Who payed the critics

the audience applauded

Highly Overrated But Still Good

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

I bought the DVD because I'm a fan of James Marsters.Yes, this movie must have cost every dime that it shows on screen. But also yes, I thought I knew within the first 20 minutes who the villain was, and I was pleasantly surprised to found that I can STILL be surprised.I write this comment merely to remind, or to alert, other viewers that James Marsters is a professional Shakespearian stage actor, and as I was watching him more than paying attention to the plot, I found myself enjoying this movie. Sure, I was yelling at the plot-holes within the first 5 minutes; but if you watch just 5 minutes of Marsters with the sound off, you'll see how superb an actor he is. Forget the trite lines that he was paid to say; watch, instead, his body language and his facial language.This is one great actor.Oh, but who, besides me, died laughing when Marsters had to deliver, straight-faced, the line, "Well, at least you look better in your underwear than I do"? Ouch! Cheers all, Fiona

Honestly, one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Credit to James Marsters for being the only one in the movie who was even slightly believable. Jolene Blalock was especially bad in this film. The rest of the cast was pretty damn terrible as well, including horror vet Tony Todd. As for the premise, it was obvious from moment one that Marsters would be revealed as the "bad guy." The way the shadow monster was used was also terribly inconsistent from one scene to another. It's supposed to be afraid of and vulnerable to light, but first manifests on camera in a brightly lit medical lab, and later manifest in a brightly lit pool. Too many plot holes, inconsistencies, and downright terrible lines, combined with largely phoned-in awful performances by the cast, and horrendous directing combine to make this movie one of the least frightening, un-entertaining pieces of film fluff in recent years.

I don't think it's fair that this movie got so many bad reviews. I mean, if you really want to see a bad movie, try those made by Cine Excel Entertainment. After having just seen "GiAnts" and "Magma: Earth's Molten Core," this movie is like a 9 on my list. The story was good and the acting wasn't all that bad. Again, if you really want to see bad acting, check out the above two titles. The only bad thing I would say about this film is the corny ending. It would have been better without the last two lines. I think the director made the best out of his budget and he definitely deserves more credit. I've seen a lot of trash films and believe me, this is not one of them.

This is one of the worst movies I have seen - and believe me I have seen my fair share of crap. The plot is horrendous and the dialog is laughably bad. The acting is in general bad, but for the most part, the actors do not have anything to work with in terms of script, and that is a valid excuse in this movie. On second thought, the one actor who really seems painfully wooden is Winnick, who probably got the role as the director's brother/cousin or something. For the rest, at least you can tell they are professional. The monster special effects are bad. The ending is ridiculous, with the sun coming up fast, so that the heroes can be saved. There was no suspense, and in the end I was hoping the stupid monster would kill and eat everyone and then die of indigestion. In order to see how the interesting scenario of waking up without memory was developed into a good movie a couple of years back, you can watch "Unknown" (2006). Just save your brain cells and skip this one.