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.

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.

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.

As one who is incredibly supportive of any independent film endeavors and who is always looking for new "twists" to an old theme I embraced this movie with open arms... that is until I saw the actual product. My warm embrace turned cold with each passing minute of this available only for home viewing project.The concept itself is quite thought provoking: Who is the monster? The killer who is believed to be a vampire... or the doctor who is suppose to heal, who instead participates in testing this "specimen". But for all the internet talk etc... this film just did not measure up to what it could have been. There were many scenes that did nothing to move the story along. And the main point of the film was never really addressed to my satisfaction. It seems to have been thrown together ie: written quickly, filmed quickly. The ending was no doubt in contemplation of a sequel. And that seemed to be the strongest point that came across with this movie.I am not, as another reviewer suggests someone who has a bone to pick with the producer, nor am I someone who requires every nuance of a movie explained to me. It is a low quality attempt and blaming viewers for not liking it is not the way to improve on it.It seems a waste of money for the company and for anyone who made the purchase.