Sleepless Nights

Recently, I've seen a lot of film that range from excellent to just plain awful. This low-low-low-budget effort (Don't deny it) about vampires falls squarely between these two stools. There are times, especially during the first half, that the non-stop jibber jabber gets so boring you want to turn it off. Plus, the miniature bows that the good guys carry around look like they were assembled from a Kinder Surprise egg. However, at least it has an understandable plot, some mildly tense scenes and a climax which is actually quite satisfying. It's also quaint too, to see the size of mobile phones only 11 years ago compared to today. How far we've come..

This film has a really low budget look that might hurt its chances of reaching a big audience which is too bad because this is mostly a pretty good job.Especially good is the storyline which works in some variations on vampire themes while still staying pretty faithful to the spirit of classic vampire movies.I would say the script for this one is the best of any of the low budget vampire films I've seen lately. And most of the actors here are much better than the actors you usually see in these types of low budget movies.This is a film which if you're in the right mood can be very enjoyable for its eerie atmosphere and the underlying romantic quality.I don't know how well a movie like this will stand the test of time but I think that, with its focus on interesting characters and plot, it'll probably hold up better in the long run than most of the recent special effects-filled Hollywood vampire movies, which look good now but don't offer much for the head or heart.So I give Sleepless Nights *** out of ****, mostly for its script, actors and good intentions.

This vampire flick is obviously a labor of love, created by fans of the genre who have been able to compensate for their meager budget by infusing their work with ingenuity and imagination. With its atmospheric music and earnest performances, it takes an old-fashioned approach to the material and manages to deliver something we don't see much of these days: a low-budget genre film which relies more on its involving plot and interesting characters than on excessive gore. That's not to say the film doesn't have some genuinely gruesome moments. But what makes Sleepless Nights work is its screenplay, a solidly crafted piece that is several notches above the average for films of this type. The film is also well served by its cast, an attractive group of newcomers led by Jacqueline Anderson, Matthew Thomas and Richard Ryan. Anderson, a glamorous presence with great sex appeal is ably supported by Thomas and Ryan, two handsome, talented actors we expect to see more of in the future. Also making an impression is Duke York, who plays the villainous Lord Malgaard in a delightfully campy style that brings to mind Vincent Price in his scenery-chewing prime. Malgaard has in his thrall a dog collar-wearing mortal named Stritch, entertainingly played by Adrian Alvarado, who, with his intense expression and emphatic line readings, comes across like a Latin Udo Kier. To be sure, the telltale signs of Sleepless Nights' tiny budget are evident in the sets, costumes and special effects, leaving us to wonder what it would've looked like if the filmmakers had had some real money to work with. But it's a mark of the producers' courage that they attempted to make a film as lavish as this on such limited funds and it's to their credit that they've succeeded as well as they have. And so, while vampire fans are waiting for the next Lestat installment or the next incarnation of Dark Shadows, they might sample this intelligent little flick. At its best, it provides some genuinely pleasurable moments of escapist entertainment, something which--in the horror genre, at least--is in short supply these days.

This movie, although it moved slow in parts and the acting was marginal, had a lot to redeem it. If they made it with a budget and people who could act, it might be pretty good.

The story is that a government agency is hunting down vampires, while the lead vampire takes control of a Scientology-type church. An agency operative has identified a 'good' vampire who only takes enough blood to live. She concludes he's on their side, a claim rejected by the agency head. She teams up with the good vampire, on the promise he'll turn her before she dies of cancer.

Overall, not a bad little movie made for all of $10.53.

A good vampire teams up with a federal agent to kill a master vampire in this promising but ultimately unsatisfying thriller. The script and direction by William Hopkins was passable, but the film suffered more as a result of its humanity than its vampirism. The cast of unknowns, although lacking charisma, make the best of the action scenes, but they lack the acting chops to make the 'human' moments believable. That's a pity since, unlike a lot of horror films in this budget range, the script does endeavor to give the characters some depth and genuine emotion and motivation. I would have liked to have seen this film done on a bigger budget. (I'm sure the director would say the same thing.) Also, I was little confused about the initial situation. Is this a global intense plague of vampires? The darkened lights of New York made me think so. But if that's the case, why does the rest of the general public – like the people in the bar -- seem unconcerned? If it isn't such a huge problem, why is there a new government agency created to battle them.