John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos

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.

This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.

4/10

I had some expectations for Vampires: Los Muertos. They weren't exactly high ones, however. I expected a let's-make-a-quick-buck rehash of Carpenter's original. I expected that there would be no way in hell that I could take Jon Bon Jovi seriously. I expected something terrible, especially considering Tommy Lee Wallace's track record with taking over for John Carpenter. I was wrong. I was wrong and I gladly admit it. I liked this movie. It was able to retain some originality while sticking rather closely with the source material. Bon Jovi convinced me, the entire cast was good (even Eddie from Family Matters), it had some unexpected gore moments, and Wallace doesn't butcher anything. It just didn't feel like a straight-to-video B sequel. It felt like a well done vampire flick that is nearly on par with Carpenter's original. Never in my life did I think I would be writing that. Sure it borrowed a little from other vamp flicks, but I don't care. The only thing that bothered me was the fact that I really missed James Woods. I would have enjoyed a direct sequel following James Woods and Daniel Baldwin's characters. But for now, this will do. I'm surprised Bon Jovi didn't write a theme for the movie: "Wanted Undead or Alive."

I'm amazed at some of these reviews, a low budget vampire movie starring James Woods is a modest success in 1998. Four years later we get a lower budget sequel starting Jon Bon Jovi.

Plot In A Paragraph: In Mexico, vampire slayer, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), is hired by an unknown client provided he build a team of slayers. Father Adam Guiteau (from the first film) is shown to have been killed in this one. This team ends up including the vampiress Zoe, who is fighting her affliction with medication, Father Rodrigo, and Sancho, a teenage boy in finding a large nest of "suckers" and their powerful leader, a vampire princess named Una (Arly Jover). She is seeking a legendary black crucifix: the Berziers Cross, the same crucifix used unsuccessfully in the first movie to perform a ritual which will enable vampires to walk in sunlight and be invulnerable.

It's, silly, rude, crude, over the top violent and ridiculous. But it's also fun. Jon Bon Jovi will never be an Oscar winner, but he has enough talent and charisma to get by in fare like this!! In fact he is the best actor in this movie.

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'.