Stakes

Overall grade: D- (avoids an F rating since the unintentionally-funny scenes will make you laugh out loud)

If you've seen your share of porn movies (and I know you have), then you've come to know that cheap, shot-with-a-camcorder "look" that most porn movies have. That's the same sort of cinematic quality you'll encounter with this vampire flick.

The quality of acting is, if anything, actually worse that what you'll see in your basic porn movie (don't even get me started on the acting of the guy who plays the priest - he makes everybody else look good).

This movie does have CGI, but I mean that only in the sense that technically it was made using a computer. We're not exactly talking "Shrek" here. This is more on par with what you'd see in a computer game from about 5 years ago. You'll love the computer-generated blood you see on the first vampire victims at the start of the film.

And what can you say about the plot? .... Well, that's about all you can say about it.

In short, if you want the perfectly bad movie to rip to shreds with your friends (as in MST 3K), this movie is the perfect choice.

Its low budget, the actors do not make 10 mill per movie and the equipment is not state of the art.But it was better than Blair Witch and that made millions. There is a nude scene that has no reason to be there except to show a nude scene.But all in all it is a good movie from a small company. If you want main stream its maybe a 2 out of ten If you like independents its a 5 out of 10. If you like cult classics/low budget its a 6 out of 10. I normally don't like cult classics but this caught my interest and was well worth the $5.00 to buy it.Vampire movies are everywhere this one seems to have taken some original ideas, that alone was refreshing. Peace enjoy, hope it helped

I bought this film in a four pack deal. It was well worth the money. The atmosphere was really good and the action scenes were really terrific. I thought the biting scenes had great detail. I was really surprised that a person could do that much with such an primitive camera. It kind of makes a person want to go out with their home video camera and try to do a film. I really enjoy some independent films. Some I really can't get involved in. This one really caught my eye. Great job for those who worked on it. I really think you did a fantastic job. The movie reminds me of something related to the drive in pictures or a late night movie of yesterday. Great Vampire Movie!

Great cult movie with unintentionally funny dialog and acting. I lost tract of the body count.

Yes, as others have mentioned, there is a sex/nude scene which doesn't make much sense within the context of the movie. That's a minor problem.

This is one film you can sit and enjoy - and mock - with impunity. And, thankfully, has a running time of about 83 minutes.

Now, I just wish I could create a stake deadly enough to stick into the heart of this movie.

I'm giving it a 3 out of 10, which may be more than it really deserves but the CGI is pretty good throughout, so there's that.

As I've mentioned in previous reviews, I critique Independent Films as just that, independent productions. I do not mistakenly look at these films through "Hollywood's Critical Lens" as many self-proclaimed "film critics" often do. That said, on to some thoughts...

Here we have Ripple and Don returning to doing what they do best, inventive and innovative film on a limited budget. In their sophomore production together, they make numerous improvements over their previous film, "Harvesters." Let it be said though that a number of these improvements are in the technical department, not necessarily the performance area.

Kudos are due to the Timewarp guys for the biggest improvement: much more frugal use of CGI as opposed to "Harvesters." Albeit the CGI machine in the beginning was a little too much, the personal device that Steven King's character uses was done very well. In addition to not only know WHEN to use CGI, the group also has learned HOW to use CGI. This is evident in a few scenes where computers were used for disintegration effects and gore effects (although the ally massacre shot could have used some color balancing).

In regards to the acting quality of this film, the performance strength was better than that of 'Harvesters,' with a leading cast of stronger actors than before. Only problem is that those actors are the only strong ones with weak performances from a great majority of the supporting cast.

If 'Harvesters' was a film that Independent film makers should watch for inspiration of what a small company can do, 'Stakes' is an extension of the idea with even greater reinforcement power.

I give 'Stakes' 7.5 out of 10.