• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Against The Dark - Reviews

#62
Sorry but I think that was the worse film I've seen yet.If it wasn't for my Steven being in it,and not that much by the way I would have turned it off.They weren't vampires,they were gorey body eaters.Just looking at Steven kept me watching,but I hope he does better with the next movie.
 
#64
When i heard Steven only had an cameo part i thought like from E.D. but he was in this movie till the end ..it was not one of he best thats for sure i think he should stick to his stuff he knows no more of this horror stuff ....
 
#65
OK that's it. After the first 15 mins (turned it off then) I will never watch a Seagal movie again. Couldn't even see what was happening - it's all in the dark. His movies have been getting worse since submerged and attack force. Enough is enough.
 
#66
I don't understand the people that are saying It's a very bad film but it's not a seagal film...
True it isn't a Seagal flick, but we should be so damn lucky!! If it was an out and out Seagal film then it would be one of the better, more professionally made DTV's of recent years. I have no clue what half you people were watching but this movie was very watchable and full of both action and gore with some suspense and frights too.


7.5/10
 
#67
Andy,

You're kidding right?

This is a movie that fails on so many levels e.g. poor photography, terrible music, silly infected humans, very little real action, no suspense and a Steven Seagal who is barely visible.

This film is a disaster and thank God with Driven to Kill Seagal produced a film worth watching.

-5/10
 
#68
Just watched this tonight and it was pleasant enough. Naturally I went in with lowish expectations. I didn't mind the characters and it had a little tension. Steven had a bit more to do in the second half. The "making of" on the DVD was a nice surprise, but of course it revolves primarily around Seagal's involvement in the shoot, which (not sure if this has been confirmed) was always going to be very brief.
 

lee nicholson

Well-Known Member
#69
I've always liked this movie too (despite it's faults)
Sure the endless walking down coridors (over and over again) gets a little monotonous at times, but Seagal is quite active throughout (and seems to be performing his own fights) Given the limited time he was on set, it was a minor miracle they got so much out him.
My only gripe is that the creatures were called 'Vampires' (and not 'Zombies') as they seemed more like the living dead (than blood-suckers)

Pretty impressive killcount of 31 for Seagal (considering his screen time?)
Here's a video of them:

 
Last edited:
#70
I saw this last year for the first time after picking it up on dvd. I was disappointed and it's pretty poor on all levels, but you see, as with all his films, had it had a little more money spent on it, time taken by all concerned and of course more Seagal screen time and developing his character, this could have been a somewhat memorable little film for him. Sadly it's lame. I even did a review and gave it 2 / 10 haha: