Frost: Portrait of a Vampire (Video 2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
21 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
The Glasses...those stupid glasses.
ac_wade16 May 2006
This movie was BEAUTIFULLY done in the genre of "Movies no one will ever want to watch." Gary Busey is the only redeeming factor, and not even because of his acting, but because he's Gary Busey. If this movie was never made, I probably would have done something better with the time that was wasted from my life watching this flick. The question every single one of you will have with this movie is...WHY THE GLASSES? The guy NEVER takes off his glasses, except to sleep. Ridiculous.

Overall, I'm willing to give this a star. Only one though. Out of 10. What's that? You want more? You can't have more. Not yours.

One (1) star out of Ten (10)
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolute crap
Logan-2220 August 2003
FROST is absolute crap from frame one. This pathetic, boring excuse for a movie is possibly one of the worst ever made, and not in the "so bad it's good" way, either, but in the "so bad, I shut it off after 20 minutes" way that renters find so commonplace these days. I walk into the video store and find endless rows of movies so bad or boring like this but beautifully packaged... Inside, they are all the same homogenized, no talent crap that makes me sick. With so much of this mindless junk clogging up the new release shelves, it's no wonder films are now called "product" in the industry. Why? Because there's no artistry, creativity or desire to "push the envelope" involved whatsoever anymore. Anyway, FROST is poorly acted (and when I say poor, I mean rock bottom), poorly written, poorly edited, and poorly directed. The CGI is awful and looks like a cheap video game. From Gary Busey's star billing on the box, I was hoping he was going to play a vampire, not DAREDEVIL! The only good thing about this film was the main title sequence, but even that was ruined by cutting away from it back to Gary Busey talking. The title didn't even come up until after all the rest of the credits were long gone! Way to ruin the only good thing this movie had going for it. Avoid FROST like the plague!!!
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Really A Horror Movie
Theo Robertson29 May 2003
I think there`s a straight to video film called OCTOPUS which spends the first half of its running time being an action packed thriller ( Or meekly tries to ) then all of a sudden turns into a horror movie about a giant octopus . Well it`s the same with PORTRAIT OF A VAMPIRE which opens with a very brief scene with a Jerry Springer lookalike examining a body drained of blood then the film flashes back to Afghanistan in August 1989 ( Hadn`t the red army pulled out of there before then ? )which resembles the Nex Mexico desert . Not very convincing but it gets worse as we`re treated to a battle scene featuring CGI helicopters . How do I know they`re CGI ? Well it`s so obvious it`s impossible not to notice . It`s also impossible not to notice the pathetic standard of acting either and it`s at this point the script decides to meet the production`s dismal standards as it bores us ( No spoilers because you can see it coming a mile away ) with double and triple crosses in Mexico a year later . It`s at this point you find yourself asking what have I got to do to get an equity card ? , or how come film companies turn my scripts down when they finance crap like this ? and most importantly if this movie is called PORTRAIT OF A VAMPIRE then shouldn`t it be a horror film and not a crap action thriller similar to something Cannon used to produce in the mid 1980s ? It does turn into a horror movie about halfway through but the horror aspects are as badly done as the action adventure bits . I was going to feel sorry for Gary Busey appearing in this but it`s not like someone stuck a gun to head and made him do it . If you decide to appear in a film like this it`s your own fault and you deserve no sympathy

So just to sum up if you enjoy horror films you won`t want to see this because it`s not a horror film , it`s a horrible film . And if you enjoy action films you won`t want to see it either due to the laughable production values
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So UNBELIEVABLY bad, I despair
Eredain3 December 2003
The movie's abysmal idiocy is not as terrifying as the fact that some of those who comment on it here on IMDb actually like it (like mortalli and coyote13). It's not just bad or disappointing. Someone should be made to PAY for releasing this onto the market. I actually went by Blockbuster's and complained, demanding my money back and for them to take the movie off the shelf. I LOVE the vampire concept, and stalk video stores for anything of the sort, knowing that I will be able to filter any bad things about such a movie out, and enjoy the good parts that I so love. Well, not this time. Absolute torture. Avoid at all costs. Seriously. It's not even funny.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
new love for cinema
treesgetwheeledaway13 November 2004
This movie was absolute crap. Nothing in it makes sense. It's funny because there's just no point. Read the tagline! What the hell does that even mean? Were they trying to make a horrible film?

The lead actor, whose name is Jack Frost in the movie, looks like a cross between George Michael and Kevin Smith. It's all downhill form there. They try to incorporate some sort of ridiculous war story into the plot, and it doesn't work at all. All of the actors just look goofy and the writing just makes no sense at all. They do throw in some nudity for good measure though, and to keep people from turning the movie off. I imagine they were trying to make Frost into some sort of cult hero like Ash or something, but, no, not even close. He walks around with his stupid sunglasses killing people. It's all really, really lame. So, yeah, they got all that. Then they got some top of the line computer effects. The helicopters in the movie will blow you away, I totally couldn't tell they were fake, same goes for the bats. I couldn't believe that the director, or whoever the hell it was did a special feature w/ commentary for the special effects. They're laughable at best. The whole movie is laughable actually. Gary Busey's total screen time is about 2 minutes. 2 non-consecutive minutes.

If you're looking for a laugh, definitely check this out. The complete non-sensical-ness(word?) all will have you cracking up.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Shouldn't vampires avoid sunlight? (spoilers)
jerronspencer28 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, the stink of a really bad movie just won't wash off. Gary Busy must have owed someone a favor. Why else would he make this, um, film.

****SPOILER****

When a mercenary is turned into a vampire, his lust for blood drives him to kill those closest to him. This is after he walks in the daylight, grows absurdly long hair and leaves a tome on vampire lore for his former commander. I know, I know–where's Gary? Well, he's telling this story, which is a flashback to events that took place ten years earlier. Gee, isn't that a compelling tale? Anyway, the former commander kills his vampiric buddy and just fades into the background. Then the story ends with a supposedly blind Busey pulling off his shades, revealing himself to be a vampire. One that can walk in the day, has absurdly tall hair and knows all about vampire lore. Hmm?

Decent cinematography, shot on digital, good music–the rest is crap. This is a film to be avoided, unless you just have to watch vampire flicks. And if so, just remember that you were warned. Sniff. Do you smell that?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Someone should offer YOU money to watch this
srfm7926 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is the first time I have ever watched a film that was so appallingly bad that I almost didn't care to watch the second half of the movie on fast forward. OK, so it's supposed to be a vampire movie. It is not scary at any point. It turns out to be a sort of vehicle for action figure Frost who wears sunglasses through the entire movie because (in contrast to the vampires in the movie) his eyes are extremely sensitive to light. There is a ridiculous red herring (allthough the term red herring doesn't really apply to a movie without a sensible plot) in the script where Frost is hired to steal a painting and does in a sort of even-lower-budget McGyver way. This has nothing to do with the rest of the movie and there is no follow-up. The only good thing to say about "Portrait..." is that the sound and picture quality is OK. It is not even unintentionally funny. A soft-core porn movie with all the nude scenes cut out would be more entertaining. I give my sympathy to the cameramen, boom holders and professional editors who will apparently work for food.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Plot???
black_swan-122 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Some movies are not for everyone and this is the first one (I've seen) that isn't for anyone.

I basically had to watch this because I lost a bet and no punishment could have been worse other than writing an essay on the film after the fact...(wait that's what this is...) Anyway, no words can describe how bad this was. The word bad is too short and over used, but any other forms of expression other than screaming in pain can't begin to describe this "thing".

Honestly, whom ever would let this film maker go on must be into sick and twisted jokes (or has money to burn).

I can't believe Artisan put their names on this product.

Anyway, no sense in kicking a man while he's down (It appears many others before me have written about their anguish so I'll spare anyone else.) Buyer/Watcher beware.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stupid Movie!
Nishski11 May 2003
This movie was REALLY REALLY badly done. It's not worth really saying much about it other than that, but it was SO bad that I just had to write SOMETHING about it.

There are no redeeming features in this movie. Why would Gary Busey do something like this? I don't understand.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I would'nt put my worst enemy true this
Lorx26 August 2003
Im one of those suckers that Always needs to see a new Vamp movie, just cant help myself i guess, but seeing this film made my past "all time worst" look like a dream (witch was Cross Roads by the way). The actors cant act, the story dont hold up, and the producer may just need a new job. It's all about making a 80'ish action hero look cool, walking around with a beard and sunglasses that any sign person vold rather die than wear, (i know it's suppose to be in the 80's but this is just a joke) and if this was'nt enuf, the "hero" has even less emotional expressions than Steven Seagal. To top it of the special effects are like what an 8 year old could do.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely without redeeming features.
dlfasig27 August 2003
This is one of those rare movies that has absolutely nothing to recommend it. From beginning to end there are no high points. There aren't even points high enough to be called low - it is unrelentingly abysmal.

The acting is so bad you wonder if the cast members are even allowed to join Actors' Equity. I've seen better set design in high school plays. Continuity was awful, costumes were awful, everything was awful. Every possible detail was neglected or overlooked.

It drew an R rating - ostensibly for violence and nudity - but if that's what you're looking for, don't bother. The violence is tame and so poorly choreographed and directed that you're more likely to yawn than gasp. And you can see as much nudity on prime time broadcast TV. The actors aren't even good looking. Not even the gratuitous nude (her whole part was gratuitous not just her nude scene).

Do yourself a favor and leave this one alone.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
If you believe 99% of the other reviews here,
coyote1328 November 2003
you'll probably pass on seeing this movie, as I nearly did. That may be a mistake. This is not a bad movie. It's not perfect (what is?), and it's definitely low budget with some so-so acting. But it does what it sets out to do, and my be the only movie to draw parallels between vampirism and post traumatic stress syndrome. Charles Lister as Nat, who goes from human to vamp in the course of this does an excellent job. The direction, staging, and composition of many of the shots are also above par, with careful thought given to them. It does have too many locations, but the jumps are easily followed by anyone who's half awake. Not a standard "vampire horror movie" (what exactly is that, any way?) by any means, but an interesting juxtaposition of vampires and war--a worthwhile addition to that small category (see also Lost Platoon, Deathdream, and Ghost Brigade for an instant vampire/war movie fest). If you're looking for something different, give Frost a try.
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why Bother Making Stupid Films Like This?
Rainey-Dawn26 May 2021
The only reason I watched this film in part was because I got it in a film pack. All the reviewer are right - this film sucks big time! Lame acting, dumb plot/story - just stupid. I couldn't watch the whole thing.

1/10.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Looks like a bad porn with no sex scenes
largo-929 March 2008
Actually I watched this on a Turkish satelitte channel. Can you believe that?? Kudos to the producers of this movie; they succeeded to find some suckers that actually payed MONEY to this emberassingly bad bad movie. The lead is a 80s George Micheal on steroids who has a fetish for shades and what the hell is Gary Busey doing in this movie??really? He is the one responsible for me not turnin off this flick after 5 minutes thinking maybe something worthy will happen in the upcoming minutes but no no way. Nothing in no way will make you interested or pay attention throughout the whole running time. I couldn't stand more so turned it off before the final confrontation. The production values and the acting quality is on par with cheap porn movies-and I mean the really cheap ones not f.e the vivid ones-. But I have to give it to the director for finding someone to pay money for this one. Believe me after watchin this movie thats the only question that comes to your mind.. What kind of a producer in his right mind can be persuaded to invest in this flick?
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I should've listened to all of you
wendarden21 June 2003
Oh my God!! Everyone was right - Frost is a horrible movie. I found it last night at the rental place and decided to give it a try. Once I got home I checked out IMDB for comments and got very concerned, but decided to try it anyway. Let's just say I fell asleep half way through. The acting was so horrible that it made me wonder if the director went out in the streets, asked the first person he saw "Have you ever acted before?" and when the person replied "No" he said "You're hired!!" I've seen better acting in porno movies! And my big question is after Nat got bit and they fast foward 1 year (it did say 1 year on the screen) how did his hair get so long!! I wish my hair would grow that fast in a year. And I thought Vampire couldn't walk in the daylight?! Maybe I missed that explaination at the end?! This is a horrible, pointless movie that couldn't scare me if it really tried. If you can avoid, please do so.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Appalling!
LeMarchand25 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers for most of the film ahead (or they would be spoilers if it were possible to make this film worse). If you plan on watching the movie - something I highly recommend against - don't read on.

It was a toss up between this and `Ticker', and I went by the IMDb voting for this. I can only assume that the cast and crew of the movie have voted.

Opening with some ominous music and lots of fast cutting, and an exhortation to `Get Frost - he's the only one who will know what to do', the film starts quite well. Then we flashback to the Afghan war, and the rot sets in.

Jack Frost and his band of mainly out of shape mercenaries are behind enemy lines. After we get to see how cool they all are - Frost never removes his shades (some nonsense about a phosphor grenade making his eyes sensitive to bright light), they make pop culture jokes, and they manage to take out a huge Hind CGI chopper with an RPG - the locals present them with a man they think is a demon, and ask them to kill the man. Frost's best friend, Nat, does the job because he looks into the man's eyes and sees evil, but gets bitten in the process. Nat later tries to cauterise the wound, and it seems that all is well.

A year (or two or three) later (I had already realised that this movie was a stinker of the first order so wasn't paying close attention to the subtitles), Frost is out of the Soldier of Fortune business and is painting, writing art books and (it seems) doing a bit of burglary on the side (judging by his tubby size - though it's probably supposed to be `all muscle' - he must have to get especially strong rope when he lowers himself into a museum in one scene). Nat and the rest of the guys are south of the border, involved in a revolution. In the intervening time, Nat's hair has grown ridiculously long, and he seems to have developed Vamp speed and senses (though none of his friends think that it is odd when he blurs across the room at great speed). His vamp senses save him when the generalissimo orders the squad's execution, and he wanders through the desert, collapsing in a deserted town. Even though the town's well is sealed and there appear to be no inhabitants, there is still a sheriff and a jail with three or four prisoners, who Nat quickly dispatches - it seems that you only become a vampire after your body dies.

Nat's wife back in the States is worried, and asks Frost to investigate. It seems that the generalissimo never hires the same team twice.Frost heads South, and confirms that Nat's team was executed. He avenges his friend by blowing up everyone in the generalissimo's compound.

Nat, meanwhile, has made it to the States. We get a few scenes that show he is fully vamped out and evil before his distraught wife asks Frost for his help again. It seems that Nat has tried to pick up the pieces of his old life, but the bloodlust is too strong. After pussyfooting around for a while, aided by the most open-minded and forgiving cop in movie history (`You're girlfriend's dead in a pool of blood? You think it's Nat and he's a Vampire? Well, get out there and kill him' - a slight bit of paraphrasing, but you get the gist), Frost tools up and goes after Nat, having a special gun made.

At first, this seems to be a small one-shot crossbow, but it turns out that he has had wooden-tipped bullets cast. At last, someone in a vampire film using a bit of brain-power! It will come as no surprise to learn that Frost survives, though it is a surprise that he then goes back to the crossbow as his main weapon - one slow, one-shot weapon against a fast, repeat-action one - come on! There is a slight twist at the end (in the vain hope of a sequel I guess).

Direction and especially acting are well under par - my girlfriend commented that some of the actors seem to have come from the `adult movie' school of acting, and checking IMDb shows that at least one of them literally has - but the saddest thing is that, judging from what seems to be a lot of families involved in the cast and crew, this must have been a real labour of love for some of those involved, but they turned out the worst film I have seen for years.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A dismal joke, and Gary Busey
DeadSalesman19 May 2003
Well where do i start?

Frankly i wish i didnt have to, but i caught a bit of this film the other night, and feel that i have to share it with others, in the vain hope of realeasing the burden put upon me for having seen it!

I wont take long, but i will take long enough to mention the fact that Gary Busey looks like he belongs in a nursing home, and the so-called 'good guy' is some bear-like manakin, with the acting prowess of a slice of carrot cake. Also, the mere fact that he wears a pair of 1980's brown-tint pilot glasses throughout the entirety of the film made it almost unbearable to watch, in retrospect.

The CGI employed in this film was clearly put together on a Sinclair Spectrum, and the only person it seems to fool, is bear-man, who probably cant see it, because even whilst searching almost pitch-black sewer areas, he STILL keeps his shades on, and expects me to believe that he is going to find his way in complete darkness, with the aid of a AA pocket maglite.

The script is laughable and was probably written on toilet paper, to spare budget, seeing as this film was clearly made after the sale of a small selection of second hand shoes, which just about covered Busey's costs, to 'act' as a blind man.

God, i cant even continue, i have to stop myself right here.

Its that bad.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Successful, non-cliched vampire film entertains, delights
mortalli18 June 2003
Well, I'm not a frustrated (unsuccessful) filmmaker and I rather prefer movies that cross/blend/shatter stereotypical genre films, so I suppose that helps explain why I really enjoyed FROST. I suspect that the same people who don't like a combination of action and horror would call it "cliched" had FROST stayed in one realm or the other.

FROST hearkens back to a day when films were made to entertain and not done just to show how clever or slick the producer/director/etc. are. And FROST is entertaining. Damned entertaining. Watch-it-again-and-again entertaining. Part "Night Stalker," part Robert Ludlum, this movie pays tribute to the respective traditions and then sets out to bend several rules within them. We span 10 years, two countries, and four vampires by movie's end. Not to mention several murders, an art theft, two explosive-laden skirmishes, all deftly paced and all superbly handled. The dialogue for the characters is unique, as VanHook and the individual actors quickly define the personalities of their respective characters.

JACK FROST is the mercenary skeptic whose pragmatic world is rocked by the discovery that his best friend is now a vampire. And while Frost may not believe in vampires, he's also nobody's fool. Gary Busey is the wise blind Micah, Frost's friend and mentor in his battle against the undead.

Based on the best-selling comic JACK FROST (written by writer/director/producer Kevin VanHook), the movie remains faithful to the source material while both expanding upon and updating the tale. VanHook also pays homage to such influences (and I'm speculating here) as the afore-mentioned "Night Stalker," Tod Browing's FREAKS, Richard Matheson's I AM LEGEND, perhaps THE TERMINATOR (and others, I'm sure) while keeping the very original storyline intact.

The effects are believable, which isn't surprising as they were done by many of the same crew who did FX for DAREDEVIL, MISS CONGENIALITY and a host of other major motion pictures.

Is FROST: PORTRAIT OF A VAMPIRE the next TRAINSPOTTING? Probably not, but it's a damned entertaining flick that will provide 92 minutes of fun and leave you wanting more. I look forward to more of Mr. VanHook's work. If more people made entertaining movies, instead of trying for the next "box office smash hit," we'd be better off. I hope to see more of VanHook's films soon. He is a highly talented creative force who should get more oppotunities to tell his unique brand of tales to ever-widening audiences. Here's to a sequel, or whatever the future might hold from him!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ugh! (spoiler possibility)
gypsycaine28 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Ok, I admit to two things. First, I've never (until now) written a bad review for any movie.

Second, I'm a vampire freak.

Now, there are so many glaring things about this movie that I just can't get my brain back on straight again.

At first, we're told the time is ten years, or something. Then we discover it's 1989. Then a year goes by (with the long-hair issues there!).

My biggest issue (besides the Afghani vampire's death which I agree "sucked!") is WHY did Jack remove his shades at all? Strange, strange...That scene could be perhaps the best of the movie which is an even worse thought!

No movie is totally without redemption, but this sucker comes pretty close.

I do like Jack, though. I was always a fan of Don Johnson and George Michael. :)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rambonehead the commando, cheap action and, oh yeah, if you can squeeze it in, a vampire
Dr. Gore20 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

The mere thought of a Gary Busey vampire movie excites me. Could he bring the same magic from "Silver Bullet" to the vampire genre? I would bet he could. You'd never know it from watching "Frost: Portrait of a Fraud". Gary Busey plays a blind Daredevil of an art dealer (?!). Busey has next to nothing to do with this movie except for deceiving B-movie maniacs like myself into renting it. What a rip-off.

This flick brings up a question I often find myself asking: If filmmakers think that a horror/monster angle is going to sell their movie, why not take the next logical step and make an actual horror movie? Someone really wanted to make a cheap-o action movie starring some overweight biker as Rambonehead the commando. Unfortunately the moneymen felt that this had been done to death and asked for a gimmick:

"Well, how about one of the commandos gets bit by a vampire in broad daylight and then he's a vampire. So then we do some more lame soldier stuff cause I got this great footage of a helicopter we can use over and over and over...What's that? The vampire? Oh yeah! So anyway we zig zag from Afghanistan to Mexico to San Diego. No we don't really go to all those places. We film it in my backyard! Duh! Anyway about the vampire. We make him one of those self-loathing ones. He mopes around which is good for about 15 minutes of drama. "15 minutes". Now there was a good movie. Oh Right. The vampire. So anywho he is a vampire and then some other stuff happens and Gary Busey shows up and we film a helicopter or three and there's the movie. Whatta ya think dude?"

"Well, as long as there is a helicopter in my vampire movie...ehhhhh..."
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing vampire film
Katatonia19 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
****************** SPOILERS AHEAD ******************

I had hopes that this would be an entertaining Vampire movie. Alas, it is a complete mess through and through. The story is all over the place and never really makes all that much sense. I wouldn't really even call it a "Vampire Movie" until the last 30 minutes. In fact, the first 30 minutes have practically no Horror in them, except for the very first scene.

The story ranges from Afghanistan, to Mexico, to the USA. We see a brief murder scene at the beginning of the picture, which of course the police suspect is the work of a Vampire as the culprit. Next the story involves a Mercenary team working in Afghanistan in 1989 when the Russians were at war. We see a Vampire (or we think so) in the desert in broad daylight detained by locals who want him killed by the Mercs. One of the Mercs steps up to him and gets bitten, so he shoots him dead without thinking any more of it. The vampire died easily from a normal bullet??? That was never explained and contradicts what happens later in the movie. Next, fast forward to an rebel uprising in Mexico...where we see the same Merc looking like a deranged hippie with long hair. We also see a "Mexican General", or i guess he was at least...it never really explained that part of the story in much depth either. This General seemed American to me (or the acting at least), only adding to the utter confusion of the plot. What happens next is the transformation of the Merc into a Vampire (after how many years after the bite???). The story becomes mostly laughable after that and really isn't worth mentioning. A little is explained in the end, but i never felt like most of the hooks in the plot were followed through.

My main complaint with this film is the fact that the plot seems like a complete mess. This film doesn't pretend to be a David Lynch style of incoherence. Rather, it simply fails to follow a good story and leaves the viewer frustrated with it's results. Another complaint is the casting and acting, the lead role is by a guy who looks like a twin of George Michael. His acting seemed rather stagnant at times. I am also a fan of Gary Busey, but he seemed awfully cast in this one.

Bottom line: There are many superior "Vampire B-Movies" out there that are much more enjoyable. 3 out of 10 stars...at least some of the scenes were filmed well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed