Vampire in Vegas

This must be the worst movie this year, 2009, but what had I really expected from a director like Jim Wynorski? Take only The Pandora Project [ 1998 ] as a deterrent example.

That producers give Jim Wynorski money to direct films is for me a mystery. But what can you expect from producers as Bryan Sexton and Julie K. Smith?

Isn't Julie K. Smith a former scream queen, slash soft porn star? Now crap movie producer?

In the epilogue you can see a lot of interesting facts, that the associate producer Steve Goldenberg also are Best Boy and Rigging Gaffer, and that associate producer Rob Sanchez, who played the Security Guard number 2, also work as the movie sets gaffer.

Who payed for this?

This movie is a six. But it's a six for three reasons, and these three reasons alone.

Tony Todd. He's a legend. So, respect. I often wonder how icons like this get pulled into productions such as this, and in my own mind, it either has to do with money (more than likely) or personal friendships, connections, i.e. Doing somebody a solid. Todd does conventions, so I figure an actor doing a movie like this has to get similar pay to a convention appearance. Probably the same amount of work too. A couple of days.

Delia Sheppard (Dr. VanHelm). Well, hellooo, Doctor.

And lastly, Brandin Rackley (Nikki). It's too bad I'm just finding out about her now. She's fantastic in this. Quite stunning. Would've liked to keep up with her career. Will have to catch up now.

Other than that, if you're hoping for a lot of Vegas scenery, you'll only get it in the opening credits, and the occasional transition of scenes.

It is amazing how many Vegas properties have changed since 2009.

There is one nice exterior shot of Main Street Station Casino, but it is brief.

Most other shots are interiors and could be anywhere far from Vegas.

The ending is Fear and Low Budget in Las Vegas.

And of course, it's easy to pick apart.

Bad acting.

The unconvincing manner in which dialogue is delivered.

But most of all, how is somebody going to be burned alive at the stake and there's no charring of the wood? None? Really? Wow. Okay. That would've been an easy fix, even no budget.

This vampire movie, aside from the highlights I listed, can just stay in the dark.

It's like watching a porn movie without the sex scenes. It has been a while since I've seen a (horror)movie that was this bad! This really has no redeeming qualities, the story is awful, just like the actors, the visual effects, etc, etc. Tony Todd is not in his Candyman mood, here he is just plain bad. All the other actors are even worse, all of them people I've never heard of (and probably won't in the future if this is a reference...). The story is something we've seen many times before (and much better), It's you typical 'Vampire wants to find a cure to be able to survive daylight'-type of films. You are better of watching 'Zombie Strippers' than this piece of garbage! A.A.A.C. (avoid at all costs).

Vampire in Vegas (2009)

* (out of 4)

Sylvian (Tony Todd) is a 300-year-old vampire who wants to be cured so he travels to Las Vegas where he wants Dr. Van Helm (Delia Sheppard) to find a cure. She begins experimenting on local vampires and once their bodies are found the police begin to investigate.

VAMPIRE IN VEGAS is a pretty disappointing horror movie that has way too much going on in it and sadly very little of it is actually entertaining. Not only do you have the story of the lead vampire trying to get cured but you've got the whole story with the doctor doing her evil things. All of that is covered in a horror fashion but then you've got the investigation from the detectives, which goes for silly laughs and then you've also got more subplots that involve a more erotic nature.

Director Jim Wynorski is the best in the business when it comes to these type of movies but this one here just didn't work and that's a real shame and especially since he had the great Tony Todd (CANDYMAN) with him. These two normally don't disappoint but there's very little that works in VAMPIRE IN VEGAS. The really bad CGI effects certainly didn't help things and there's no question that the film is very uneven and at times just flat out boring.

With all of that said, there's no question that there's no doubt that the screenplay just isn't interesting enough to work. The characters are boring, the dialogue is bland and there are too many attempts to mix the genres. VAMPIRE IN VEGAS actually makes VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN look decent.

I've seen a few films directed by Jim Wynorski and they've all been pretty good. But the casting Director in this movie delivered a bunch of really terrible actors for him to work with. As usual in a Wynorski film there are some really sexy great looking women. No disappointment there. But the script was pretty darn bad and Jim failed to reel in a really bad acting. Some of the female actors were actually pretty good and believable. But the majority of the male actors were some of the worst actors I've ever seen and I'm speaking of Tony Todd, and Ted Monte. Beautifully shot and good camera angles no problem there. I just can't stand bad acting and the Director of the film is responsible for getting them to do their job well or booting them. Seems like this movie was just being shot in a hurry, and not taking the time to get the best out of the actors.