I liked this better when it was the X-Files episode called 'Darkness Falls'. At least that didn't insult my intelligence and waste 90 minutes of my already shitty existence.

Is this the same Brad Anderson that directed "Session 9"? It definitely doesn't feel like it. His latest movie starts great, those first 5 minutes were intense, scary and really moody and the "Roanoke incident" is a great premise. But the same thing keeps happening for the rest of the movie and the symbolism at the ending is just ridiculous.

gets the creepy atmosphere down pat, but has a lacking script and simply doesn't have enough going on in it to keep the attention. i may be a stickler, but i hate it when a movie answers NONE of the questions presented. this is forgivable at times, but in a case where the movie simply isn't that great it ends up being a travesty.

Confusing, rambling mess. Only reason it scores this high is some of the performances are decent as is the creepiness of some of the scenes (mostly early).

Brad Anderson is capable of doing so much better, as we saw with The Machinist and Session 9. Vanishing on 7th Street has an intriguing premise, but it fails in the execution. There are, however, some genuinely creepy parts and the shadow effects when they are draping over buildings and various objects are like a character of their own.

Good premise, rather creepy, just enough story to keep me interested. But too many plot holes and an ending that has you smashing your face into a wall.

"Why did the people disappear?" "Must be the power outage." yeah right. That was about the moment I suspected this movie to be exactly what it was. Boring and by the end just neither making any sense nor an attempt to explain anything.

I really couldn't finish this. Bad acting, no plot, no tension etc. etc.

A very weak Alan Wake ripoff. There was a black hole size of missing parts in the plot and the wanna-be mysterious story just irritates you till the last moment of the movie. To rerun it for clearing the story, pay attention on the book the first character is reading. Clue is there and believe me, it's very loose one. The old legend of Croatoan exists though. If you know Hayden, you can guess the quality of acting here.

I'm just not behind the hate on this one. First of all, the movie plays perfectly on a very common fear of the dark, and makes a creepy thriller with only two big jump scares, which are made more amazing due to the fact there aren't 80 of them. I think, even though most of the movie is pretty dark, that there are actually some good images (like when the shadow people show up, for example). I also like that nothing is explained. I like just watching people survive. The acting was serviceable.

I wanted this to be Alan Wake (don't know why I expected anything with Hayden Christensen to be any good), plot holes galore and a terrible ending keep this from being remembered.

"If Brad Anderson never conjures a truly iconic image, he still delivers a raft of mildly striking ones." - Nick Schager

WTF was that :s

I hate all the whining about this spooky, atmospheric, rather innocent and old-fashioned thriller. There was a time, a long time ago, when audiences didn't expect every little detail to be spelled out in capital letters. In fact, they liked the fact they weren't pandered to. Most of this movie is just another episode of the Twilight Zone except with Hayden Christensen and John Leguizamo rather than Dick York and Claude Akins. I enjoyed it.

Neither good nor bad. Annoying characters + interesting cinematography. Plot holes + moody soundtrack. Not sure how, knowing the length of time movies are in production, this could be an Alan Wake rip-off, but if believing it makes people feel better, more power to them.

Boogeyman meets I am legend = total failure!

I'd rather just play ALAN WAKE.