Lost Colony

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

Wraiths of Roanoke