Vampires: Los Muertos

This was just on the verge of disappointing. The story builds itself around a similar plotline of the first, in that the vampire master is looking to find the mythical black cross which will allow them to walk during the day. They are opposed in this quest by the battle-hardened loner/slayer. In this case the slayer is portrayed by rocker Jon Bon Jovi. He has built an acting career around smaller, supporting roles and has done quite well in them. Unfortunately I don't think he was ready for the lead at this point. Or at least if he was he deserved a shot with a better storyline. Here the story is weak, the direction is weak,the chemistry is non-existent, and the dialogue flounders terribly. I liked the predecessor which starred James Woods and I am looking forward to purchasing Bon Jovi's newest album...can't say the same for this movie.

Brilliant! I thought Tommy Lee Wallace was in his prime with this one. This proves that he can direct a very good film. I liked Fright Night 2, but Halloween 3 I really did not care for. The direction was fine, but the story suffered greatly. Anyway, this movie starts off beautifully, and has a tremendous amount interesting camera effects as well as some great angles that lend to a better narrative. Also the standard B-movie fare actors/actresses generally do not carry off well in their respective films, not so here. Not only not have B-movie actors (or at least those who act like it)we do have Natasha Gregson Wagner (a true beauty), and also have Jon Bon Jovi who has a great role. Both are superb! The supporting cast also is terrific. The pacing is good, the tension is there (it could have been more nail biting, but oh well), and for you guys who love the lesbian thing you have a nice tease in there. But i digress, a good film, and great bit of fun. Good amounts of gore and action...two fangs up!

Let's look at the facts here.

Straight-to-video. Lower budget. Different director. Cast of nobodies. James Woods: no. Jon Bon Jovi: yes.

You're probably not expecting much. Frankly, it's just as well.

Despite some moody establishing shots, one or two genuinely classy action moments and the odd tenuous attempt to link this film to its predecessor, the whole thing is hamstrung by a total lack of ambition, dismal script and some of the worst acting I've seen in years. It's a poor man's retread of the original on a far more modest scale, and in sequel terms about as necessary as Highlander II.

And... you know... Jon Bon Jovi. What were they thinking? At least his character was called 'Derek'.

I was expecting a poor sequel, similar in nature to the Dusk to Dawn franchise, but I was somewhat surprised. This movie follows the same pattern as the first John Carpenters' Vampires (1998), but features none of the same actors. John Bon Jovi does a quite credible job as the vampire hunter, and Natasha Wagner performs well as the partially infected vampire, rounded out by a resonable supporting cast of hunter assistants, who actually manage to survive the second scene. The problems with this movie mainly come from lack of motivation of several of the characters, particularly Zoey, and strange mistakes made by the villan Arly Jover (from Blade), who up until the final was quite intelligent and managed to fool the hunters at every point. And a general lack of energy from the cast. If you liked the first one you will like this as well. Well worth a rental for anyone who likes the vampire genre.

Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.

But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.

The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.

So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.