Demon Under Glass (2002 Video) User Reviews

B-rated boredom catharsis.

[stolenutopia · 6/10 · 13 June 2006]

First, I must admit to being a Vampire!slut. It must be in my blood, (bad pun). I'd read about Demon Under Glass a few years ago and had completely forgotten until yesterday when I found it on sale.

Now - in all fairness - it isn't a terrible movie, obviously low budget, but I'd expected that. The acting was enjoyable; face it kiddies, Simon stole the show. I also appreciated the character McKay and his struggles with violating his Hippocratic Oath, this is especially apparent when Simon rips off his caduceus toward the end. Dr. Bassett (Jack Donner) had a fairly interesting role throughout the film that was overshadowed, on my part, by my preoccupation as to where in the bloody world I'd seen his face before.

My only criticism is that the movie was a bit too slow and the police officer's involvement seemed superficial at best. Also, it was terribly apparent to me that it was Simon who was the puppet master; a creature of survival, in his own words. Nonetheless, the minor blood play, brief sexual activity, and wonderful moment where Simon *dips* Joe McKay in an embrace that positively screamed 'gothic romance novel' had me beaming (unfortunately t'was only a dream).

Overall, if you're interested in the subject matter... I'd say it's worth the 111 minutes.

Starts off well...but

[Bezenby · 6/10 · 3 August 2012]

A vampire film, shot on digital, that's nearly two hours long? Hmm. I'm not the biggest vampire film fan in the world. George Romero's Martin was good, as was the original Salem's Lot, and Vamp, when I think of it, but mostly I just don't go for them. Still, I always give them a chance.

This one starts of with a police sting capturing a serial killer whom they've dubbed 'Vlad'. Instead of taking him down to the station for a kicking, a government agency steps in and whisks him off to a laboratory somewhere, where they start to experiment on him. This sets up some sort of moral play where the doctor (replacing the original doctor killed by the vampire) has to struggle with his vows to take care of his patient, and the demands of the government agency in experimenting on the bloodsucker.

That's a pretty good premise, and there's a good set up as they keep the vampire in check by threatening to expose him to sunlight if he steps out of line (crosses and garlic are useless, as they find out). The interaction between the moralistic doctor and the vampire is rather good, with the vampire guy going for 'subtle' rather than 'awful'. So you've got a 'who are the real monsters here' kind of thing going on. Got that? Fine.

Problem: This film is nearly two hours long, and set mostly in a laboratory. That's an awful long time to keep someone's attention. Worse still, there's a subplot regarding the female police officer who helped capture Vlad (she's fallen in love with him) which the film could have done without, and, sadly, the film just sort of descends into predictability. Which is a shame, because I was enjoying this one. It's fairly well acted and well made, but ultimately commits the worst offence of filmmaking: it's boring. A bit of trimming and this could have been good.

Doesn't live up to expectations

[fig-75275 · 6/10 · 5 July 2017]

I'm giving Demon Under Glass a generous 6 out of 10. The idea behind it is original and has a lot of potential. The opening scenes are quite good, although they reminded me of the scenes in Predator 2 when the feds are trying to capture the Predator. I have mixed feelings about Predator 2 but I thought it was a promising start.

It gets better after that and it's initially quite engaging. As the film progresses though, you get the sense that the situations are becoming more and more contrived.

At first, the dialog seems to be making the point that the vampire isn't supernatural but then the writers change their mind and need to use his supernatural powers to advance the plot. That part just doesn't really work and it felt rushed. I thought it could have worked if there had been more dialog with the vampire and if they could have done things a bit more intelligently.

I reckon this is the kind of film that could actually do with a reboot. If you fix the flaws and deal better with the supernatural elements I think Demon Under Glass could be a great vampire movie!

Vampires and half-naked Kira Reed

[lenny404 · 18 May 2003]

I heard of the negative hype about this B horror flick and thought I'd buy it and see what all the bashing was about. What a surprise! Generic, white-bread, Disney people need not apply!

"Demon Under Glass" turned out to be an interesting, thought provoking study of human nature and questions what make up "good" and "evil" into day's society--the 'good' doctors doing research for the good of all man kind using a captive, restrained vampire, or the 'bad' creature, killer and vampire? Who was less human, the magnificent creature of the night trying to survive or the single-minded medical people experimenting on him?

Some may feel the dark lighting is a sign of a poor film, but I found the shadowy scenes enhanced the delivery of the intensity and foreboding of the film. Garret Maggart as the one doctor with objects about the vampire's treatment was very convincing and made me sympathetic to his moral dilemma and I don't even like doctors, of any kind, real or make believe. Jason Carter was intense and dramatic as the captured vampire. Vampires ROCK! And this guy proves it. Pure predator and sexual presence.

Gota love this movie! Sexy Vampires, good-looking doctors, some interesting questions about life and , I can't Believe no one has mentioned this before, a half-naked, bloody, sexy KIRA REED, sex goddess! If you like vampires, you'll like 'Demon Under Glass.'

A neat idea with a disappointing delivery (minor spoilers)

[sweeneybird · 3/10 · 15 March 2003]

It's not that I don't like vampire movies. And cute angsty boys with or without moral dilemmas (or shirts) can more than compensate for a lot of flaws, trust me. But Demon Under Glass - well, it was boring. The idea that a vampire is no more inherently evil than any other victim of a malady could have been intriguing. Unfortunately the idea never got a chance to intrigue anyone.

The script didn't provide much in the way of back story, main story or character development - I never could figure out why Joe (Garett Maggart) carried out increasingly cruel procedures despite his scruples or why Simon (Jason Carter) decided to cooperate with his jailers/tormenters. And frankly, by the end I didn't care.

The direction and production quality of this self-proclaimed low-budget horror flick also left me cold. The decision to shoot digitally rather than with film resulted in the look and feel of either a bad amateur film school project or not-too-shabby porn. The sound quality was inconsistent and served as a distraction, particularly when the volume changed repeatedly during scenes or an annoying hum overshadowed the stilted dialogue.

Like bad monster movies from the 50's, DUG provided unintentional humor from either inept shots that left actors out of frame or from Shatner-esque line readings that made me long for the robots of MST3K.

Garett Maggart and Jason Carter gave solid performances, but this speaks more to their talent and ability than to quality of the script or direction. Garett Maggart in particular delivered his lines in a natural and believable fashion, no small accomplishment given the thin material. Kira Reed delivered a surprisingly nuanced portrayal of a prostitute, going from aroused to terrified quickly and believably. The bulk of the performances, however, were wooden and unbelievable, even given the suspension of disbelief required for a genre movie of this type.

In summary, don't watch this unless you're a die-hard fan of one of the actors or a glutton for punishment.

Who's the real demon?

[KHayes666 · 7/10 · 31 May 2005]

This movie was a lot different from other vampire movies and I think that's what makes it so good. I figured it was about capturing an evil vampire and they do tests on it until it escapes and attacks everyone. Its really about a vampire just trying to stay alive in an unfriendly environment and is tested on by a mad scientist.

The idea of a intelligent vampire is brilliant and the plot of how the doctor pleads with the scientist to leave the vampire alone really shows how the "demon" isn't always the creature of the night.

It seems the reason this movie got such a bad rap was because its not for the stupid people. You have to be smart and socially aware to enjoy a movie like this.

Very underrated movie...7 out of 10

Slow Zoom To Inferiority

[gracescot · 3/10 · 14 April 2003]

Demon Under Glass was an intriguing idea for a film. Exploring the moral ambiguity of advances in the name of science versus the nature of the "beast" kept me watching the film despite myself. Several of the actors turned in performances that were noteworthy if only because they managed to rise above the many problems that plagued this production. Most of the supporting acting was flat and uninspired but I feel that the fault does not lie with the actors but rather with the pacing and directing.

The direction of the film seems unfocused and the culmination of the plot feels somewhat rushed and under explored. The same can be said of the relationship that develops between the vampire and the doctor. The tension and conflict between these two characters was woefully underscored.

The film isn't helped by the fact that it was shot in some type of digital format, giving it the look of a soap opera set, only more poorly dressed. The sound is also spotty and at times the music drowns out the dialogue. Of course there are also issues with bad lighting, lazy camera work, the overuse of the slow zoom, bad framing and the overly enthusiastic use of flashbacks.

All things considered, it was an interesting plot that deserved a better reality. On the bright side, you can play a mean drinking game with it if you drink every time someone is framed poorly or trapped in the slow zoom of death. See? There's always a bright side.

A standout addition to the "B" thriller movie genre. Possible "cult classic" in the making.

[pamschat · 7/10 · 21 July 2002]

Demon Under Glass is a standout addition to the "B" movie horror genre.With its touches of satirical humor, Thought-provoking plot and unique twists on an otherwise traditional theme it catches and holds your attention. The actors bring a depth to the characters that is all to rarely seen in this type of movie. The mood created through the writing and direction is straightforward and crisp (moves right along with no dragging), yet has an atmosphere that manages to be eerie and clinically hostile. A small "indie" film it manages to do what many a big budget effort has not - makes you think, and contemplate; what is evil and what capacity is there in every day people given certain circumstances. That's a lot of reach for a little thriller film guys.

A waste of time and money

[bd67584930 · 1/10 · 21 April 2003]

When the producers of "Demon Under Glass" first started talking about their new project on a Yahoo Groups list, they came up with a unique idea: Share the behind-the-scenes production process with anyone on the internet who cared to see how an independent, low-budget film got made *as* it was being made, from pre-production to final cut. While I'm sure the idea wasn't purely altruistic, it would serve to generate the all-important "buzz" so vital to the success of small, non-studio projects.

Unfortunately, after all the hype and insider info and Yahoo list/chatroom discussion with various staff and crew over the course of a year, it became painfully obvious after seeing the finished product that they were far better at talking about what they wanted to do than in executing it. In fact, the very meat of the story is completely missing from the film (or disc -- what *do* you call something that's shot in digital format when the producers don't know if it's going to be for TV, feature or direct-to-video release?). I got the distinct impression that while the director (Jon Cunningham) knew what he intended to say in each scene, he didn't have a clue how to go about translating that cinematically. I have seen first-time student films that are orders of magnitude better than this one. At least they have a grasp of lighting, camera placement, coverage, and common sense: Most actors generally have their faces visible to the camera when talking.

Also unfortunately, the old adage "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" is never better exemplified here. While the director can be faulted for much of this film's wretched quality, the heart of the story is missing completely from the script. Opportunities for exploring the movie's tagline -- "Who is the monster?" -- are thrown away with insipid, superficial writing that leaves one intellectually and emotionally starved by the end -- if you're not bored to death by the time you get there. The script's writer (Deborah L. Warner, Cunningham's wife) gives the philosophical weight of what little discussion there is to the old crock doctor (Jack Donner) in a couple of brief interviews with the vampire (Jason Carter), but keeps pushing the cute young doctor (Garett Maggart) and the vampire together as if there is some subliminal attraction there which is never explained or explored. Thus, the focus is scattered, and the story rambles from one scene to the next without any drive, intensity or direction. I was embarrassed for the actors as I'm sure they tried to do the best they possibly could with an indifferent script and inept directing.

The amateur editing doesn't help matters. The pacing of scenes is protracted almost beyond endurance. Either there was not enough coverage so the editor (Steve Robison) could cut to other angles, other actors, get reactions, etc., or there wasn't enough time or money for a proper edit. I suspect the former. People are talking off camera, and voices overlap scenes where they have no relevance or import. The repeated use of an empty sky to indicate "day" and the Chromakeyed "x number of hours until sunrise" served absolutely no function except to irritate since the passage of time was indicated in dialogue.

The soundtrack (Gottfried Neumeister) was just that -- sound. It wasn't music. In fact, much of it is more reminiscent of a white noise generator.

All in all, a waste of time and money.

A Touching Look At Monsters...Both Human and Fabled...

[AndyVanScoyoc · 7/10 · 4 November 2011]

As will appear in the February 2012 issue of Twisted Dreams Magazine...

A most unique movie…a caring but troubling look at human nature and what – at times - makes us the monsters…

I've been a huge fan of Jason Carter since his days on Babylon 5, as Ranger, Marcus Cole. He brought a great sense to that role, believable and comedic as well, so when I saw him as the main character in this movie, I was hooked.

But then I saw the supporting cast…and one name stood out…Garett Maggart. Blair Sandburg will forever be one of my favorite TV characters, and to this day, I still miss the TV show, The Sentinel.

So buying this movie was a no-brainer and I'm glad I did.

Simon Molinar is a Vampire…a prostitute-murdering, blood-drinking psychopath…who isn't a psychopath at all…though that's a really difficult conclusion to come to, after one learns of the trail of bodies he's left in his feeding wake.

He's a Vampire…pure and simple and he simply chooses prostitutes as his food of choice.

When he's captured by the team of Dr. Hirsch (whose character is only in the movie very briefly, but his importance is NOT lost in the story) who has been studying Vampires for years and has wanted one for his own to study even more in-depth, you get a glimpse into what we all know about the human race in general…we are and can be the monsters…and much worse than the ones in fables.

Simon is extremely intelligent and patient with his treatment (and at times, torture) and even agrees to help Dr. Bassett (Donner) with the study, he swore to take up, in Dr. Hirsch's stead.

Not bad for a soulless, damned, creature of darkness.

I can tell you, while most of the acting wasn't stellar by any means, the chemistry between the murdering Vampire, Molinar (Carter) and Dr. Joe McKay (Maggart) a young doctor who finds himself in way over his head and torn between feeling sorry for his patient and later on, his guilt at helping a murderer, was nothing short of incredible.

At no time in an independently-made movie, have I seen such chemistry, such ease in acting roles that come across as completely realistic and I applaud both men.

It's a shame that neither could get the recognition they both deserved for pulling off, what had to be, uncomfortable roles for each of them.

Maggart is completely believable as a doctor and seems to slip into the role as easily as a real doctor would.

If you have watched many movies with "actor doctors" in them, you know what I mean. Touching people seems to be rigid and embarrassing for them, not to mention wooden and distracted and caring (as doctors are supposed to be) seems to be even more so…yet Maggart pulls off a staggeringly realistic performance as the young, Dr. McKay, who wants nothing more than to take care of his patient, complete with extremely believable, hands-on "treatment."

It's a performance not to be missed and shows a real "comfort" level between the two men that one rarely gets to glimpse in major Hollywood productions, let alone in indie movies.

I also have to say that I've read the IMDb reviews of this movie and simply don't see the necessity of the harsh reviews.

So many people complain about bad lighting. Not sure where that came from, as I thought the lighting was more than adequate. Same for the film itself; I liked the more, "documentary" feel of the film rather than the antiseptic, Hollywood film that is most commonly accepted in the industry.

I also feel that all the attacks on Jack Donner's performance are downright, stupid. He played the part of a secretly sadistic, but eager- to-learn, curious, scientist with great realty.

All-in-all, those three characters make up for any lack of adequacy in any other parts of the movie.

I highly recommend it.

I give this movie a 7 out of a twisted 10 and have watched it numerous times since I purchased it and plan to watch it numerous more. Give it a watch. You won't be disappointed…

~Andrea Dean Van Scoyoc for Twisted Dreams Magazine

They don't come much lamer

[sjcoek · 1/10 · 12 October 2004]

Consider: The Government wants to capture a vampire and keep him in a hermetically sealed coffin and study him. Why they do this is never really revealed. But hey, it's the government. So basically, the vamp is poked and prodded every day and locked in the box every night. Deep, huh? Oh yeah, he's nicknamed Vlad (highly original) and is captured, as the description tells you, with the help of a "beautiful" female cop. The photography, direction and especially the writing border on terrible and more than once cross the line into putrid. ("Sir, you presume too much!!"). The acting ranges from competent to hammy (and BAD hammy) to non-existent. All in all, a waste of almost 2 hours. Pauly Shore has more depth.

A new independent film that really makes the grade.

[cajole · 8/10 · 26 July 2002]

Demon Under Glass is a different take on the vampire legend, a detective story, a medical mystery, and a disturbing examination of how far man may go when he believes that the ends justify the means.

The film is by turns thrilling, gruesome, cynically humorous, and thought-provoking, and the cast is up to the task. Jason Carter (Babylon 5) is both appealing and terrifying as the vampire Molinar, and Garett Maggart (The Sentinel) demonstrates emotional range as the conscripted, and conflicted, Dr. Joe McKay. Their relationship as the story develops is well-crafted and draws the viewer in and holds him. The veteran Jack Donner as the lead scientist, Dr. Bassett, well illustrates the occasional moral ambiguity of science, and fascinates as he declines toward madness in his single-minded focus on his research goals.

The film is engaging and enjoyable, and an outstanding first effort for new director Jon Cunningham and writers Cunningham and Deborah Warner. I definitely recommend this film, and look forward to their next effort.

unbelievably bad

[sjcoek · 1/10 · 27 September 2006]

This film makes Plan 9 From OPuter Space look like Casablanca, and the direction makes Ed wood look like Hitchcock. It's a shame films like this are even able to get made when there are filmmakers with REAL talent out there who can't get a break. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about DUG -- the plot is insipid, the sets and lighting amateurish, the acting abysmal, and the entire story line gets tired after five minutes. Worth buying if you need an extra DVD case or coaster, but don't waste your time and brain cells by actually watching it. A rerun of Gilligan's Island has more substance, and is infinitely more rewarding.

Great low budget movie

[Juli3 · 10/10 · 1 May 2003]

Demon Under Glass is proof that you don't need megabucks or fantastic special effects to produce a great cult classic. Just creativity, talent & ingenuity. Having two cute stars doesn't hurt, either ; ) I already liked vampire movies, & thought that I had seen just about every plot line and variation there was. But this film actually managed to come up with a new spin. I only hope there's part Demon Under Glass # 2. Kudos!!

A new twist on the classic vampire tale

[anthrobrat · 22 July 2002]

I saw the premier of this movie and was completely caught up in the story - a story which is a new twist on the classic vampire tale. The cast of characters, especially the main 4, are well cast and well played and complimented by some stellar supporting players.

Garett Maggart proves there is more in his repertoire than the lead character he played on The Sentinel, and Jason Carter as Simon Molinar 2000-year old vampire, is as far from Ranger Marcus Cole (Babylon 5) as it is possible to be. Denise Hurd is truly driven as the police officer (wish we could see more of her onscreen), and Jack Donner lets us fall with his Dr Bassett deeper into scientific double-think without realizing how quickly we're falling.

If you like this genre, I think you'll really like Demon Under Glass - and like me want to see it more than once.

How far will any man go to fulfill his desires?

[lbaumbac · 10/10 · 20 July 2002]

This film combined horror and suspense with a touch of humor in a delicate balance to create an compelling study of man's darker side in a twist on the classic good vs evil genre. Who exactly is the evil one in this film is a personal decision. Co-stars Jason Carter, as the 'Demon', and Garett Maggart, as the 'healer', both brought out the complex facets of their intriguing characters making me want to see more of their unorthodox, tension-filled relationship. Carter's intensity and powerful presence pulled me to him, making me believe he was a predator of 2000 years, just as Maggart's portrayal of innate compassion combined and conflicted morals brought home the image of a world-weary and frustrated young doctor who is thrown into a nightmare that threatens not only his professional oaths but his very sanity. I enjoyed it very much. Carter and Maggart make a convincing team. the story line was original and compelling, the writers are to be congratulated at coming up with a believable, interesting twist to a classic tale.

"A living impossibility."

[Backlash007 · 8 August 2004]

~Spoiler~

Demon Under Glass is the kind of independent film I can really get behind. It presents one of the most interesting character studies I've seen in some time. This isn't your usual vampire flick. It's more about ideas than bloodletting. One main theme asks the question of who's the monster here: the vampire or the scientists subjecting him to countless tortures? A better theme is the moral fiber of the vampire. Is the creature killing for survival like even we ourselves do? And can you blame him? Can you blame the lion when it kills the gazelle as the film mentions? Or is he purely evil and kills for the pleasure of it? The film never really answers this question because the viewer must decide based on their own morals I suppose. The cast is solid all around and surprised me because I was expecting amateurs at best. The leads are played by Jason Carter (TV's Babylon 5) and Garett Maggart (TV's The Sentinel) while the excellent supporting cast includes Jack Donner, David Jean Thomas, and Harrison Young. My only complaint is that the quality of the movie looks bad. Still, I strongly recommend this movie if you're looking for something different. I'm looking forward to more from Jon Cunningham.

Loved this movie

[carolroi · 10/10 · 20 July 2002]

This movie is a great twist on the popular vampire theme, touching on interesting and thought-provoking subjects. How far does a researcher have the right to go in a search for knowledge to help mankind? Does the end justify the means? And does it make a difference if the research subject is a "monster"? Demon Under Glass stars Jason Carter of Babylon 5 fame as a vampire studying his captors as they study him. Garett Maggart plays the compassionate doctor who questions his own ideas of right and wrong after coming in contact with Simon, the vampire. Jack Donner is the conflicted researcher behind the vampire experiments. All three actors give outstanding performances. I highly recommend this movie.

A unique vampire movie

[alayne · 22 July 2002]

A well-written, well-acted UNIQUE vampire film is hard to find, but DUG is just that. The set up is disturbing and intriguing, the characters drawn with great detail and delineation, the plot utterly captivating and the results haunting. A great time!

A new twist on an old theme

[zenllamas · 8/10 · 20 July 2002]

This is a very well done, thought provoking movie that uses a new twist on the age old theme, man's inhumanity to man. Or in this instance, man's inhumanity to that which he doesn't understand.

Jason Carter as Simon Molinar, the creature, is wonderfully dark and devious. Garett Maggart as Dr. Joe McKay, the young doctor driven to question his own morality, is equally a classic choice. And Jack Donner as Dr. Richard Bassett is a brilliant choice.

As a first time movie for this company, it is exciting and truly enjoyable, and I highly recommend it. The many faceted moral issues which are explored throughout the picture make it something to watch again and again.

Not a vampire fan, but I really enjoyed this film

[illyak2k · 21 October 2004]

This film has a few flaws, especially the sound & raw video-vs-grainy film look, as well as some ho-hum acting on the part of some minor characters, but I found myself watching it =twice,= it was so thought-provoking. I don't care for vampires (drinking of blood sickens me), but there were surprisingly few of the usual clichés.

Actors I especially enjoyed were those who played Dr. McKay, the vampire himself, whose subtle voice & movements were especially poignant, the female cop, & the man whose daughter's death left him in such anguish.

Very little scenery chewing, here, & a slow pace that was filled with meaning, not flashy special effects, the better to allow the mind to expand, & question itself. I give it a 7. Better acting in the rest of the crew & better production values would make it a 9!

The plot is very interesting.

[sl02 · 10/10 · 23 August 2003]

I had the opportunity to see Demon Under Glass (DUG) in DVD and, nevertheless that it is a movie of "Independent Cinema", of very low budget, I really liked the movie, and also to other 3 people that did it with me. The plot is very interesting, the music is stupendous and the performances of most of the actors are good, inclusive that of some secondary actors as that of the actor that interpreted Mr. Smith. The initial scene of when the vampire strangles the scientist it could have been more convincing, but the plot of the movie catches the public from the beginning until the end. The scene nudist is not offensive and when the scene of the dream began, fairly I thought that it was that, a dream, without me to know it before. In general, the movie is very good, of much suspense, without exaggerated violence and it is not bloody. The performance of Garett Maggart is magnificent, very natural, showing his big histrionic qualities once again. I don't like movies of vampires a lot (only the classics) but this movie has a very interesting plot, not conventional, and the end stays in suspense, achieving the public to wait for more.

Perfect for a dark stormy night...

[yummyorangecake · 5 June 2003]

I was pleasantly surprised by Demon Under Glass. From the very first scene to the last, I felt that the characters were engaging (and especially liked the vampire!) and the story line intriguing.

Things I enjoyed about Demon include: the easy navigation from the DVD's on-screen menu as well as the behind the scenes feature, the excellent editing, the talented actors, the fact that there were always fresh donuts for the doctors, and the list goes on!

Although the music may have overridden the dialogue in a couple of brief scenes, the editing was very well done and allowed you to follow the action easily. I feel that the editing made Demon very enjoyable to watch.

Overall, I feel this movie is worth purchasing and viewing.especially on that dark and stormy night when you want something a little creepy to watch.

Thumbs up to the cast and crew of Demon Under Glass!

I actually love this! (It's both good AND bad!)

[CountVladDracula · 10/10 · 23 December 2009]

I'd like to review the film Demon Under Glass. First let me start by saying the story is good, the writing isn't bad. The Demon Under Glass film was written by the same people who wrote the novel, D. L. Warner. She actually wrote the novel at the same time as she wrote the film. The novel however has double the plot length, and, though obscure, bears an interesting plot. The film Demon Under Glass was a low budget horror film of the early 2000s and the plot of the film is only about half the plot. First, a comparison of the film to the novel since both were written at the same time. The novel is about double the length, in regard to story content. Demon under glass is a very unique story. A vampire going by the name of Simon Molinar gets captured by the government. He's kept in a high tech cell where doctors study him in secret while the general public remains unaware that vampires truly exist. Molinar under-goes several cruel experiments which cause the reader to question: Who are the monsters here? The vampire actually befriends one of his captors, a Dr. Joe McKay. McKay was a last minute replacement for a doctor who had been killed while they were trying to capture Molinar. Despite being a killer, you start to see the vampire as tragic anti-hero. Molinar is unashamed of who and what he is and is a survivor. You come to realize he's not the most evil being in the story. Molinar is cruelly experimented on. His confinement consists of a small room with a two way mirror and a metal casket-type of box that is locked from the outside while he is sleeping. They keep him in the casket by night, throwing off his sleep pattern, as to be certain he can't escape while they are studying him by daylight (which will burn him). One particularly cruel test is when they expose a section of his arm to varying degrees of sunlight to see how severely it would burn him and then when it is over they refuse to feed him blood as to see how quickly he can heal without feeding. After a time the group decide to destroy the vampire now that they have finished studying him. Since he is a killer they would rather keep in captivity a specimen that has not taken human lives. It's mostly politics at this point. Molinar manages to escape and this is where the film version ends. I feel at this point D. L. Warner felt her liberty as a writer and started to stretch her legs into the world of Gothic horror / Scifi but you would have to read the novel to know the rest of the story. It's a refreshingly unique take on the vampire story. The symbolism is a little heavy-handed. Characters like Joe McKay spell things out for you with dialog that might as well be shouts of 'The vampire's not evil! My bosses are!' The novel's ending felt like the start of an ongoing book series which never actually happened. Other than these flaws I really do like the book and film. Te film gets points for being a verbal translation of the novel, unlike Queen of the damned, which had nothing to do with the novel of the same name or the 1944 version of The Canterville Ghost which was nothing more than World War 2 propaganda. The biggest problem with Demon Under glass is the budget must have been a literal shoe string. The film Demon Under Glass has a laughable budget. The first time we see Molinar in the film it's before his capture. He's roaming a city looking for a prostitute to feed upon. the film makers had to tell us he's a vampire immediately by having him pause to lick his fangs. The next flaw is during Simon's capture as the men are 'beating' him there is no sound. I don't know if this is meant for dramatic emphasize but it just makes it all the more obvious that they are pounding on nothing. The 'High tech' facility holding Molinar isn't very High tech at all. As I said, it appears to have been filmed in someone's garage and the visuals work much better in the novel. The budget was unquestionably low. The telephones used were out of the late eighties at best. Even the cell phones were out of date, looking like the lower quality ones sold in the mid-nineties, the disposable kind. I always figured a secret government agency would have nicer cell phones. Even Joe Dawson's mobile phone on Highlander the series (1995) is more modern than what we see in Demon Under Glass. Also for a film made in 2002 and set in a high tech lab their computers look to be at least ten years old. I like the ideas projected in Demon Under Glass. And the actual story is very good. With a higher budget this could have been a fine movie. I was disappointed that the story of the film is only half of what's in the novel though what is in the film surprisingly IS faithful to the first half of the novel. It's as faithful as you can get with a very limited budget. If you can get past the weak moments the actual story and ideas behind it are very interesting. It's certainly a unique vampire film and I'd rather watch it than Queen of the damned or Twilight. I actually sincerely wish the Rifftrax guys (formerly Mystery Science theatre) would heckle Demon Under Glass. It would be such a pleasure to watch their heckling of this. I like Demon Under Glass but I love watching things I like get made fun of. It's better than some of the successful vampire films out there. It's the vampire equivalent of Plan 9 from Outer Space only with meaning and substance.

sighing & crying (spoiler warning)

[mij53807 · 28 March 2003]

The idea of "Demon under Glass" is terrific. A vampire and a doctor meet - the tagline 'Who is the monster?' appropriate like nothing else. Who is the monster? The vampire, the blood-thirsty killer or the young doctor who has to inflict pain and torture in the name of science? As I said, terrific concept.

The acting of the two main characters (Jason Carter and Garett Maggart) is believable and it is a pleasure to watch these two actors interact on screen. They make you *believe* their roles.

However, and this is with great regret, the movie itself is disappointing and leaves a lot to be desired for. What would you expect from a horror movie? Thrill? Excitement? A muffled scream that almost escapes your throat? Peeking through fingers at the screen, hoping a gruesome scene will be over soon? Unfortunately, "Demon under Glass" lacks all of the above-mentioned features.

There is *no* thrill - only self-inflicted horror at the bad editing, terrifying music and poor cinematography. You want to scream because there is potential - but it's left to waste away. In the end, all you can do is burst out into laughter because the well-meant efforts are nothing but cheap, making you wonder if the people responsible ever watched the finished product.