User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

It has only been recently that Uwe Boll's seeming masterpiece, Alone In The Dark, has been available here for rental. It completely bypassed local theatres, and was available on DVD in America at least a year before here, which is rarely a good sign. Unlike Boll's previous effort, House Of The Dead, the problem is not so much in the performances or even the special effects. The real problem lies in the direction and editing. Articles have since sprung out of the woodwork describing Boll's inflated self-opinion and inability to work effectively with collaborators. It seems that this includes actors. Reid and Slater do their best with the roles that they have been assigned, but it becomes clear that they are given very little direction throughout the film. At one point, Slater and Reid appear to be running from the Alien-like creatures of the story through a warehouse. To say that they interact very little with their surroundings is an understatement. This scene could have been more convincing, in fact, if they had been running across a floor with a rear-projection behind them.

No, the real problem in this film lies in the direction and editing. A sex scene appears with no linking into the preceding or following scenes. Adding to the film's woes is that test audiences were so confused by the plot that an opening crawl had to be added in order to make the plot easier to follow. Said plot basically follows Christian Slater, who looks nothing like the Edward Carnby of the video games, as he deals with supernatural creatures emerging in our plane of existence and a government agency attempting to deal with them. Exactly where this plot stems from, I do not know, and I have only briefly played one of the games, but I do not remember any of the embellishments Boll has provided (which telegraph themselves with fervor). Compounding the problem is that Boll requires his actors to describe the plot or the point of what we have seen in the scenes. That none of the plot can be inferred through the images makes Boll's incompetence as a director pretty obvious.

To hear it from Boll during the featurette, Atari contacted him and asked him to adapt the game into film. The nonsense of this spin is shown by what outsiders have to sayabout Boll and his films. The writers of a rejected screenplay for House Of The Dead decided that they would rather remain in obscurity than become famous for working with Boll. Speaking as a writer myself, this tells me far more about Boll as a filmmaker than a million featurettes from the lousy DVDs made of his lousy films ever could. Adding insult to injury is that Nuclear Blast paid Boll and his cohorts enough money to make an album in order to have a few of their bands included in the soundtrack. If there were justice in the world, Nuclear Blast would be one of the many record labels outselling Sony by a twelve to one ratio. They are innovators, and have released some masterpieces from the likes of Therion or Agathodaimon. That they have to slum it in dreck like this while Sony saturates the market in their repetitive garbage only adds further insult to Alone In The Dark. I hope that thirty grand could be written off easily.

Soundtracks and bad direction aside, the construction of the film is utterly terrible, too. I cannot really describe the ending for fear of ruining what little surprise the film has, but I bet that Uwe was paying very careful attention to the end of Resident Evil. It is a pity he did not learn that such images only work because of the context they are in, and that context needs to make a certain level of sense. I know it sounds hypocritical of me to call for a film to guide the audience through the plot, but at the very least, Alone In The Dark could have given a small breadcrumb trail, anything to make point A follow logically from point B, so to speak. The idea that we are meant to follow all this action going on in such a confined space, and then accept that some survivor got out and destroyed everyone (even the meaning of everyone is left pretty vague in this film) is pretty ludicrous. Others have described the patent unbelievability of Tara Reid as an archaeologist, but this is in fact one of the least of the film's problems.

I gave Alone In The Dark a two out of ten. As a horror film, it is far too tame to horrify. As an action film, it is too stagnant to move the audience. As a serious acting piece, it has no drama to speak of. Without the lousy or idiotic production decisions, it also loses the unintentional comedy that made House Of The Dead bearable. In essence, it winds up in no man's land. See it if you need an example of how one man can be so blind to his own incompetence.