At this point it seems almost unnecessary to state that Jon Bon Jovi delivers a firm, strong, seamless performance as Derek Bliss. His capability as an actor has been previously established by his critical acclaim garnered in other films (The Leading Man, No Looking Back). But, in case anyone is still wondering, yes, Jon Bon Jovi can act. He can act well and that's come to be expected of him. It's easy to separate Derek from the guy who belts out hits on VH-1.<br /><br />I generally would not watch a horror movie. I've come to expect them to focus on sensationalistic gore rather than dialogue and plot. What pleased me most about this film was that there really was a viable plot being moved along. The gore is not so much as to become the focus of the film and does not have a disturbingly realistic quality of films with higher technical effects budgets. So, gore fans might be disappointed, but story fans will not.<br /><br />Unlike an action film like U-571 where the dialogue takes a back seat to the bombast, we get a chance to know "the good guys" and actually care what happens to them. A few scenes are left unexplained (like Derek's hallucinations) but you get the feeling certain aspects were as they were to lay the foundation for a sequel. Unfortunately, with the lack of interest shown by Hollywood in this film, that sequel will never happen. These few instances are forgiveable knowing that Vampires could have been a continuing series.<br /><br />Is this the best film I've ever seen in my life? No. Is it a good way to spend about two hours being entertained? Yes. It won't leave the person who fears horror movies with insomnia and it won't leave the horror movie lover completely disappointed either. If you're somewhere in between the horror genre loather and the horror genre lover, this film is for you. It reaches a happy medium with the effects and story balancing each other.<br /><br />
The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though. unless you bring in Buffy!<br /><br />All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.<br /><br />I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination.
The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.<br /><br />The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.<br /><br />All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best.
Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.<br /><br />Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner. <br /><br />Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.<br /><br />Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.<br /><br />The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?
\ No newline at end of file
I was overtaken by the emotion. Unforgettable rendering of a wartime story which is unknown to most people. The performances were faultless and outstanding.
The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out.
Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film.
I thought this movie was hysterical. I have watched it many times and recommend it highly. Mel Brooks, was excellent. The cast was fantastic..I don't understand how this movie gets a 2 out of 5 rating. I loved it.
1 I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. A very tense action scene that seemed well done.<br /><br />Some of the transitional scenes were filmed in interesting ways such as time lapse photography, unusual colors, or interesting angles. Also the film is funny is several parts. I also liked how the evil guy was portrayed too. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.
0 The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.<br /><br />If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.
0 This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play. It could very well have been the director who miscalculated what he needed from the actors. I just don't know.<br /><br />But could it have been the screenplay? Just exactly who was the chef in love with? He seemed more enamored of his culinary skills and restaurant, and ultimately of himself and his youthful exploits, than of anybody or anything else. He never convinced me he was in love with the princess.<br /><br />I was disappointed in this movie. But, don't forget it was nominated for an Oscar, so judge for yourself.
0 I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.<br /><br />The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives. I've never seen the show but there are lots of commercials for the show and I get the gist. Is there nothing original anymore? Sure, but not on Lifetime.<br /><br />The male cast are all fairly effeminate looking and acting but the girls need to have husbands I suppose.<br /><br />In one scene a female is struggling with a male, for her life, and what does she do??? Kicks him in the testicles. What else? Women love that but let me tell you girls something. It's not as easy as it's always made to look.<br /><br />It wasn't all bad. I did get the chills a time or two so I have to credit someone with that.
1 I liked the film. Some of the action scenes were very interesting, tense and well done. I especially liked the opening scene which had a semi truck in it. Also the film is funny is several parts. I'd give the film an 8 out of 10.
0 The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes.
0 This film lacked something I couldn't put my finger on at first: charisma on the part of the leading actress. This inevitably translated to lack of chemistry when she shared the screen with her leading man. Even the romantic scenes came across as being merely the actors at play.
0 I read the book a long time back and don't specifically remember the plot but do remember that I enjoyed it. Since I'm home sick on the couch it seemed like a good idea and Hey !! It is a Lifetime movie.<br /><br />The movie is populated with grade B actors and actresses.<br /><br />The female cast is right out of Desperate Housewives.
0 I admit that I am a vampire addict: I have seen so many vampire movies I have lost count and this one is definitely in the top ten. I was very impressed by the original John Carpenter's Vampires and when I descovered there was a sequel I went straight out and bought it. This movie does not obey quite the same rules as the first, and it is not quite so dark, but it is close enough and I felt that it built nicely on the original.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi was very good as Derek Bliss: his performance was likeable and yet hard enough for the viewer to believe that he might actually be able to survive in the world in which he lives. One of my favourite parts was just after he meets Zoey and wanders into the bathroom of the diner to check to see if she is more than she seems. His comments are beautifully irreverant and yet emminently practical which contrast well with the rest of the scene as it unfolds.<br /><br />The other cast members were also well chosen and they knitted nicely to produce an entertaining and original film. It is not simply a rehash of the first movie and it has grown in a similar way to the way Fright Night II grew out of Fright Night. There are different elements which make it a fresh movie with a similar theme.<br /><br />If you like vampire movies I would recommend this one. If you prefer your films less bloody then choose something else.
0 Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)
1 We all know that countless duds have graced the 80s slasher genre and often deserve nothing but our deepest disgust. Maybe that's a bit hastey but damn if "Slaughter High" wasn't terribly unoriginal, even for a slasher flick. Pretty much, the plot involves a kid who experienced a Carrie-like shower humiliation in high school and returns to the dilapidated building to seek out revenge on a group of former-bullies who all show up to reminisce. As you'd expect, they are killed off steadily by a masked madman on April 1st by means of electrocution, burning, hanging, and chemically altered beer. I've got a number of problems with the plot details and settings of this movie, but considering the ending, I feel the need to discard my complaints and just say that this is a complete waste of time. Ignore any thought of viewing this movie.
1 What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.<br /><br />First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.<br /><br />Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.<br /><br />Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
0 It was a Sunday night and I was waiting for the advertised movie on TV. They said it was a comedy! The movie started, 10 minutes passed, after that 30 minutes and I didn't laugh not even once. The fact is that the movie ended and I didn't get even on echance to laugh.
0 I saw this piece of garbage on AMC last night, and wonder how it could be considered in any way an American Movie Classic. It was awful in every way. How badly did Jack Lemmon, James Stewart and the rest of the cast need cash that they would even consider doing this movie?
1 its not as good as the first movie,but its a good solid movie its has good car chase scenes,on the remake of this movie there a story for are hero to drive fast as his trying to rush to the side of his ailing wife,the ending is great just a good fair movie to watch in my opinion.
1 Rosalind Russell executes a power-house performance as Rosie Lord, a very wealthy woman with greedy heirs. With an Auntie Mame-type character, this actress can never go wrong. Her very-real terror at being in an insane assylum is a wonderful piece of acting. Everyone should watch this.
