Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

Surprisingly un-retarded for a Sci-Fi Original

[gtc83 · 5/10 · 14 October 2007]

In the 1500's, a group of English settlers arrive at the island of Roanoke, only to find the soldiers left to guard the fort have all gone missing, save for one who has hung himself. A cryptic message written in ancient Norse is left scrawled in his own blood, warning the settlers of dangers in the woods. Having little choice but to stay, the settlers try to make the best of their situation, but one pregnant woman begins having nightmares of horrible creatures taking her baby. Soon these creatures start appearing and attacking the settlers, and a life or death struggle ensues over the course of the movie.

Overall, this was surprisingly un-retarded for a Sci-Fi Original. The atmosphere of the small colony was quite nice and made me feel as if I was actually in the 1500's trying to survive against all odds. The special effects were adequate, I've seen better but I've seen much, much worse. Acting was also adequate, though character development was severely limited and left me feeling little connection to any of the settlers. And there lies the problem, with little connection to the characters, I had only moderate interest in the story, so the movie can't really be given more than a 5/10 average rating. Still, if you're looking for a satisfactory waste of two hours that won't insult your intelligence with childish editing gimmickry, atrocious acting and comically absurd story elements like so many other Sci-Fi Originals, then this film wouldn't be a bad choice.

Let's be a little fair here

[shannonphoenix · 5/10 · 24 November 2007]

I wouldn't be so hard on this film. No one has ever been able to give a good account of what really happened, and the whole mystery is there to speculate and to guess and write stories about. Sci-fi channel has had it's good stories and dull ones, and this is not at good as I was hoping for, but I don't believe it was half bad. It could have been better if they had a seasoned director and producer who is use to doing mystery/suspense thrillers, but I don't think that was the case. I wonder what George Lucas could have done with it or someone with a little more imagination. Besides, think about it, we didn't see the entire movie, we saw the edited version and I willing to bet that it would have been a lot more scarier and would have made a lot more reasonable sense if those parts were in there. Sometimes I wish when they came out with movies on DVD, they would give you a choice of seeing the extended version with the deleted scenes or the theater movie.

As for the acting, the movie, just like X-men III, it seemed very rushed and I am sure they were times constraints. However, actors do a better job when they have more time to get into the part and make some suggestions of their own and I am not sure that happened. I think they were just given the part and told to "do it!" which also does not make for a good movie. But, you can't blame the actors who are given a script that they can only do so much with and I think the actors did the best they could and were not able to live up to their talent.

I also think if just a little bit more money was put into it, it would have been a better picture. I hate it when things "happen" and there is a reason why they may be happening, but no one tells or says what it is. You see that in a lot of horror movies. People want to know background history, legends, etc. I thought a halfway descent effort was made for this. But like Eddie Murphy says, "Why do white people stay in a place that is haunted?" I am white but I would have gotten the HE** out.

The whole incident is a bit haunting itself. It is very hard to really know how many Native American nations and tribes there really were. Many died out before the settlers came and some were dying off about that time. But, the word on the tree, "Croatian" (SP) does seem familiar and I do believe it was the name of a Native American tribe that may have befriended the colonist and took them into their tribe and that word was put on their so that the coming settlers would know where to find them. But, instead, the just left it a mystery and may have wanted to on purpose because they may have wanted a plan or something to scare people about in the event of any indigenous people in the area they wanted to get rid of. I mean, look what happened after wards? I believe that those colonist did not want to return and stayed with the Croatians since a lot of tribes were nomadic during the seasons. That is just a theory with no scientific backing. But it beats thinking that they were slaughtered because the Native Americans were blamed for a lot of things they didn't do and we nearly committed Genocide.

More Thoughtful Writing Would Improve It

[PhilipGHarris · 4/10 · 30 March 2008]

Wraiths starts off at speed and the viewer feels that since it isn't going to take itself too seriously besides being "inspired by actual events". This is especially clear when it starts to stray from any basis of fact in the first five minutes.

This is a made for TV Movie but has been well produced and budget has been used to great effect. The acting isn't bad, although some of the English accents do leave something to be desired. Scenery shots are pretty and music is exactly what you would expect for this type of fare.

Unfortunately the internal plot just doesn't gel and I found myself getting annoyed with what would have otherwise been a passable little bit of nonsense.

Rarely in this type of movie we are given the fact that all characters seem to know there is something seriously wrong but who refuse to talk to each other about the implications. Well not until a great way through the film, when of course it really is too late.

Wraiths are not meant to be able to cross water – except they can if wooden trellis bridges are laid down. Or possibly if a man outstretches his arm or even for no particularly explainable reason. At least they give up mumbling in a foreign language so the people in the camp understand them.

Our hero also seems to have an astonishing knowledge of Norse mythology and language that he picked up where? A vague explanation is given but really fails to hang. People go into what is described as hostile areas solo, especially at night without allowing the gate to be closed behind them. There is a wholly unjustified attack on the natives and it is really helpful that they seem to have a good technical knowledge of the occult. Oh and grenades.

Much of the script stinks as well and lines where guards ask if it is unusual to have this much fog within the walls or when in the thick forest and Ananias calls for them to, "Burn it all down!" really fail to make sense.

No-one seems to understand the chain of command as well and there always seem to be more guards to die than ever arrived at the settlement in the first place.

I don't want to nit pick but these and others are blatant flaws in the plot that could have been resolved and moves this film from a 6 to a 4.

Good to watch when you pull a sickie

[nwestwood1 · 2/10 · 7 July 2008]

My god this film is bad, however it is strangely watchable. Especially if you have a DVD player in your room, you're ill on a weekday or pulling a sickie. I like watching bad ghost films on a cold miserable day. This wasn't scary apart from watching the wasted potential of Adrian Paul's career ! The ghosts in questions resemble something out of a rundown ghost train attraction or a half baked equalivent of the ghost army from 'Return Of The King'. Still it's watchable as it does have some very mild suspense. For the duriation of the film I would recommend some hot soup and a toasted cheese sandwich, or 1 low volume alcoholic beer- depends on your mood!

Not bad but not great either

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 10 April 2012]

Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke did actually look as though it would be somewhat tolerable. And while nothing great, considering SyFy's dubious track-record it is. This is by far one of the better-looking SyFy projects, with stunning locations and scenery and photography that does look as though care went into it instead of the usual dull, slapdash kind. The score is decent, not too over-bearing or sluggish and the acting shows a sense of spirit and an effort to not be too bland or overdone. However, while I appreciated the moral and philosophical aspects, the script could have done with being more thoughtful and less cheesy and stilted, the story suffers from a lack of atmosphere and poorly choreographed and less-than-thrilling battles and while the characters are less stereotypical than characters in other SyFy movies(the creature and disaster movies of theirs are the worst when it comes to this) not much is done to make them interesting to let us relate to them.

Overall, not bad but not desperately good either, just average. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Traditional low-quality expected from the Scifi channel

[Tanuccoon · 3/10 · 14 October 2007]

Scifi channel has a reputation for picking up awful B-listers to fill out its empty Saturday nights. Unfortunately, Wraiths of Roanoke is no exception. Within the first ten minutes, the acting will tip you off that this'll be an unimpressive title; indeed, the acting is very similar to such mid-budget series as Stargate SG1 and Painkiller Jane. Of course, the fault doesn't lie entirely with the actors, only so much can be done with the stale and entirely trite dialogue.

The story isn't much better. The basic outline involves British colonials, who intend to inhabit an island, finding their old garrison "abandoned" (read: dead). The Native Americans (Croats) give vague warnings about some mysterious danger, only clarifying things when the first people die. From then on, the settlers (who can't abandon the island for a few reasons, some of which are inconsequential given the threat) are forced to contend with evil spirits.

It's supposedly based on true events, which seems to be a big selling point. However, given the film, I can't imagine how many liberties were taken. I imagine the only truth involves the abandoned fort--which could've just been sacked or what have you. Wraiths happens to be one of those films where you can see budgetary constraints in everything and it suffers for it.

Lame and Boring

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 25 December 2010]

In 1587, 117 brave men and women set sail from Britain to establish the first English colony in Americas. They land on Roanoke Island, off the coast of Virginia. They build a settlement and plant crops. After a period, a group of colonists finds the local fortress deserted with the corpse of a suicidal hanged in decomposition and a warning written with blood on the ceiling. Ananias Dare (Adrian Paul) is assigned to be in charge of the colony while their leader will bring supplies. Sooner Ananias learns that the forest is haunted by evil spirits that feed themselves of human soul and that they are chasing his new-born daughter that has a pure soul.

"Wraiths of Roanoke" is a lame and boring film with a terrible story, bad acting and direction, awful art direction and costumes and poor special effects. Further, it is too long and repetitive along 95 minutes running time, giving the sensation that the annoying story will never end. This flick is highly recommended for insomnious viewers that do not want to swallow sleeping pills. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Espíritos da Floresta" ("Spirits of the Forest")

Mediocre chill entertainment

[kluseba · 4/10 · 11 April 2011]

This movie is an entertaining flick that one can see once but not more. I would suggest you to loan this movie if you are interested in a short and action filled movie with a few fantasy and horror elements in a beautiful geographical and historical setting. This is a perfect movie if you are looking for a last film to rent or buy to get a special price reduction or guarantee bonus in the usual shops. It's also a perfect movie to watch something relaxing on a lonely night on television before you go to bed as it is no disturbing flick at all where it isn't ultimately important if you close your eyes from time to time. It's the perfect movie too softly switch your brain off at night.

I give already one point to the magnificent landscapes and locations of the flick. The places are well captured and the camera crew delivers a solid job. Another point goes the cultural, historical and mythological background of the movie that is not always that plausible but at least intriguing. The philosophical and moral touch concerning values of friendship, trust, faith and strength adds another interesting level to this low budget movie. A fourth point goes out to the acting. Even though it is not stunning, the rather unknown actors are doing what they can with what they get and I have seen much worse performances. I could maybe give half a point to the ending of the movie that is not ultimately surprising but well chosen.

The problem with this flick is the constant lack of atmosphere. There is no suspense or horror in the air, the most frightening scene is already the opening sequence. As soon as you see what attacks the lost colony, any degree of suspense is erased as the special effects are horrible and make you rather laugh out loud than fear. The whole plot doesn't always seem coherent and intriguing to carry over the whole length of the movie. Concerning the action or slash factor, this one is surprisingly low and the battles are really poor and almost boring. Now, as the story is not intriguing and as there is no true suspense, no action and no horror, there is not much left that carries this movie on to be honest. The movie seems to slightly touch any of the mentioned genres without building up something concrete. Some horror scenes, some fantasy moments, some action sequences, some drama dialogues and from time to time some landscape shots are mixed together to a whole mediocre movie of chilled entertainment.

Not a Bad Flick considering it's a SciFi channel movie

[victor89 · 6/10 · 14 October 2007]

this movie is a fictional account of events leading up to the mysterious disappearance of a bunch of English colonists in the 16th century. While I never saw the "Highlander" TV show, I have known the serviceable Adrian Paul from his old "War of the Worlds" series days. The guy still keeps in shape. The video moves along fairly well and contains reasonably high suspense along with a very high slaughter rate among wraiths, soldiers, colonists and a native American tribe. The actors do what they can with what they got. the picture contains good outdoor scenery of the woods. don't expect Shakespeare with this worthwhile two hour time killer.

Its Basic Problem Is That It's Too Silly!

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 31 October 2011]

At the very least, one has to give this film credit for originality, and, I suppose, since this is based around a very real and unsolved mystery anyone who makes a movie about it has total license to do with the story whatever they want. Having said that, "Lost Colony" is a rather silly movie, with a few chills included and a fair but not overwhelming amount of blood and gore, but it certainly isn't anything that should be taken at all seriously. It's based on the mystery of the lost colony on Roanoke Island off the coast of what is now North Carolina in the 16th century. It makes a claim at the beginning to be "based on actual events." I suppose that's true in the sense that there was an English colony on Roanoke Island in the 16th century and it did disappear without a trace so that to this day - although there's a lot of speculation - no one knows for certain what happened to it. I am reasonably certain, though ...

I'm reasonably certain that what happened on Roanoke Island didn't involve "wraiths" - the spirits of Vikings who are trapped in this world, having been unable to make the passage to Valhalla, and who are rather vicious creatures, literally sucking the life out of the living, and looking for a perfect innocent (in this case, little Virginia Dare - who really was the first English child born in the new world) whose life will apparently be able to set them free. That's not likely - but as I said, one gives credit for imagination, when the more likely explanation for the colony's disappearance was simply that it ran out of food and its inhabitants joined with a local native tribe. But that's not as much fun as this bit of conjecture.

This really isn't as bad as some might say. Its basic problem is its silliness - and the fact that it never really overcomes its silliness to really reach the level of a good thriller or horror movie. The performances in it are all right, and the setting seemed quite authentic. It's just too silly! (5/10)

One of the Sci-Fi Channel's Better Films.

[1stbrigade · 8/10 · 15 October 2007]

"Wraiths of Roanoke" is a horror film based on the true story of the Lost Colony, where the first 117 settlers mysteriously disappeared on Roanoke Island, North Carolina in 1587. In this film, the audience is presented with the possibility that evil wraiths left on the island from the Vikings was responsible for the colonies disappearance. Surprisingly, this is a pretty good film in the long line of Sci-Fi Channel Films. The cast and crew do a fine job of creating a terrifying, exciting film. Adrian Paul of "Highlander" fame is terrific as Ananias Dare, the leader of the colony. We see as he struggles to find an answer to the mystery, and falls apart when he begins to feel that he has failed the colonists. The supporting cast does a terrific job as well, including Frida Show, who plays Eleanor Dare, Ananias' daughter. The plot and story are in good form, and the visual effects are nearly flawless, save for a couple of scenes. Overall, this is a fine fantasy/horror film based on a true story. Fans of of these kinds of films will surely enjoy this film. Grade: B+

Highlan der meets the Vikings, meets the Indians, meet Roanoke Island

[kairingler · 7/10 · 12 October 2008]

At first i didn't quite know what to make of this one,, first of all it's based on history, which is always good,, since i'm a history buff,, Roanoke Island is the setting,, off of the North Carolina coast. About 117 men and women come from England to settle in the new world, and meet up with some strange evil force from an old Viking legend.. apparently there are some tortured souls trapped on the island that just cant' seem to get to where they are going,, Valhalla is where they call it,, in English i guess it's what we'd call Heaven,, anyway to make a long story short these tortured souls are after a little baby, to get an "innocent" then they can get to where they are going,, trouble is they don't like water,, and the villagers are surrounded by a moat,, Adrian Paul does a fairly decent job with the script that he is given,, all in all not a bad story.

Amateuristic acting on a lousy story

[leandros-1 · 1/10 · 28 April 2008]

"Based on facts" is what they write in the beginning of the story..... Well to tell you the truth, I think that even "Lord of the Rings" (which I personally did not like) has more truth than what they are presenting here.

The acting is really bad... I do not believe a single word of Ananias for one moment, when he tells his wife that he loves her etc.... It sounds all like an amateur that is trying to persuade the local drunks in a bar of his honesty...... And even there he would not succeed.

To my humble opinion: this movie is not worth wasting your time on. Maybe fun for children under 10.... but for the rest...... Save the money. Don't rent it or even buy it in the 1 dollar shop. You will regret it.....

Dire. Avoid.

[Spaceygirl · 1/10 · 7 January 2008]

A made-for-TV production starring the TV version of Highlander, the yummy Adrian Paul who may be the only reason for a woman of any intelligence to watch this piece of crap.

A good premise is ruined, completely and utterly ruined by a horrible script and terrible acting, truly, truly awful. Adrian Paul tries, he really does. He's the only one with a believable British accent, probably because he actually is British. Funny that! His wife, cannot remember her name, is absolutely terrible. Her accent slips between British, American and Swedish? When I googled this horrible actress it turns out she's starring as Nico in a biopic of the singers life. Can't wait. Not. But I digress, "Wraiths" is truly terrible, the CGI effects are laughable and the plot...well, it has so much potential really, the idea of a complete colony disappearing into thin air..but it's wasted here and turned into Sci-Fi fodder that is utterly forgettable.

Bad Acting, Bad Casting, Bad Directing

[pansexuality · 1/10 · 18 March 2010]

Ask yourself how unbelievably terrified you would be if you were being attacked by Wraiths (if they existed) and then ask yourself if a single actor in this movie portrayed that level of terror.

Ask yourself why the casting director could not find a single native American to play native Americans.

Ask yourself what dimwit would be more interested in fighting something as terrible as wraiths to "save humanity" instead of simply moving away.

Ask yourself why a simple colonist has knowledge of ancient Norse language and legends.

Ask yourself how a simple colonist is able to sneak into a native American camp, and into the tent of their chief without being intercepted.

Ask yourself why you watched this stinker.

I've seen worse

[christien2 · 4/10 · 14 March 2011]

I have to agree with the person who said this film is really bad, but strangely watchable. My first impressions were that the characters were far too good-looking/beautiful. The women had flawless complexions complete with mascara and frosted lip-gloss. The costumes far too glamorous for a wilderness colony. Their hair looked like an ad for Laboratoire Garnier. Also, one of my but-bears is using a doll in scenes where there should be a real baby. I hate that! The natives didn't look anything like American Indians (grey eyes??) and how could they speak such perfect English? And how did the main character know Old Norse? I am a stickler for continuity in any movie, good or bad, and this one didn't quite hit the mark. The scary bits weren't as scary as they could have been, and there is no real suspense or feeling of terror amongst the settlers. But I guess they stuck pretty much to the legend/story of Roanoke. That is about the only good thing going for this low-budget TV movie. But I did watch it to the end, hoping against hope it was going to improve. Ah well... I've seen worse.

Save your soul before they take it from you...

[lojitsu · 5/10 · 12 June 2017]

A-Z Horror Movie of the Day..."Lost Colony: The Legend of Roanoke" (R - 2007 - US)

Sub-Genre: Monster/Paranormal

My Score: 5.2

Cast=5 Acting=5 Plot=7 Ending=5 Story=4 Scare=4 Jump=5 F/X=5 Monster=6 Creep=6

In the 1580's English colonists arrive in what was to become North Carolina and find supernatural terror.

"Save your soul, before they take it from you." I kind of liked this...sure it was low budget but I love the story of Roanoke and the village that vanished. So I was intrigued by the premise, but other than that it was a middle of the road SyFy channel horror film. Is it worth a look? sure why not...just keep your expectations low. Originally titled, "Wraiths of Roanoke", it kind of lets the cat out of the bag. I don't recommend it but it won't suck the life out of you, either.

Needed Work To See Its Full Potential...*Possible Spoilers*

[AndyVanScoyoc · 6/10 · 10 April 2009]

I'm not going to give you a background on what this movie is about being as you can read that much for yourself. I hate it when people do that, spend three or four paragraphs summarizing a movie when the summary is already available for the reader.

So, what I will say is that while based on actual history (which I love being a huge history buff) I only watched this movie because I am an even more die hard Adrian Paul fan.

The historical part was just icing on the cake.

Adrian Paul and Rhett Giles put in fabulous and well pulled off performances as Ananias Dare and George Howe, respectively.

However, other than nice costumes, a semi believable setting and a good performance by Michael T. (for some reason the comment form is auto correcting the correct spelling of his last name and making it "The") as Manteo, that is where the good ends and the mediocre take over.

Producers can't expect two people (Paul and Giles) to pull off an entire movie for them...which was what it seemed was happening.

I also have to take issue with conveniently forgetting history. Allow me a small tangent.

Now, while I do love history and movies made about historical subjects, and do allow leeway on the facts if the movie is strong enough to support it, I have to sadly say that this movie was not strong enough on its own merit to leave out such an important part of history.

Women were NOT outspoken in the 1580's (and certainly not in England, whether they'd just arrived in America or not) and so Frida Snow's character of Eleanor Dare was completely and utterly unbelievable.

For *that* time, she was far too outspoken about her feelings on their situation and Ananias, no matter how much he loved his wife and wanted to impress her father, doubtfully would have tolerated her questioning his decisions.

Nitpicky, I know, but that is the danger of making a movie based loosely on historical fact, but then picking and choosing what facts you stick to.

Women were little more than a husband's property back in those days (good for breeding, cleaning house, tending children and cooking) and though I would not have wanted to see a movie filled with male chauvinism, what I would have preferred to see would have been a more realistic exchange of words and more developed dialogue from Ananias and then between the two Dare's.

Oh and before anyone gets all bent out of shape...I'm a woman and have studied history enough to know that whimpering men wanting to placate a wife, especially in a new country filled with promise but also danger, is not realistic.

I'm simply saying that while some parts of this movie were good, there was far too much drama and not enough expanding on what could have been done with a good storyline of families in a new world and the problems and promise and ultimately the fate that befell them all, to make it any more than overall...mediocre.

Nifty supernatural horror outing

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 18 November 2011]

1587. A bunch of men and women from Britian land on Roanoke Island in Virginia to establish their own settlement. The group encounters an ancient supernatural terror residing in the nearby woods that threatens the safety of everyone in the colony. Director Matt Codd, working from a fresh and intriguing script by Rafael Jordan, relates the absorbing story at a steady pace, does an ace job of crafting a spooky atmosphere which becomes more increasingly eerie and unnerving as the gripping plot unfolds towards a harrowing conclusion, tosses in a few nice bits of gore, offers a vivid evocation of the flavorsome period setting, stages a few action set pieces with flair (a surprise raid on a neighboring Indian camp in particular is very lively and exciting), and maintains a dark and grimly serious tone throughout. The sound acting from the capable cast helps a lot, with especially praiseworthy work from Adrian Paul as resolute and sensible leader Ananias Dare, Frida Farrell as Dare's worried wife Eleanor, Rhett Giles as the brave and loyal George Howe, and Michael The as sage Native American chieftain Manteo. Moreover, the wraith spirits are genuinely creepy, the CGI effects are acceptable, and the Norse mythology explaining the wraiths is different and inspired. Anton Bakarski's sharp cinematography gives the movie a pleasing picturesque look and boasts several cool overhead camera shots. John Dickson's shivery score does the spine-tingling trick. A worthwhile fright film.

Clear reasoning review

[duckman_079 · 7/10 · 11 August 2020]

To me, a 5 rating means that a movie is worth watching once. A 6 means That I might see it again one day in the future. A rating of 7 is for movies I want to own. I can see how this may be a 5 or 6 to some. But for me, I like fictional history. That is, when the historical facts, especially mysterious ones, are interpolated with fun speculation or even given supernatural explanations. The bad reviews and low ratings of this movie were based on just superficial problems such as the actors being too clean & well-groomed and/or the special effects were low budget. Although I agree with this, the same can be said for outstanding shows like The Twilight Zone as well. Sometimes you have to look past these details. Imagine how bad the special effects would be if this were made into a play! As for this movie, the acting and dialog were believable. The setting and props were appropriate. But the strength of the show for me was in the historical background, even until the ending "name drop". Also, storyline and adding the supernatural into it sparked my imagination and left me thinking, even after the movie ended. This is NOT a wonderful blockbuster, nor sleeper-hit. But, as a few reviewers mentioned, something about the movie is intriguing, making them continue watching it.

Solid Sci-Fi Channel Historical Horror

[timothygartin · 6/10 · 18 October 2019]

I ended up liking this movie. I liked the spooky atmosphere and the acting from the lead characters the most. It is a loose retelling of the Roanoke colony disappearance and introduces some Viking mystical mumbo-jumbo to the legend.

Adrian Paul does a really good job as the leader of the colony. The other actors in supporting roles seemed to take this movie seriously, which doesn't happen in a lot of Sci-Fi channel movies.

The monster effects aren't the best. They don't really look scary. Also, a few writing choices didn't make sense. The most notable choices were when characters would seemingly just wander off to chase ghosts or fight with natives.

Overall, I recommend this movie.

Better than it should be

[slayrrr666 · 9/10 · 14 October 2007]

"Wraiths of Roanoke" is an incredibly fun and interesting Sci-Fi Channel film.

**SPOILERS**

In the Roanoke Colony in 1587, Ananias Dare, (Adrian Paul) finds the other colonists in fear when one of their own are brutally murdered. Trying to help, Governor John White, (Alex McArthur) places him in charge while he's away and soon after he wife Eleanor, (Frida Snow) welcome a baby. When the colonists suddenly start to mysteriously vanish, his friend George Howe, (Rhett Giles) convinces him that the local Indian tribe isn't to blame, despite what the others say, and after a disastrous raid, they are severely depleted and even more angrier with the Indians. Still not convinced, his suspicions prove correct when they discover that the source is Nordic spirits known as Wraiths who have called the Island home, and soon fight them off to take their land back.

The Good News: This was a really fun and surprising Sci-Fi Channel entry. A big factor is that this is full of wonderful suspense scenes. The woods themselves have a glorious creepy feel, as there's a really eerie air to them. From the pattern of the trees to the really disorienting nature of it, this one here really makes the woods creepy before the supernatural stuff comes into play. Wit it's near-constant whispering voices coming from off-screen in every direction, eerie howling and the instances where the surroundings come to life to take out victims make for some really creepy moments. The Wraiths themselves are really creepy looking as well, as there's glow about them that gives them a great look and the fact that the creatures look very monstrous gives them a great look and makes them more of a threat to the characters. The best feature of the film, though, is that there's a huge body count in this one. The creatures here knock off a large number of the colonists which makes for some really great deaths. There's one who gets their arms pulled off by supernaturally-powered vines, having a hand thrust in the back and explode violently out from the stomach, a huge helping of being slashed across the face, chest and body with axes, swords, hands and knives and a really great slit throat. Then there is the really big selection of kills that is the selling point, where the touch from the creatures results in having the skin melted away down to bones in a big pile of red goo. There's several of these in here, which is quite nice since there's a big amount of gore there, but also because of the fact that the effect looks incredibly well-done. The fact that the film also has an incredible amount of action is not to be ignored. The final half-hour is just incredible, as there's two huge battle scenes between the two groups in their campground that are long, brutal and just full of action to get the film interesting. There's even a really fantastic attack on the Indian camp which really goes over well. It goes back-and-forth between both sides having the advantage to really knocking off a lot of members in the fight. That it goes on for awhile is great, which makes it even better. This one was an incredibly surprising and fun film.

The Bad News: This one really only has a couple mild flaws. The fact that the Wraiths are seen way too early on in the film. They have a great, creepy look to them that really could've been exploited greatly with a reveal mid-way or late into the film, and by having them seen quite early, it really doesn't fare well as having them seen later. There could've been a little build-up to it through keeping them off-screen for a while to get the mystery, then paid off with a great reveal. It's a minor missed opportunity at worst. The other thing that doesn't sit well is that the origin of the creatures doesn't really come through that well. There's a legend about Nordic spirits, but it's not all the way explained. These two minor things really could've been used for the film.

The Final Verdict: One of the best Sci-Fi Channel originals in the category, with severely mild flaws to bring this one down. Really recommended to fans of those films, as well as those looking for an action-packed film, while those who are adamantly against these films won't be bothered with this one.

Rated R: Graphic Violence