Some good potential let down by constant narration and rewriting of history/vampires.
15 May 2011
Darrell Hammond is really, really good in this as a smooth talker, and much of it is KIND OF funny/quirky. It had a lot of potential, but this movie commits 3 cardinal sins.

1. They directly contradicted everything commonly known about vampires and they did it with impunity, in this smartassed matter-of-fact kind of way from a really annoying voice. It is possible to do this to an extent at the beginning to set the "rules" for the world. But continually sarcastically making fun of and contradicting the very fundamentals of vampire folklore is NOT ON. If common vampire rules are so "wrong" then maybe they should quit thinking of themselves as "vampires" to begin with, it's not what they call themselves.

2. What the hell is with this using Alexander Graham Bell? My perception of Bell will forever be tainted by this nonsense. Bell did not agree to his name and image being used like this, I think it's so unfair to do this to a deceased person. I rarely even like watching fictional depictions of real people like for instance Darwin, because I cannot trust the depiction of it, but this is just ridiculous.

3. They should have done all the narration and backstory at the start, not continually narrated throughout the whole thing and continually butchering your perception of vampires by pretending these were anything like vampires.
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed