Product Details

• Actors: Steven Seagal, Jeff Chase, Skye Bennett
• Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: English
• Subtitles: English, French
• Region: Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only)
  PLEASE NOTE: Some Region 1 DVDs may contain Regional Coding Enhancement (RCE). Some, but not all, of our international customers have had problems playing these enhanced discs on what are called "region-free" DVD players. For more information on RCE, click here.
• Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: R (Restricted)
• Studio: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment
• DVD Release Date: February 10, 2009
• Run Time: 94 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 1.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (38 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B001MLZNKS
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #52,662 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Against the Dark" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

Genre: Action/Adventure
Rating: R
Release Date: 10-FEB-2009
Media Type: DVD

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars He lives by the sword. You will be bored by it., February 2, 2009

By 

M. S. Skidmore (Kinver, United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Against the Dark (DVD)

As if he was a rather large and sweaty product on the Generation Game, The Fat Lord returns on his own personal conveyor belt of mediocrity with this new direct to video stinker. Anyone still reeling from the sheer lunacy of his last effort ''Kill Switch'' (which to be fair I actually enjoyed in a ''what the hell?'' kind of way) will come down to earth with a fast, large thud as Seagal's latest is nothing more than an overly long dull pseudo horror flick which barely has any running time with our favorite pony tailed video master.

The story has the world (well, Bulgaria or some other non american location) engulfed by a plague which has turned us humans into low rent extras from '28 Days Later'. The rest of humanity are huddled into small groups attempting survival and escaping the marauding vampire/zombie combo. Into the fray, comes our leather jacketed hero, brandishing a sword which would normally take 3 blokes to carry and ''swooshing'' everything in sight. The Fat Lord's acting style consists of two levels of expression: Silent grimace as if he was stuck on the toilet or a quick piff paff puff - he's swooshed his sword again. Then, back to grimace.

Anyway, I digress. Back to the story. Our hero The Fat Lord leads a team of hunters who travel with him across the scorched landscape taking out the undead and trying to help the remaining survivors and bring them to safety. Across another part of the city, a team of survivors have banded together in a disused hospital where they attempt to make their way out and survive the night, dodging being attacked by the undead and trying to emote any form of emotion out of a one note script which asks nothing more of them except to look attractive whilst screaming or run away from a stunt man covered in blood with large rubber fangs. To be fair to the cast, they all do try to make the best of their roles (lead Jenna Harrison is really good in her role and you do at points want to follow her character), its just that the script is so 'been there, done that' and very sneakily for us fans - The Fat Lord is hardly in the movie! I counted his sporadic running time only adding up to a total 10 minutes - the rest of the movie is split between the human survivors caught in the hospital and a pointless military base sequence with a bored Linden Ashby and a pay cheque cashing Keith David squabbling over who to bomb first. (Note to the film makers; you missed a trick. You should have had the Fat Lord 'swooshing' the bomb away with his sword. Might have made a rather amusing ending. Just a thought).

All in all, another direct to video dud which will surely disappoint his legion of fans. Granted, The Lord is hardly in this one so I guess we can't fully blame him again - but, he did produce the thing and those damn distributor's trade off his name stating he is indeed the star whereas in reality, it's merely an extended cameo. So, to sum up: The cast are quite good for this kind of thing, the script is pedestrian and Richard Crudo's direction is slick but obviously hampered by a dollar ninety five budget and another dull, uninspired location.

Obviously, if you are a fan - you will have no choice but to watch The Lord's latest epic, but for casual viewers drawn in by the horror/action style scenario depicted on the cover (looking like a 'Blade' for the middle aged, if you will) then maybe its wise if you approach with caution. Or, just rent 'Out for Justice'. Again.

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Why Steven ...... Why ?????????, February 17, 2009

By 

Malik G. Hapaq "Malik Hapaq" (Jordan) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Against the Dark (DVD)

Steven Segal is one of my favorite action stars , i loved him in "Marked For Death " & " Hard To Kill " and all of his old movies , and i really proud of him that he is still acting and to be honest i still buy any new movie that he reales ............ but the last four or five movie including this one are BAD some are very BAD i really disappointed from these movies ..... the acting is bad the story is bad there is no cool martial arts movments that you expect from steven .... but i still have a hope that he will realse a new movie like the old ones ....

10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars an action legend bottoms out, February 17, 2009

By 

Sheeky (Bakersfield, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Against the Dark (DVD)

Some may not even be as generous to call Stephen Seagal an action legend. Let me start by saying this, I am very forgiving when it comes to b-rate action/sci-fi movies. I enjoy that genre, even in all of its corny and unbelieveable antics. It is one thing to be a b-movie, and shunned by the masses, they are definetly not for everybody. It is quite another to be so bad that not even fans of this type of movie can't stand it. For all intents and purposes, for people like me, this film should have been an easy slam dunk. A matial arts star (albiet washed up) and vampires. No one watching a movie like this is expecting an oscar-worthy script, or even good acting. Rather, they are looking for some redeeming quality, even if an over-the-top action sequence, or creative carnage, or in some way making light of itself (i.e. Bruce Campbell movies).

If there is one B-movie killer, it is the 'b' word. Boring. There are a myriad of bad movies out there, each bad for its own reason, but at least they are not boring, and thus have a select audience. Against the Dark couldn't be more boring. They do not even attempt to get you connected to any one of the characters. The biggest miss here is also the most obvious-Stephen. An Aikido master, we should have seen some action. His character is supposed to be a sword master, yet despite that, we see NO martial arts, and for a sword master, he barely touches it. Even with a big, cool sword, he opts to just shoot the vampires with no flash at all. The vampires, by the way, are less vampires, and more like zombies, except they can be stopped easily.

Even though the story is primarily based in one spot, the hospital, the director decides to insult the viewer by showing the front of the hospital every single time we go back to them, probably no less than 8 times. As if we've forgotten where they are every 5 minutes.

I really think it is difficult to mess up this kind of movie for the people like me who enjoy them, but Against the Dark really went out of it's way to be terrible in every way.

I can't imagine what circumstances led to Mr Seagal doing this film, but he has really hit rock bottom. The only consulation I can muster is that from here, at least he really can't do any worse...I hope...