FemaleFirst.co.uk: DVD: Against The Dark [DVD] [2008]

Against The Dark [DVD] [2008]
enlarge	Actor: Skye Bennett Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Category: DVD List Price: ~~£19.99~~ Buy New: £2.00 as of 24/11/2009 04:49 GMT details You Save: £17.99 (90%) New (19) Used (4) from £1.36 Seller: media_moguls-uk Rating: 9 reviews Sales Rank: 13376 Format: PAL Rating: Suitable for 12 years and over Region: 2 Number Of Discs: 1 Running Time: 90 Minutes Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2 Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6 EAN: 5035822500839 ASIN: B001L4I2LI Theatrical Release Date: 2008 Release Date: February 9, 2009 Availability: Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days


Similar Items: The Keeper [DVD] [2009] JCVD [2008] [DVD] Submerged [DVD] Half Past Dead/Half Past Dead 2 [DVD] [2002] Pistol Whipped [DVD] [2007]


Customer Reviews: Showing reviews 1-5 of 9 1 2 Next » Better than expected. Not your typical Seagal movie February 18, 2009 NoWireHangers (Sweden) 1 out of 1 found this review helpful From his first movie, Above the Law (aka Nico), Steven Seagal has always been the star of his movies (with the exception of Executive Decision where he had a cameo). "Against the Dark" breaks the trend. It's not really a "Steven Seagal movie" but rather an average B-grade post-apocalyptic zombie movie featuring Steven Seagal, in a heroic role of course, but with limited screen time. br / br /Those hoping for an action movie with Seagal as the star may be disappointed, but taken for what it is, a postapocalyptic horror movie, I think it works pretty well, and Seagal is a bonus. There are worse ways to spend an hour and a half. ok September 30, 2009 Mrs. Ae Holmes (midlands, uk) I love Seagal anyway so i will watch any of his films. It's not as bad as I thought it would be. Different sort of film to his usual ones. Worth a watch LARGELY DISAPPOINTING February 13, 2009 Lou Almighty 3 out of 3 found this review helpful I had very mixed feelings about this one. Steven Seagal in a horror film? AGAINST THE DARK is an OK zombie/mutant horror film with strong echoes from 28 DAYS (WEEKS) LATER and DOOMSDAY (some similarities just can't be denied), it does have a bit of an eerie setting, BUT... br /- the story is PAPER-THIN (the script to this film probably didn't fill an entire page) br /- this is the first Seagal movie where I REALLY got the impression Steven didn't want to be in the film AT ALL. It shows (and I've seen ALL his films, it never showed like this) br /- Steven walks around, does 2 or 3 finishing moves and gives an order here or there, THAT'S ALL HE DOES! The main fighting is done by OTHERS. Plus he's only in the film altogether for approx. 10 MINUTES!!! br /- very many plot holes and logic booboos br /Normally this would be a 1 star film, but an extra star for a halfway descent atmosphere (at least they got that right, but probably by accident). Pity. br /Filmed in Romania. Adventures in bad editing March 22, 2009 Chris Ronson (UK) I was quite surprised when Lovefilm decided to send me Against The Dark, Steven Seagal's latest movie. Not because it wasn't in my rental queue ' it was, albeit as a low priority title. No, what puzzled me was why they'd sent it me when there were seven other high priority titles before it. But having seen the film I'm actually glad they did, because Against The Dark is a truly astonishing film. Never before have I seen a film where the main 'star' has been so blatantly shoehorned into proceedings. Against The Dark should be required viewing for all film students, so as to teach them how not to edit a movie. br / br /Against The Dark is a pretty run of the mill monster flick, and without Mr Seagal's brief presence in the film, it would almost have certainly ended up on the Sci-Fi network, probably starring Dean Cain. There's been some sort of global epidemic which has turned most of the world's populace into flesh eating, blood drinking monsters. A bunch of generic looking characters ' none of whom you really learn anything about ' are on the run from the monsters and hole up in abandoned hospital. Which is where the bulk of the movie takes place ' there aren't many outdoor locations in this film, which is a sure sign of a low budget film. It's horror by the numbers - monsters jump out of dark corners and bite people, and there's a bit of gore thrown in for good measure ' all fairly typical stuff. br / br /The film's novelty value comes from the way in which Steven Seagal has been inserted into the movie. I don't know if the film was written with him in mind, or if he was drafted in later, but the latter seems likely. Either way, I suspect that the director could only afford to hire him for a couple of days, and as a result the majority of his scenes don't involve the main cast. Half of these scenes have him just wandering around swinging a sword and occasionally kicking a monster. If you're a Seagal fan then you're going to be disappointed ' he doesn't do anything particularly strenuous at all. He's accompanied by a small group of other characters, who don't really say much but who seem do most of the fighting in the film. br / br /And it gets even weirder when Seagal's team does meet up with the main cast. Several of the 'conversations' he has with them involve him talking to camera, then the person he's talking to replying, again talking right into the camera. Meaning you don't see him talking directly to the person in question. This was probably done to minimize the amount of time Seagal had to be on set, but it's really, really jarring. Equally odd is the way that even after Seagal's team of vampire hunters and themain cast have come together, there are long segments when the action focuses on the hunters themselves, minus Seagal. There's a bit where one of the hunters says he's going to check a room out, and Seagal lets him go. Whereupon the hunter has a ten minute fight with a bunch of vampires, and Seagal doesn't so much as show up to lend a hand. br / br /It's just really, really obvious that the crew had limited use of Seagal. But then again the bad editing is really the only reason to watch this film, If you're a Steven Seagal fan, then you might want to watch some of his other movies, his earlier ones in particular. Against The Dark might be worth checking out for the aforementioned poor editing, but it's not a good film by any means, and certainly not worth buying. A disgrace February 11, 2009 S. Kemp (UK) 4 out of 4 found this review helpful Awful. Dull, plodding rubbish with a star who is seldom on-screen. Tedious characters wandering around the same corridors in repeat shot after shot. Not even worth having for free. A real struggle to sit through this for the full running time. Be glad that I did, so you won't have to! Showing reviews 1-5 of 9 1 2 Next »

CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON EU S.à.r.l. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.