IMDb > Alone (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Alone More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 23 reviews in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Bad, tiring and unsatisfying

Author: ( from Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
23 June 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Summary: Uninteresting mysterie doesn't get solved with boring and tiring as main keywords. Wonder why the videorental acquired so many of this movie? Maybe they only read the back of the videocover just as I did?

*spoiler alert*

Music 5/10: I don't remember the music, so it wasn't disturbing nor entertaining. Music is probably a big word. Video 4/10: Most of the time it was dark, in several scenes the movie was cut in videoclip style. But with what purpose? Found it just tiring. One could barely see what was going on. Or were they trying to hide that simply nothing was happening? Story 3/10: Experienced cop with new rookie solving murders/abuse from disturbed person. Movie starts with fatality caused by victim pushed from stairs by murderer. 2nd fatality is caused by choking/allergic reaction when murderer force-feeds victim. 3rd victim survives 2 attacks. She knows the killer but can't tell the police because she's suffering from amnesia. 4th victim gets strangled The dialogues between the 2 policeofficers are not worked out. Not sure of the purpose of these characters. They attend at the crimescenes - yet don't discover/ investigate anything. After 70 long minutes they come up with the plan to announce that the 3rd victim lives so they can catch the killer when he tries to get rid of her. I observed a sort of action scene here with 2 times 1 person running through a deserted hospital at night. They did this because the script told them to do so not because they were desperately trying to achieve something. An average busstop will give a more interesting scenery. Anyway, plan fails. Police doesn't catch killer. Killer doesn't kill victim 3. Killer arrives home, takes a shower. --And that's it!!!-- Very unsatisfying. Flashbacks indicate the killer had a bad childhood. (forced to eat, sexually abused?, etc...) The voice of the killer appears female, her hands in one scene male. Through the showercabin one sees a body that appears female, yet can be a rebuild too. Very very cheap.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

good cast wasted

Author: cjamesm from United Kingdom
18 July 2005

There is a nice idea at the back of this film, and the director has assembled a talented cast.

Unfortunately the novelty of the approach wears thin and the idea - that we see only through the eyes of the killer- becomes incredibly iritating by the end of the film.

Aditonally the "twist" is predictable after about 5 minutes.

This is a shame as the actors are very talented and could undoubtedly have made a decent fist of the role given half a chance.What a wasted opportunity!

Technical details are excellent and the editing and sound design are superb.Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Predictable yet decent enough film

Author: Ben Jones ( from Manchester, England
6 March 2003

I have to begin by saying that this was probably one of the least original serial killer films i've seen in a while. You can pick your cliche from many films before it, be it the killers childhood problems to the tough, seen it all before detective. That said this is still a decent film with some very nice touches by the director. The point of view perspective of the serial killer is not a new idea, yet is very well used, and there are some genuinely creepy moments throughout. Unfortunately the ending is pretty predictable but is still very well handled by the director. On the whole a watchable film.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Clever but 'end'less

Author: from Greenock, Scotland
18 December 2002

This is technically well made - in terms of audio-visuals. But, despite clear craftsmanship in this, area the film is let down in the end by a severe plot deficit. After tantalising the viewer as the to gender and identity of the perpetrator the film decides not to bother with this. SO one is left with a sense of annoyance.


Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Don't flame...

Author: Yiorgos Halkos from Patra, Greece
22 February 2007


In general: "Alone" is a movie you won't remember after a month or so, but that doesn't make it an awful movie..

After watching the whole movie, I got the same feeling I had with the "9th gate": The movie needed 10 more minutes of plot unraveling, to explain/conclude some things. It seemed as if the producer run out of funds and had to finish the film in a hurry.

That left apart, the movie contains some very nicely done camera tricks (first person perspective, memory flashbacks etc), an interesting -yet not that genuine- background of Alex (the main character), and some nice acting.

Concluding: The camera tricks are not groundbreaking, as the ones in "Matrix". The plot is not even close to "Seven". No Oscar was nominated for acting in this film. Compared to some 5-star films, "Alone" is not much to look at. It surely is not one of the best films I've seen, but not a bad film either. 6/10 for me: slightly above average. Worth watching it on TV or renting it for 1,5 euros, but nothing more.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

oh no....

Author: gerrypig from norway
1 January 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is so bad... The makers might have been inspired by the best. But they have not learnt anything_! The editing and visuals of the movie reminds me of a mixture of the excellent movies: A requiem for a dream and "seven".. But just a lame version of it...


"hey... lets loop this footage of the killer through the whole film so we kind of show that this pshyco kinda do the same thing every day...kinda??!!"

AARRGGHH!!! 1-10

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

do not watch this

Author: citizenmatty from United Kingdom
22 March 2006

this movie sucks. i mean really awful. it's so bad a little part of you dies when you watch it.the director is ambitious and handled his low budget fairly well, but overall it made me vomit (not just because of the force-feeding scene either.) this 2 hour or so long festival of festering turd is the worst contribution to the arts i have ever seen. Benito Mussolini's had a better taste in art than any self-loathing dunderhead moronic enough to subject themselves to this. the world would be a better place if every copy of this film was would be much better off at home in your old-master themed study, in your Dickensian dressing-gown, smoking a pipe and burying yourself into some Shakespeare.

Goodnight, and God Bless

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Best Avoided

Author: mjw2305 from England
15 January 2005

'Creepy, Psychological Thrills'

'Cranks up the Tension'


These comments are printed proudly on the sleeve of the DVD. Believe them at your peril. You could certainly spend the 89Mins I spent watching this doing something more worthwhile. It doesn't even manage to be creepy by accident.

I Implore you, avoid this film

If you like a good psychological thriller/serial killer movie try SEVEN, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, BONE COLLECTOR, FALLEN. Anything but this


Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A mere gesture in the vain of better flicks

Author: tiborhuber from Munich, Germany
30 July 2002

Plain put, Claydon produced a vaguely distorted remake of "Halloween' in the style one cannot eschew after watching the likes of "Seven' and "The Cell' till they left a drone in one's ears: he left out Brad Pit and Jennifer Lopez, but managed to get a fine sound-track and a superbly over the top Miriam Margolyes, who delivers a memorable study in grotesque realism.

The horror, however, coming in about three waves of identical pattern, gets pretty repetitive very soon and culminates in an anticlimax entirely out of sorts. Claydon might need to watch "Nightshift' and "When the Bough Breaks' to get a better grasp on plot-development or the urge to have a point before shooting. But I'm miffed anyway because I wanted to see a Korean thriller by Sung-Hong Kim and dreamily trudged to the wrong festival-theatre, therefore my judgement might be somewhat biased by self-loathing...

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Horror? No, just horrible.

Author: j4gg3d from Gothenburg, Sweden
18 May 2002

Naive, as the lady says in this movie, that what I was when i got fooled by the cover of this little flick. Reminded me of movies like Scream and Final Destination. It's nothing like those movies.

First of all, it's English as in England, but they managed to squeeze in an American girl. Maybe for the trailer, what do I know? The camera-work most be done by some ex. MTV-director. At first there's a lot of odd, flashy screenplay, but eventually it disappears and become a regular English TV-style footage. We follow the killer trough his OR her eyes. The voice is a woman's, but people in the movie seems to think it's a he. Every time we're "inside" the psychopath's head, there's a lot of different shadow-voices talking and screaming, making us believe that this person had a ruff childhood.

The few killings are plain stupid and boring, but the second actually made me laugh a bit. You're still curious to find out more about the murderer, so you keep on watching. Suddenly it's over, finito, and you're not any wiser.

This is the worst I've seen in a very long time. Avoid it at any cost. My rating is a 1 out of 10. I'm angry as hell that I wasted an hour and a half of my life, on this horrible movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history