Jeanskynebu
the audience applauded
Konterr
Brilliant and touching
Tobias Burrows
It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.
Scarecrow-88
Little, small-budgeted vampire tale has William Forsythe as a preacher hunting vampires who, once bitten by a bloodsucker in the act of killing her, becomes even more ferocious and blood thirsty than those he was hunting. Yul Vazquez is Hazel Fortune, an eventual adversary of Forsythe who has been building a flock that could be dangerous if he isn't stopped. Nicole DuPort and her daughter become girls Vazquez will need to protect as Forsythe's flock becomes a major threat in the city they live.Although listed as "Southern Gothic", this carries more of an urban flavor. Forsythe is a worthy candidate for a vampire leader as he has the nasty streak in him to pull it off. The film spends a lot of time with him biting the hell out of people. One member of flock, a human member, just approaches him to converse and is bitten just for the hell of it, it seems. A nasty shotgun blast to the head ends the film rather anti-climatically. It has fangs, but the story is toothless. Very morose in mood and the tone is always a somber drag. Not particularly exciting; nothing about this makes it distinguishable in the vampire subgenre of horror.
revbighig
I started out watching this last night while fiddling around doing other things, but shortly became involved enough to turn out the lights and plunk down on the floor in my serious watching mode. Vazquez was interesting, DuPont fine, and Forsythe was, as usual, a gas. But that pretty much wrapped up the acting. Too many of the others were either mediocre or bad (like that mysterious "good" vampire). And the plot was somewhat incoherent and illogical. I gave it a 5, a middling review, as the fulcrum of the teeter-totter I felt I was on -- "oh, this is okay"/"oh this is not okay", back and forth. Not a total waste of time, but close.
redrum911
DVR'd this one on a whim and was pleasantly surprised that it was intelligent, competent and watchable. But ultimately, this raised my expectations to a point where I was somewhat disappointed.The performances here are strong, if a bit dour. William Forsythe always throws himself into characters and does so here. I thought the character could have been given more to do, but Forsythe provides a compelling performance. Yul Vazquez was also solid in the lead role; I would have liked to have seen these characters written with a bit more fun and humor - a joke here or there - but it's better than the "twilight" and similar dreck coming out. I thought the direction was competent, other than the inability to find a richer, more charismatic tone. The story works on the surface, but the plot meanders and we really don't get very far practically speaking. For example, an interesting vampire character is introduced, disappears, then reappears at the end, to no point.Good cable flick to watch, particularly for folks who are not "purests".
kosmasp
I'm the first one to root for a B-movie, a movie that has been done with a small budget. But there is only so much I can accept and this movie definitely crosses that line. Having said that, there might be quite a few people out there (despite the low rating here), that don't mind the lighting, the sound inconsistencies and other "technical" flaws. They might not even mind, that the characters are bland at best. But for those who do mind: Avoid.Of course we can assume, that no director/filmmaker sets out to do a bad movie. And you have to admit that they try hard here. But I can't give them extra points for trying, because imho I think the movie deserves that. Again if you want to take the risk, you might feel different. You should be able to tell, how you feel about the movie, 15 to 20 minutes into it. If you don't like it by then, you won't like it until the end!
