Dorathen Better Late Then Never

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

nathynmasters-845-608407 I gave this movie a chance. I have to admit I went into it expecting it to suck, so maybe my lowered expectation had something to do with it, but the movie starts off like many others describing the disaster, we meet the survivors and meet Seagal and his crew. We cut between the survivors and the hunters until they meet up. This was actually better than many of the film's he's been in.Much of the issue comes from Seagal being part of an ensemble cast. While he got a lot of the spotlight, the film simply wasn't about him. While he is billed as a lead to help sell the film there's a lot more going on here.So I'm going to give this movie a 7. As an action horror film it was pretty good. Wasn't on the level of some, but it was good. And the creatures are cool too, they're like a mix of vampire and zombie. Seagal and his team do kick a lot of butt, so that can't be the reason as to why so many people hate on this film. I will admit Seagal didn't do a ton of Akido, but the fight scenes are still pretty good.

Jahn Well where to start. I am a big fan of Steven Seagal movies, he's my idol. Love all his work including some of the music he's created.Now the movie.. don't know if this is a spoiler or not because it's such a terrible film.. The plot is A group of people are hold=up in an Hospital during an epidemic where the world is suffering from a virus outbreak that turns the infected into well here's the confusing part.. they look more like zombies but i think they are supposed to be vampires. The actors, as far as i know are all unknown, the casting has gone with new actors rather than the usual A or B-list actors who do TV films.The acting is terrible like they picked them off the street and handed them a script, like getting a pilot to drive a bus or a brain surgeon to work as a vet, the two don't mix. The whole films lighting is dark.. I'm guessing out of the 8-9mil$ budget they didn't spend any on bulbs.I'm a big movie fan and a Steven seagal fan and can honestly say this is the worst movie I've seen in a long time, not ever, there are worse.Steven seagal was the only decent actor in the whole movie, the sword fight scenes were well done. I only watched the film because Steven Seagal was in it.. Well let me tell you he is only in it a few times, a cameo part at best. On the whole a very disappointing movie. Under Siege was the high-point of Seagal's career, Against the dark must be his lowest.If Steven seagal wasn't in this film then I'd rate it Zero but you can only choose 1-10 so Steven is a 10 but the movie is a 1 because Steven's in-it.This was my first review.

KHayes666 I can accept Steven Seagal is never going to reach the popularity he had in the mid 80's and early 90's, but what compels him to make these cookie cutter direct to video releases in the last 5 years I don't know. Every year the movies he makes make less and less sense.Where to begin on this one...the back of the box says "katana master Tao (Seagal) leads a team of black op mercenaries with a massacre in mind, their target: Vampires." As we get the movie underway, within the first 5 minutes they explain that they're not really vampires but a hybrid between zombie and vampire. Think 28 days later....that's strike one because I wanted to see Seagal go head to head with Stephen Dorff or something.At first we meet Seagal's gang of mercenaries which turns out to be him, a dude and 2 chicks. They're supposed to clear out the place just the 4 of them? Unless they're the X-Men I don't buy it. Then we meet the group of about 6 random people trapped in the hospital where the entire movie takes place. Their mission is to get to ground level and out to a car.......and that's where the crap begins. The 6 "survivors" repeatedly run into the "vampires" who are so incompetent that none of the survivors die for the first 45 minutes. In fact, Seagal's crew doesn't do a damn thing after the initial slaying for another half hour. They show various camera shots of him walking around while the rest of the morons run for their lives. The dialogue comes off as so horrible you begin to want the group to just die already. In fact, none of the group buys the farm until Seagal's gang shows up. That's just awful security isn't it? In fact, the only member of Seagal's crew worth anything is Tagart, and sadly he's not on screen enough to save this film.I won't elaborate further because the idea of going over the rest makes my head hurt. The overall fact was it looked to be a monster movie but was in fact just an ordinary zombie movie and all Seagal does is flail away with a kitana sword. Like I said, is this the best role he could play these days? The only 2 highlights is David Keith (a real life friend of Seagal) and Johnny Cage (forgot the actor's name but he plays Cage) debating whether to blow the hospital up.Horrible....2 out of 10

Anthony Pittore III (Shattered_Wake) Ah, Steven Seagal. The ponytail that marked a generation of cheesy action flicks. . . these days, he's mostly just a mockery of himself. But, he's back. . . and he's kicking some zombie/vampire/creature ass. With a friggin' sword! Honestly, other than Blade, when's the last time we've seen a serious modern action hero with a sword? Pure genius. Most of the film is just wandering aimlessly around a hospital/research facility and slicing & dicing the zombie vamps. That's about it. There's supposedly a couple of time limits to fake 'suspense,' one being they have to reach some door before the generator dies (that's why they take so many breaks for food & rest. . . when all they have to do is go down a few flights of stairs) and the other being the military (of which Seagal and his black-clad posse are a part) is preparing to "sterilize" in the morning.Throughout the film, you get a whole lot of poorly choreographed fight sequences where most hits land at least three inches from the target. The zombie/vampire (seriously, I have no idea what they are. . . they're pretty obviously dead, but also go down when they get kicked in the nards) effects aren't too bad, nor are the overall gore effects. The acting is pretty bad and even the British actors' British accents aren't believable.There are tons of hilarious one-liners, but my favourite is when Seagal finally gives his name. Fifty (that's 5-0) minutes in (seriously, it took that long), Seagal meets the annoying little girl (?) and, after aggressively asking her if she's been attacked, concludes the conversation with "I'm Tao." This is followed by some of the most epically misplaced guitar riffs I've ever heard. Classic.Overall, the movie is unbelievably stupid, but even more fun(ny) than it is dumb. I'm sure that it will live down (at least with me) as one of the best drinking-game movies in history.Final Verdict: 4/10, just because it's so damn fun -AP3-