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 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)

I'm not going to give you a background on what this movie is about being as you can read that much for yourself. I hate it when people do that, spend three or four paragraphs summarizing a movie when the summary is already available for the reader.So, what I will say is that while based on actual history (which I love being a huge history buff) I only watched this movie because I am an even more die hard Adrian Paul fan.The historical part was just icing on the cake.Adrian Paul and Rhett Giles put in fabulous and well pulled off performances as Ananias Dare and George Howe, respectively.However, other than nice costumes, a semi believable setting and a good performance by Michael T. (for some reason the comment form is auto correcting the correct spelling of his last name and making it "The") as Manteo, that is where the good ends and the mediocre take over.Producers can't expect two people (Paul and Giles) to pull off an entire movie for them...which was what it seemed was happening.I also have to take issue with conveniently forgetting history. Allow me a small tangent.Now, while I do love history and movies made about historical subjects, and do allow leeway on the facts if the movie is strong enough to support it, I have to sadly say that this movie was not strong enough on its own merit to leave out such an important part of history.Women were NOT outspoken in the 1580's (and certainly not in England, whether they'd just arrived in America or not) and so Frida Snow's character of Eleanor Dare was completely and utterly unbelievable.For *that* time, she was far too outspoken about her feelings on their situation and Ananias, no matter how much he loved his wife and wanted to impress her father, doubtfully would have tolerated her questioning his decisions.Nitpicky, I know, but that is the danger of making a movie based loosely on historical fact, but then picking and choosing what facts you stick to.Women were little more than a husband's property back in those days (good for breeding, cleaning house, tending children and cooking) and though I would not have wanted to see a movie filled with male chauvinism, what I would have preferred to see would have been a more realistic exchange of words and more developed dialogue from Ananias and then between the two Dare's. Oh and before anyone gets all bent out of shape...I'm a woman and have studied history enough to know that whimpering men wanting to placate a wife, especially in a new country filled with promise but also danger, is not realistic.I'm simply saying that while some parts of this movie were good, there was far too much drama and not enough expanding on what could have been done with a good storyline of families in a new world and the problems and promise and ultimately the fate that befell them all, to make it any more than overall...mediocre.

"Based on facts" is what they write in the beginning of the story..... Well to tell you the truth, I think that even "Lord of the Rings" (which I personally did not like) has more truth than what they are presenting here.The acting is really bad... I do not believe a single word of Ananias for one moment, when he tells his wife that he loves her etc.... It sounds all like an amateur that is trying to persuade the local drunks in a bar of his honesty...... And even there he would not succeed.To my humble opinion: this movie is not worth wasting your time on. Maybe fun for children under 10.... but for the rest...... Save the money. Don't rent it or even buy it in the 1 dollar shop. You will regret it.....