shows how the "demon" isn't always the creature of the night.It seems the reason this movie got such a bad rap was because its not for the stupid people. You have to be smart and socially aware to enjoy a movie like this.Very underrated movie...7 out of 10

ameth01 Just watched my copy of this first time effort by director Jon Cummingham and producer/writer D.L.Warner. I found it to be a engrossing film. Dark and anguish filled, it had the look and feel of a old time classic horror flick. The film won't appeal to those who have to have every nuance in a movie pointed out to them, but for those horror movie fans who understand and enjoy sub-text and subtle threads of drama, Demon Under Glass is amazingly rewarding. The characters captured my interest and the story line was thought provoking. Nice flick!