After watching Vampire In Vegas (2009) with Tony Todd, this is like watching a Spielberg movie, not Todd's fault. This one just looks like it had more of a budget. It could be improved less expensive film cameras in the last fifteen years. I don't know. But I watched these movies back to back and this one is better, but the other one had Tony Todd, so that makes it cooler.
They're both rated the same.
But this movie, like the other, has some good qualities they just don't outweigh the bad.
Highlight number one has to be Victoria Strange as Tabitha Van Pelt. She is amazing. She has a timeless look that could fit in any era. I hope that her career is on an ascent and that she continues to find meaningful work in the future.
Vince Cusimano as the Vegas magician turned evil doctor Victor Van Pelt, is not bad here. He seems to have a good sense of comedic timing and works well with his facial expressions that may serve him well in the future in comedies be it streaming or movies. Being in a movie like this, which seems to lack identity (is it horror, is not not?) is difficult and Cusimano seems to navigate his character rather efficiently.
Kiki D'Aire. I just enjoyed her scenes for the most part. She's nice to look at.
This movie also had more Vegas exterior shots, which is what most people want to see. Lots of downtown at night, particularly towards the end of the film.
There are two things that are off putting about this movie.
John Karyus. He plays an Igor-type assistant named Gary. I think he's a good actor, but some of the choices that were made by him or for him didn't fit the film.
He plays Gary as child-like, innocent, a simpleton, as the best way I can put it. I think he should've played Gary as animal-like.
Especially for the purpose of fulfilling the job requirements of Van Pelt's demands.
It just doesn't mesh.
He's in a grubby v-neck shirt and occasionally a newsboy hat the whole movie.
Wardrobe couldn't do better than that?
I didn't expect him to be in tatters, but that would've been a better choice.
Like I said, I think the guy's a good actor, and he's really like able, I just think the tone and look and actions of his character didn't gel here.
Lastly, this movie clips along as something fun and silly until it decides to abruptly go gore fest on us.
Look, I know we got to make a monster, but this scene doesn't go with the rest of the movie.
It's not authentic or realistic and the parts look like they came from a Halloween store but it's still gross and out of place. But I've seen way, way, waaaaay worse. It just doesn't go with the rest of the movie, at all.
Filmmakers. If you start making a horror film and you had big plans to use all this nasty stuff in it, maybe take a breath and think, now that we're here, do we really need to do this?
But we already spent money on it and it's in the script. We've been planning on it.
Revise the script mid-shoot.
Steer away from the gore.
Jaws was terrifying.
It's a classic.
And we didn't even see the shark for the first half of the movie.
You don't always have to show it.
Sometimes less is more.
But not in Vegas.
