cassidy25567
OK, I watched this movie the other night, it was purchased by the GF on a lark, and it's hilarious, in a kitsch-ie sort of way. I can't believe it was made in 1997. From the look of the "Special" effects and hair and wardrobe, it should have been a 1986 vampire flick. A very bad 1986 vampire flick. Would I recommend it? If you are in the mood for some hilarious, misguided silliness, then yes. I'd be more than a little disgruntled with any friend who recommended it on it's merits, but if it were loaned to me as an "Oh my god, this is the cheesiest flick I've seen in years" style rec, then I'd let them live. I gave it three out of ten only because they may have been going for cheese.
scace-2
Rarely have I ever had such a hard time watching a film. There could have been so much potential to make a truly enjoyable, cheap, campy vampire flick along the lines of David Decoteau. (see Voodoo Academy or The Brotherhood I & II) However, when our main star, Frankie (Trevor Lissauer) appears in bed with both shorts and briefs underneath - forget about it.The male supporting cast was a pain to look at, especially Frankie's sidekick Bogie (Danny Hitt). The women were fine -when seen. Don't expect any real sexiness. It should be noted that the director, Luis Esteban's last credit was as a transportation office coordinator. It is amazing, however, that he was able to assemble a cast that included Carmen Electra, Adam West, and Sydney Lassick as Bruno. This film is a true example of marketing over substance. Insist on a credit should you rent it as a Blockbuster "favorite".
stapuf
Can you let go of the unfulfilled promises written on the cover box? If so, then the true film enthusiast will see the movie for what it is, a decent, entertaining, tongue in cheek camp piece. My take is, the cover box was intentionally created to quickly grab up the "I want to see Carmen Electra get naked crowd" for quick sales that benefited the distributor and left the renter, "high and dry"! It is no wonder they hated it, they were ripped off! Nothing is worse than renting a film with a deceptive cover!!! That is definitely the case with this film. It is clear the filmmaker intended for this story to be told to the pre-teen audience. Look at it from that point of view, and you will see what I saw, nothing more, nothing less. Just a story that youngsters can enjoy.
tripperM
you know i love "B" films if you've read any of my posts, but THIS was a "T" film. "T" for tripe! i thought it might get better as it went along but it didn't. the cinematography (if you can call it that) was amature, the story line was minimal, and the acting -pardon the pun- SUCKED! big time! i mean it felt like it might even turn into a soft porn flick with the way the lack-of-acting and camera work was done, but not even...if you want a good "B" vamp film, rent razorblade smile. now that was fun. i only thank god that i work at blockbuster and didn't have to pay for a rental of this really hideous flick.
AD
