Stakes

As I've mentioned in previous reviews, I critique Independent Films as just that, independent productions. I do not mistakenly look at these films through "Hollywood's Critical Lens" as many self-proclaimed "film critics" often do. That said, on to some thoughts...

Here we have Ripple and Don returning to doing what they do best, inventive and innovative film on a limited budget. In their sophomore production together, they make numerous improvements over their previous film, "Harvesters." Let it be said though that a number of these improvements are in the technical department, not necessarily the performance area.

Kudos are due to the Timewarp guys for the biggest improvement: much more frugal use of CGI as opposed to "Harvesters." Albeit the CGI machine in the beginning was a little too much, the personal device that Steven King's character uses was done very well. In addition to not only know WHEN to use CGI, the group also has learned HOW to use CGI. This is evident in a few scenes where computers were used for disintegration effects and gore effects (although the ally massacre shot could have used some color balancing).

In regards to the acting quality of this film, the performance strength was better than that of 'Harvesters,' with a leading cast of stronger actors than before. Only problem is that those actors are the only strong ones with weak performances from a great majority of the supporting cast.

If 'Harvesters' was a film that Independent film makers should watch for inspiration of what a small company can do, 'Stakes' is an extension of the idea with even greater reinforcement power.

I give 'Stakes' 7.5 out of 10.

I'm sick of people who were obviously involved in the making of a low budget movie posting comments about it. You should recluse yourselves because you do not represent the objective viewer who might rent/buy the movie. It is a conflict of interest, your bias is evident. You'd get away with sneaking in positive review except for one thing: You're not smart enough. Most of the time you foolishly post a glowing review of something that people living in third world countries would stop watching after twenty minutes. If you really think your movies are as good as you say, let me remind you of something. This movie was batched together with three other bad vampire movies (all shot on video) & only sold because of the hot chick on the cover. HAHAHAHAHA

Disregard the goofy script, painful acting and some of the worst grainy video quality on DVD I've ever seen and you'll find they at least gave it an effort. I saw this on DVD and the quality was bad so I'd avoid it on VHS. The CGI effects work in some scenes but digital blood is just obvious they were lazy. It could've been worse, just check out anything from EI Cinema or Sub Rosa's bucket of crap! If you're into shot-on-video home movies that lack talent and nudity, it might be worth checking out.

I bought this film in a four pack deal. It was well worth the money. The atmosphere was really good and the action scenes were really terrific. I thought the biting scenes had great detail. I was really surprised that a person could do that much with such an primitive camera. It kind of makes a person want to go out with their home video camera and try to do a film. I really enjoy some independent films. Some I really can't get involved in. This one really caught my eye. Great job for those who worked on it. I really think you did a fantastic job. The movie reminds me of something related to the drive in pictures or a late night movie of yesterday. Great Vampire Movie!

Great cult movie with unintentionally funny dialog and acting. I lost tract of the body count.

Yes, as others have mentioned, there is a sex/nude scene which doesn't make much sense within the context of the movie. That's a minor problem.

This is one film you can sit and enjoy - and mock - with impunity. And, thankfully, has a running time of about 83 minutes.

Now, I just wish I could create a stake deadly enough to stick into the heart of this movie.

I'm giving it a 3 out of 10, which may be more than it really deserves but the CGI is pretty good throughout, so there's that.