Alone in the Dark (2005) User Reviews (550)

An Abomination

[ajdragonnj · 1/10 · 28 January 2005]

The definition of an abomination as defined by Webster's Dictioary is "a cause of abhorrence or disgust." If someone can think of a more appropriate word or definition than this for Alone in the Dark, please let me know because this is the best I can come up with. However, I do no feel that in anyway this word describes how truly awful this film is.

I went to see this film with two of my roommates. One has very similar tastes to me, the other is an action/adventure flick guru. This latter guy usually doesn't care about the size of the plot holes, as long as the movie contains lots of explosions he will walk away satisfied.

That being said we entered the theater for the Friday viewing of Alone in the Dark. Little to my surprise we were the only people in the theater. When it started I knew why immediately.

It begins with the worst opening scene of any movie, and unfortunately I have to admit it only gets worse from there. The opening scene is a 5 minute scroll text that is narrated. Yet, I understand why it was narrated. The director must have understood that only illiterate people would even ascertain the thought of PAYING to see this movie. Yet, not only is this first scene the longest scroll text in the history of cinema, but it also makes no sense. It seems as if in the same sequence we are hearing about to completely separate movies. One is about an ancient civilization and its tampering with a portal, the other is about a crazy scientist and his experiments on orphans. If you are reading this and are confused, you are not alone.

Then the awful storyline, acting, effects, and camera work begin. Tara Reid is horrendous as an actress. She does nothing to even for one second make you think that she is a museum curator. Slater is just bad, not convincing, and has no chemistry with Reid.

The plot is probably the worst thing ever created by man. The entire time myself and the roommate with similar tastes are asking questions like: What is this? And what is going on? Other than this scrolling garbage we have a few narrated sequences by Slater himself. Are they good? NO. Do they explain anything? NO. Do we at any point as an audience have the slightest inkling as to why we should care what happens? Once again, NO.

Then we have a random sex scene. We are told that Slater and Reid are together, yet at no time do they act as though they even care about on another. But then BAM...sex scene. Once again I don't know.

A good, oh i don't know, 30 seconds after that woeful scene ends we have a gunfight with 20 or so military and a similar number of alien things. This is set to a heavy-metal track and causes more brain hemorrhaging than one ever thought possible.

And if that wasn't enough...

There exists no main villain. There is the scientist and there are the "alien" things. At one point the scientist controls the alien things and stands on a hill commanding them to attack the military outpost. Why? How did he become the supreme commander of these things? Why do they listen to him? Once again I have no idea.

The movie ends with Slater and Reid walking in an evacuated city. Why was the city evacuated? Did the alien things break through? Did the military tell them? Who knows...and by this point who cares? I didn't and you won't.

But to top it off, Slater and Reid are attacked by an alien thing. Even though it was stated that alien things will be killed by exposure to sunlight. And thats right, you guessed it, it the middle of the *&%$ing day and it's bright as can be. Maybe the alien thing bought a pair of sunglasses, I don't know and I don't care.

Now after the movie ended I ran outside the theater, all 6 foot 6 inches of me, waving my arms and shaking my afro telling everyone not to go see this movie. Even my gung-ho action/adventure roommate (who would consider a movie that just cut and pasted 2 hours of explosion into 1 film to be the greatest thing ever created) admitted that plot holes were very evident in this film.

To sum up this CRAP-FEST i give it a 0.0/10 and would give it lower if I could.

Unequivocally, the worst movie ever made. I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy.

A better title would have been, "Alone int the Theatre"

[bizantine · 1/10 · 28 January 2005]

Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you.

shockingly bad

[sire-5 · 2/10 · 25 January 2005]

I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though.

You almost feel sorry for the actors

[lukin187250 · 1/10 · 28 January 2005]

This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.

To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type.

All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others.

Completely horrible!

[sobegreen · 1/10 · 27 January 2005]

The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters.

How NOT to direct a film.

[darrencox1 · 1/10 · 26 January 2005]

Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs.

Spectacular Crap-fest

[rthomp-1 · 1/10 · 28 January 2005]

I don't know where to begin. Tara Reid needs to be stopped before she's put in another movie. Stephen Dorff looks like he got his character's motivation from Val Kilmer in "Top Gun". Slater sleepwalks through this dreck. The direction, editing, sound (do we really need a heavy-metal video in the middle of a gunfight?), costumes (bulletproof vests with muscles on them), and hey, there's no discernible plot either. It amazes me that no one attached to the project stopped and said, "hey guys, this just doesn't make any sense, let's start over". Hopefully Slater's career can rebound from this disaster.

Hands down the worst film I've ever seen.

Movie Review

[duelist-1 · 6 October 2004]

The other day my roommate called me up and said he had two complimentary tickets to a special pre-screening to a new moving coming out soon: Alone in the Dark.

If the name sounds familiar, it's probably because you're familiar with the video games by the same name. If not, don't worry, although the movie claims to be based off the games (games I know very well), I didn't see any similarities other than the names of the main characters.

My friend and I wandered into the theatre and took our seats. Anxiously awaiting the movie. I was especially excited because the game Alone in the Dark ranks in my very exclusive list of all-time scariest games ever...it's only competition is Doom 3. The point is, I was expecting a movie that would scare my pants off and send chills up my spine, much like the first game did back in the early 90s.

Before the movie started, a man came out and stood before us, and announced that we were the very first audience ever to see this movie, and he hoped we enjoyed it. The excitement built!

The movie started...and it wasn't long before that excitement turned to confusion, and shortly thereafter, disappointment combined with a healthy dose of disbelief.

This movie sucked! Plain and simple. The plot was, by far, the worst thing about the movie, followed not too distantly by the dialogue and cheesy acting. The only actor who did a halfway decent job was the main character, Edward Carnby (played by Christian Slater). In fact, I would go so far as to say he carried the entire movie.

Please note: From here on, I will be making references to the movie that would be considered spoilers. Even references to how the movie ends. If you actually intend to see this movie even after reading this review, you may want to skip the part about the plot.

Let's return to the plot for a moment. (This is where the bulk of the problems lie.) The plot can be summed up through the following words: broken, confusing, irrelevant, uninformed, and poorly written. Why?

The movie has practically nothing to do with the games. The games were based off of an investigator who explored various "supernatural" phenomena, and became trapped in this haunted mansion. The entire point of the game was to get out of the mansion alive...something that was not so easy to do! The movie didn't take place in a mansion, really had very little to do with the supernatural and more about some sort of alien creatures. It wasn't a psychological thriller with some action interspersed, it was an action flick...and if it attempted to be the former in any way, it failed miserably...so much so I never noticed any elements of it.

There were several questions raised in the movie that were never answered or even dealt with for that matter. There was this theme of some ancient civilization which apparently had something to do with these creatures, but it was never explained what the civilization had to do with the creatures, or where (or what) these creatures were to begin with.

Several inconsistencies with elements of the movie. For instance (big spoiler ahead). It's established that these creatures cannot exist in the light. They're hurt by sunlight and various other types of light sources. Then, at the end, the main characters climb out of their underground ordeal, appear in the city, during the day, and notice that everyone is missing. (no bodies, no blood, no signs of struggle...just missing). Then, in broad daylight, one of these creatures jumps out at them and the movie ends. ...uh, folks...daylight. It seems the director forgot to pay attention to that little fact. This is one of many inconsistencies in the movie. It's rife with them.

There was this (military? police? rebel?) institution called 713 which was apparently hunting these creatures (aliens?) for a while now. It was never established what this organization was, if they were part of the government or not, or anything about them. They just showed up and all the characters in the movie just accepted them as being in charge of things.

The love scene. Completely gratuitous! There was no chemistry between the hero and the heroin. In fact, the only way one would know that there was any kind of attraction between them was that it was briefly established in the beginning that they used to be in a relationship. Then, for no apparent reason, in the midst of all this danger and alien creatures in the same building with them, bam. They go at it. Then, as if nothing had happened, the rest of the movie they continue on their way with absolutely no chemistry to the very end.

Character Development...there was none.

Several points where the movie moved way too fast or way too slow, causing either confusion or boredom. I could go on, I have a whole list of things I disliked about the movie, but I'll stop here.

There were a couple good points to the movie, and it's only fair to state them. The introduction was well done and was relatively engaging. I'd go so far as to say the first scene was the best scene in the entire movie (although even that scene had several points to it which raised questions that were never answered or dealt with in any way - adding to the confusion later on). The cinematography in parts was creative and showed a level of quality that was far beyond this film. The special fx held their own and, for the most part, were impressive at points.

Alone in the Dark could have followed in the footsteps of the games it was based on, and potentially done an amazing job. The games were incredibly frightening and established a mood of horror and suspense from the moment you started playing till long after you quit playing. This movie did nothing more than leave a feeling of disgust at the pit of my stomach, that it should represent a series of amazing games and fail so miserably at doing so.

The sad fact is, my friend and I had the opportunity to see Alone in the Dark for free, and yet, somehow, we both came out of the ordeal feeling cheated.

I knew we were in trouble with this one

[raptors2 · 1/10 · 29 January 2005]

The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.

The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks.

The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either.

Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste.

I went on a quest for the worst movie ever made that had a high budget, and It has been discovered.

[rusties · 1/10 · 28 January 2005]

True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.

Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.

The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.

The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.

The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.

The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.

Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.

Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.

Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0.

Remember, Uwe, I enjoyed Rampage

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 27 May 2014]

I'm in no hurry to get in the boxing ring with director Uwe Boll, a man who has been known to use his pugilistic skills to silence his less favourable critics, but I have got to say that this horror/action film (apparently based on an Atari video game) is utterly diabolical—far worse than I ever expected (my opinion of Boll had been reasonably high after seeing Rampage, which was surprisingly effective).

The long-winded opening narration is the first clue that this is going to stink: ancient civilisations, evil creatures from another world, a secret organisation devoted to investigation of the paranormal, and a mad scientist experimenting on orphaned children are clumsily thrown together in an attempt to establish the background to the film, but they only succeed in confusing the viewer before things have even begun. Matters are made even more incomprehensible with a prologue that occurs '22 years ago' but which segues into the present day and proceeds to introduce even more mind-bogglingly random elements to ensure that even the most astute of viewers will be completely baffled.

As the film progresses, more and more nonsensical garbage is haphazardly thrown into the mix, Boll's pointless directorial stylisms making everything impossible to follow, with the occasional voice-over by Christian Slater (intended to help explain matters) only adding to the embarrassment factor. Ridiculous voice-overs aside, Slater's performance isn't all that bad, but his co-star Tara Reid is absolutely terrible and was clearly hired for her looks (yet she doesn't even have the decency to take off her bra during the obligatory sex scene!).

After much frenetic shooting, a smattering of reasonably fun gore, some choice snippets of lousy dialogue ('Some doors are meant to stay shut') and lots of naff CGI creature attacks, during which Boll throws in some lousy Indiana Jones-style adventure and a scene completely ripped off from James Cameron's Aliens (the Xenos—yes the monsters ARE called that—obliterate a team of soldiers, despite the use of automated sentry guns), the film wraps up leaving the viewer none the wiser about what they have witnessed.

Horrible and yet extremely amusing when watched with commentary

[jmanpaul · 10/10 · 25 August 2005]

I give this movie a full ten stars due to the hilarity of its directors commentary, not because of any quality in the film (for there is none). When my brother rented House of the Dead, after his appalled viewing he watched it with the directors commentary to see "what the hell the director was thinking". And the commentary was better than the movie. So now we rent this guy's stuff just to laugh our asses off with his idiotic musings.

He actually believes that his movies are works of art!! You'll giggle uncontrollably when you watch Alone in the Dark (and any other Uwe Boll movie) with the commentary. He refers to his ending as "Lynchian" (for a reason that the viewer--nor, apparently, the director--can explain. He constantly makes fun of Tara Reid and complains that she doesn't take off her bra. He refers to every shamelessly ripped off scene as an "homage". Best of all, he complains that he is a misunderstood genius who has been unfairly criticized on this very site, IMDb. Chances are he is reading this review and others at this moment and plotting about how to incorporate his rebuttals into his next commentary track.

not as bad as people make out

[Syboat · 6/10 · 29 July 2021]

If people want to watch a bad horror there are a load of them out there to choose, i've seen worse and this definitely isn't it.

Well . . . it's not predictable

[BrandtSponseller · 2/10 · 29 January 2005]

I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.

The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.

In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".

Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel.

Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.

And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.

Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.

Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more.

Brilliant casting

[TheOneJoshAarons · 1/10 · 22 July 2005]

Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50.

Huh? And huh? again.

[nzeno · 2/10 · 30 July 2005]

Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense?

Vastly Underrated...

[hughie522 · 5/10 · 17 July 2006]

First off, I haven't played the game 'Alone in the Dark' and this is the first Uwe Boll film I've ever seen. From the reviews I've read, the scathing criticism of Boll I've heard and all the message boards on IMDb, my expectations were way low. Game adaptations are inherently bad, the only exceptions I can think of are 'Mortal Kombat' and the 'Resident Evil' movies (yes, I like Paul W.S. Anderson too).

Now that I've killed off two-thirds of IMDb's users by saying the above, let me kill off the rest by saying that I thought 'Alone in the Dark' was quite good. I'm a Christian Slater fan, for starters, and now I'm a Uwe Boll fan too. I reckon, as B-grade movie directors go, the guy's got talent. He handles the sex scene very well (without it being fifteen minutes long and featuring an inordinate amount of nudity and fading in and out all the time) and the film was fastly paced and tight. The visual effects were also amazingly well-done for such a film, the creatures (I forget what they're called) especially.

I could overlook the problems with the script and the acting, but only because 'Alone in the Dark' is so suspenseful and genuinely interesting at times. There's never a dull nor slow moment to be found. I reckon 2/10 is rather harsh. I've seen worse films than this; much worse. While it may not sit well with gamers, 'Alone in the Dark' is one of the better B-grade horror films I've seen in years, just as long as you don't take it seriously.

Oddly prophetic for Reid's career

[benjaminweber · 2/10 · 26 July 2018]

This film looks and feels like Sharknado. The effects are poor, some of the line readings are unintentionally funny, and the action sequences are cut to pieces to hide the frequent switching of actor and stunt double. In some ways it's a shame that this wasn't made by The Asylum. There was a golden opportunity to make a series of increasingly stupid films based off of rip-off xenomorphs climbing out of the shadow realm! Still, if they had done this we probably wouldn't have Stranger Things, and Reid got to take part in the Sharknado series eight years later anyway, so maybe it's for the best this never went any further!

Tara Reid Can't Act, and This Movie Truly Sucks

[Spectator_Consumer · 3/10 · 20 August 2005]

This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.

1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.

So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.

Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.

Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time.

The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.

There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.

Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.

So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.

Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.

Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.

Abysmal...

[christian-208 · 1/10 · 13 November 2005]

Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.

and

3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.

Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair?

Not the worst Uwe Boll's movie

[fbustamp · 1/10 · 7 June 2015]

Well, what can you say about a movie whose "soldiers" are equipped with paintball protections, even the weapons look like they are taken from paintball. This movie is a Mimic and Aliens rip-off, among others. Even the sex scene is really crappy . It amazes me how this Uwe Boll guy is still allowed to make movies, or even that he gets the money to make them. I mean, at one point, one of the dead "soldiers" starts moving before they change the scene. At least that made me laugh. This is the third movie made by Uwe Boll that I watch, the others two being "In the name of the king" and "1968:Tunnel Rats". They were both way worse, I didn't even get to laugh with those. I think that this Uwe Boll guy should make a last movie in which a character is send from the future to kill his mother before his birth, achieving such task, and then not make any more movies.

Underrated

[ross_x84 · 8/10 · 23 April 2021]

The movie could have worked much better on so many levels, if the tone was similar to that of the original video games. Survival Horror. Instead, what we got, is a loud action movie with guns and explosions that is fun and easy to watch, great soundtrack, cool bullet time scenes, fast pace and a great ending. Unfortunately we did not get a horror movie, but for what it is, it's entertaining. Not all movies have to be Citizen Kane. Switch off your brain for 90 minutes and enjoy yourself. Worst movie ever made? Definitely no, check Asylum and Corman produced movies for that.

Enjoyable Monster Fun

[timothygartin · 6/10 · 15 November 2019]

I like this movie. It has a lot of extraneous material to sort through and you can let yourself get bogged down in that. When I sit back and just watch, it is a standard "monster in the dark" movie with some fun twists and some passable acting. Slater and Reid do a good job with their characters. The monster is interesting and the effects are well done. I like the museum setting and I think it fits the creepy feel of the movie.

I don't believe this movie is terrible. Its not a Best Picture candidate, but it is a lot of fun to watch.

I'm actually in a minority to find "Alone in the Dark" one of Uwe Boll's better earlier films. Still terrible, but not his worst at all.

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 3/10 · 2 August 2014]

Whenever people think of Uwe Boll, they think of all of his films that can be considered bad. (If not terrible) And the film that most people point to as one of his worst is the 2005 release "Alone in the Dark." (Heck, it's the one I've seen many claim to be THE worst film he's made... and others claim it to be perhaps one of the worst films of all time.) It's the one that seems to get the most attention. The most publicity. And of course, the most hate.

I'm not in that camp, though. Oddly enough. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that despite being a fairly terrible film, "Alone in the Dark" to me is arguably one of his best video-game-to-film adaptations. Something about it comes off as borderline "So bad, it's good" to me. And I honestly found it to be perhaps the best-directed film in his entire filmography, at least from a visual/composition standpoint.

The film follows paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), as he struggles against various otherworldly threats, including deadly creatures, underground caverns, the delusions of a mad scientist, and other forces. At the same time, he reconnects with an old flame (Tara Reid) and comes to odds with government Bureau 713 and a former comrade. (Stephen Dorff.)

The acting is... well. You know. ...bad. Slater is trying and seems to be having a blast, but he's still quite wooden. Reid is amusingly-bad in her attempts to come off as smart and serious. Dorff is probably the best, giving the only performance that seems SLIGHTLY decent. (Though still both over-done and under-done depending on the scene.) And supporting characters are all around the level of "meh."

The script is a fairly incomprehensible mess. From scene to scene, you can't really grasp what's happening, what's relevant (or irrelevant), what character motivations are, etc. There's a lot of bizarre leaps in focus and there isn't really any clearly defined focus or main conflict. The film seems to be made up of various meandering subplots that don't quite fit together. In addition, the cinematography is bland. The music is sub-par. Effects range from "excellent" (some early bullet-time effects, while tacky, are very well-executed) to "awful." (Some of the creature effects being laugh-out-loud bad.) And there's a lot of little issues here and there throughout the production and presentation.

This SHOULD be a 1 out of 10 film for sure. But there's just something about it. I just can't bring myself to give it that score.

In part, it's because I do honestly believe that this is one of Boll's better films. And I believe that here, he shows off perhaps the best visual direction of his entire career. It actually has a few really cool shots that are well-composed, there's at least some creativity shown (even though it doesn't work) through attempts to be moody or exciting with key sequences, and it has the most style out of anything he's really done. Don't get me wrong... the film still isn't particularly well-directed. But it seems to have the most effort put in by Boll out of any of his films. It isn't cheap and rushed like "House of the Dead", nor overly "gritty" and sloppy like everything he's done lately. It looks the most like an actual decently-budgeted movie out of all of his films.

In addition, something about this movie strikes me very-much as a great example of "so bad, it's good." Whether it be chuckling at lazy attempts to make characters look smart (giving Tara Reid glasses, for example), or poorly-executed action beats... I find this film very likable and entertaining because of how bad it is. And that counts for something.

I think that this is definitely not Boll's worst film at all. I don't even think it's in his bottom-5. I found it amusingly bad, and with a surprising amount of style and effort. And that effort alone makes it better than much of his other work.

I give this a very-bad 3 out of 10. Fans of bad movies (like me) should definitely give it a shot. You just might find it entertaining!

There's nothing likable about this movie

[PetalsAndThorns · 1/10 · 10 July 2013]

On my list of "worst movies ever made".

There is nothing likable about this movie. It's totally worthless noise.

Honestly, I cannot think of one single redeeming moment... the story is stupid, the script is trite, the characters are 1-dimentional (as is the acting); I could care less if they lived or died. There's nothing special about the effects, nor the cinematography, nor the score. Several pointless scenes of mindless, ear-numbing shoot-em-up's that neither moved the plot along, nor offered any entertainment value, whatsoever.

No one should be subjected to this film, ever, under any circumstances. The only thing this film is really good for is fire kindling.