مصاصتي دماء

Vamps

.

Vamps_720p(480P)

source: Vamps

Calling this a B-movie would be undue praise. Evil Dead is a B-movie. Vamps is cheap, silly and uninspired. Cashing in on the success of vampire franchises, Vamps is a film with poor quality in story, acting, special effects, dialog, directing and soundtrack. It tells the story of two young women living in New York who meet guys and go to clubs and happen to be vampires. The film manages to squeeze a couple of funny jokes and ideas out of this setup. Mostly the film rests on the shoulders of Alicia Silverstone, who is funny and genuine even in this silly role. Krysten Ritter is alright as well, and Sigourney Weaver looks like she had fun filming her scenes, though I'm not sure how that is possible and how the filmmakers got her to sign on this.

It's hard to really consider a vampire film or any kind of film for that matter. Vamps centers around two female vampires Goody played by Alicia Silverstone and Stacy played by Krysten Ritter as they go through lives as vampires living in New York. But they are under serves to Cisserus played by Sigourney Weaver the woman who made them vampires and honestly how much did they play Sigourney to play this character? I mean come on. Cisserus is support to be our film main villain but she just the stereotype where she is passion about the newest clothes and what have you and she is pretty much serious really? Stacy while going to college meets a young man named Joey played by Dan Stevens who unknown to her is the son of Dr.Van Helsing played by Wallace Shawn. Dr.Van Helsing later begins a quest to rid the city of vampires which leads to problems with Joey and Stacy. I mean how can this be called a vampire film? Seriously? First off the only "vampire" that does what we know Vampires to do is Cisserus. Goody and Stacy do have vampires but they only drink rat blood. But seriously it's hard for me to take this film seriously. I mean the characters hardly are interesting or even worth the screen time they have. The plot of the film is pretty much the same thing we seen in any love comedy but they thought putting vampires which are pretty much ugh by the way they are hardly vampires in this film. They pretty much people with problems as vampires but come on. It's just that kind of film where you like or hate me It is just impossible to mind anything worth your while in this film. Only watch it if you're curious but it just not for me or any real vampire film it just a insult. I give VAMPS an 3 out of 10

I must say that "Vamps" was actually better than I had expected it to be. Sure, this is a chick flick, but still it was actually enjoyable. Why? Well because of the cheesy and campy story, but also because it actually boasted some pretty impressive names to the cast list! And for a chick flick vampire romantic comedy it actually had some adequate special effects as well. The story is about two ladies, Goody (played by Alicia Silverstone) and Stacy (played by Krysten Ritter) who are roommates and vampires! (Wouldn't a better term be coffinmates, then?) Living in New York, the two vampires have to deal with modern life and dating in the modern age. But something is threatening the vampire community, and can vampire find love in the Big Apple? For a movie of this caliber, the story was actually fun and entertaining, despite being as campy and cheesy as it actually is. But what really made the movie work was the list of people credited to the cast; Alicia Silverstone, Krysten Ritter, Sigourney Weaver, Marilu Henner, Richard Lewis, Wallace Shawn and Malcolm McDowell. Something did strike me kind of odd though. Why would Vlad Tepes be living in New York, that was just a bit too far fetched. And also since they stayed fairly true to vampire lore and mythology, how come the vampires cast shadows? How come when they cast no reflection, you could clearly see the reflections of Goody and Stacy in the restaurant window when they carried out the Chinese guy? Or how come Goody's gloves were off in one scene, then magically appeared on her hands in the next, only to be off again moments after during the dancing scene? And finally, during the hilarious nosebleed scene, how come the blood was down to almost touching the upper lip in one scene, then magically retraced and just under the nostril in the next? Despite these visual mistakes, "Vamps" is actually a fair enough movie. But hand on heart, then I am sure that you'd enjoy this movie a whole lot more if you are a woman.

OK. I had reasonably high expectations of this movie after seeing the trailer. Well, it's OK. That's about it. The story is light but fine, there are a few humorous moments in there, and the characters are OK. But it's a bit of a drag. The special effects are a little hit and miss, and it was all wrapped up a little too neat, tidy and predictably. Another sad fact is that unfortunately Alicia Silverstone, although a babe, is getting a little too old to play these ditsy comedic roles anymore. To me, Dan (Downton Abbey) Stevens, Sigourney Weaver and Wallace Shawn were wasted in this movie. All a bit too lightweight, predictable and run of the mill for me.

What can I say? I thought I'd give this a try because of all the glowing reviews on IMDb - maybe have an enjoyable 'chick flick' night in with some popcorn and a few laughs. Besides, a movie with Sigourney Weaver and Malcolm McDowell couldn't be all bad? Boy, was I in for a big disappointment! Whilst the premise had potential (2 girly vamps, surviving in modern NY and abstaining from human blood, while trying to live 'normal' lives), the execution was dire - the acting was amateurish and I'm afraid that Alicia Silverstone is past the age of this kind of role - she acted more mature in "Clueless"! Sigourney must have cringed when she saw the finished result, she was given terrible material to work with and wasn't able to improve on it. Malcolm McDowell's cameo as Vlad Dracul was actually quite funny, but there wasn't enough of him to save the film. Dan Stevens as 'son of Van Helsing' just looked bewildered and sorry to be there, which I'm sure he was - this was not a good choice for a break-through role in Hollywood. Sincerely, don't waste your time - if you want a comedy vamp film, dig out "Love at First Bite" - if you want Sigourney being nasty, watch "Working Girl" - well, just watch ANYTHING other than this woeful mess!

The saying "They don't make 'em like they used to" usually refers to really great movies – but it can also be said for those really bad ones that start out intentionally cheesy and keep piling it on… and on and on and on… Well here's an attempt to revive "Cringe Cinema" to younger audiences… We begin with two pretty girls waking up in plush coffins. They're vampires and talk like your average airhead teens. But it turns out one of them dates back to the 1800's... Alicia Silverstone's Goody is just that. Passive and non-violent, she only bleeds filthy rodents, never humans, and had lived many years but fell in love only once during the 1960's to a hippie radical who, now older, is in the form of (a noticeably aged) Richard Lewis. And then there's Stacy, played by Krysten Ritter, the more naïve of the two as she falls in love with a fellow college student with the last name Van Helsing, whose father (Wallace Shawn) may finally have a reason to wield that wooden stake again. Unlike Goody, who recalls historic events like they were only yesterday, Stacy had changed twenty years ago and her memories go back only to the 80's and 90's, the era when writer/director Amy Heckerling reigned. FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH is one of the best high school sex comedies ever made, and CLUELESS shaped 90's teen cinema. But VAMPS fails on almost every level, trying much too hard to be modern with references to social websites, iphones and ipads; while the constant jabs at the Right is much too forced (and distractingly slanted) even for Hollywood. The Vamp girls live an idyllic existence roaming from nightclubs to their apartment and are sporadically summoned by their leader Cisserus, who revives their everlasting clock. Iconic actress Sigourney Weaver plays the bloodthirsty siren leaving a trail of corpses at her wake (including The Pizza Guy from RIDGEMONT HIGH) and hams it up to an embarrassing level. On the lighter side, Malcolm McDowell tones down the passively gentle Vlad the Impaler, part of a group of reformed flesh-eaters who gather at a "Bloodsuckers Anonymous" meeting (harboring another FAST TIMES veteran Scott "Arnold" Thomson). McDowell is collecting a paycheck here, and alas, it's probably not a big one. There's a joke a minute, and few are funny. Attempting to spoof bad b-movies, VAMPS becomes one in itself. The glossy cinematography resembles a straight-to-video release while the special effects are the kind of Computer Generated fare you'd see on a cheesy You Tube video. But there are two sides to the coin. One aspect of really bad horror flicks is that once you start, you can't stop watching. This will make you stay tuned in, to see if it can get any worse. It does and often comfortably so. Alicia Silverstone, who looks great twenty years after CLUELESS, is sweetly likable as the Vamp with a bleeding heart of gold. She may have to sacrifice herself for her best friend, who, having found true love, might have a real (if shortened) future. If anything else, you'll believe these "young ladies" really care for each other. It's too bad they don't have anything really funny to do, or say, in the ninety minute eternity herein. For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com