ziggyu The hands down worst movie I have ever had the misfortune of watching. I can't believe I actually watched the whole movie and feel dumber as a result. This is truly a case of the train wreck syndrome and I simply could not stop watching because it was so awful. I kept thinking that it had to get better and was always amazed at how it progressively got worse. From the acting to the script to the editing to the photography, absolutely terrible. I can't believe that somebody actually made this movie and thought "wow, this is great piece of cinema!" If I could give it a lower rating than 1 star I would. I highly recommend this movie for all film students as an excellent example of what should never be done in cinema.

michaeljlynch58 Overall, a rather bad movie with a few redeeming qualities. Vampires in Las Vegas run amok and are hunted by a variety of police officers, who eventually defeat the vampires with the help of a sexy nun. Naturally. There are a number of flaws in the movies: day turns to night and night to day in the middle of scenes; characters' appearances change between cut away scenes, only two vampires combusted when exposed to daylight while many others walked around during the day without problems. The number of gaffes in the film provide the viewer ample opportunity to play "find the error." The main premise of the movie seems adequate (hunting down a 300 year old vampire who has returned to seek a new wife), but there are too many sub-plots floating around that provide tenuous links to the main premise.Three characters stand out for their contributions to this film. Eric Etenari does an excellent job as the main vampire's henchman, a smooth talking, lady's man who provides the boss with his victims. Comic relief is provided by two legendary stars of the 1970s, Fred Williamson (who also directed the movie) and Richard Roundtree (best known for his role as Shaft). In some sense, Vegas Vampires seemed to be an effort, though largely deficient, to remember the days of the blaxploitation films in which Roundtree and Williamson starred in the 1970s.

Joseph P. Ulibas Vegas Vampires (2003) is a low budget film directed and co-starring Fred Williamson. A vampire is running around Las Vegas creating problems for the local police, especially two of them (Tiny Lister and Glenn Plummer). During this time, a P.I. and his buddy (Fred Williamson and Richard Roundtree) decide to have some fun in Vegas. An outbreak of vampires starts to slowly spread about the city and our heroes and a lot of innocent people are about to get caught up in a vampire holocaust. Entertaining and funny, it was great to see Richard Roundtree and Fred Williamson kicking arse and taking names.Two problems I had with this movie, one was blurring of name brand t-shirts and jerseys. That was a big problem, it was such an eye sore. The second one was the lead role given to Tiny Lister. He's good as a secondary character, but the man's not a lead actor. He wasn't that good. Otehr wise I enjoyed the movie. It was a big shock. I would rather watch this than have to suffer through another viewing of UNderworld.cheers,

movieman_kev Tommy Lister is on hand as a police detective looking for the missing daughter of an affluent man, and runs into the vampire clan that have kidnapped her. A second plot has the detective's step-son going to Vegas to get hitched and running afoul of the same vampire clan. Yet a third plot has blacksploitation greats Richard Roundtree and Fred Williamson as ex-cops who go to Vegas for the hell of it and run afoul of, yup you guessed it. Other the vampire connection none of those three plots feel connected to one another in the least until the end when they had to be tied together somehow. It's done in a pretty convoluted way sadly. And it still felt like the writers had no clue what each other were doing. Plots are dismissed, and new ones take their place willy nilly. It definitely didn't help having 5 writers pen it. (too many cooks and all that). The thing that got me to rent this is the fact that Williamson (who also directed) and Roundtree were starring, both of which I respect and enjoy seeing a lot. But they have basically the shortest screen time of all the major characters and are a bit insubstantial. Still when they DO have scenes they're OK. Tommy Lister is the real star of the movie and he does the best job that he could have done with such ridiculousness. The one thing that REALLY got on my nerves bad (I mean besides the vampires dancing like zombies half the time), was the fact that logos on shirts were blurred out, and since a good deal of the cast wears a jersey during the first half of the film, this became extremely distracting and almost made the film unwatchable. The ending leaves room for a sequel, but I can quickly exclaim 'fangs, but no fangs' to that prospect. Oh and you might have noticed I didn't mention Baldwin in my review, this is simply because he's only on-screen a whopping two minutes or so of the film and is a glorified cameo. On a side note, the DVD is as bare-bones as can be with absolute zilch for extras. The movie and chapter stops is all you get.Eye Candy: there's a gratuitous 5 girl topless dancing scene in the middle My Grade: D