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.

While the rest of the world wrings its hands over the morality of pre-emptive wars. the degree to which terrorist attacks may justify the suppression of civil liberties, stem cell research and abortion, the makers of this film are concerned with a different set of ethical problems: may science effectively torture a vampire, or excuse his murders of innocent victims, or both, in the interest of advancing the cause of human knowledge?"Demon Under Glass" poses this vital question, but as you would imagine, is incapable of providing a definitive answer.A serial killer has been murdering prostitutes and draining them of their blood. The culprit turns out to be a vampire having superhuman strength, who is captured by some government agency and studied by its scientists. They stop at nothing to learn what makes the vampire tick, and thus to expand our knowledge of biology. In particular, they prove willing to cause the vampire severe physical pain by exposing him to varying degrees of sunlight. They also protect him from criminal prosecution for the murders he has committed. But one idealistic doctor and a still more idealistic police detective recognize that the government has gone too far, and is violating basic human values in the interest of science. Who cares?Notwithstanding the pointless premise, the film is well-acted, mostly, and not badly written. Even entertaining at times. Still, it's hard to believe people actually get paid for thinking this stuff up and putting it together.

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.'