Metamorphosis

If I could have given negative stars, I would have. WHY, Mr. Lambert, did you choose to do this?!? Please, fire your agent.

I won't bother detailing any of the story line, because I fear that some poor soul might decide it was worth watching. Suffice to say that a high school creative fiction writing class could have come up with a better story. The AV club could have made a better attempt at filming it, in fact.

There should be a law against movies this bad. Or, at least stiff penalties for having the gall to call this "entertainment."

The acting was HORRIBLE. The plot was AWFUL. There was NOTHING redeemable about this waste of time at all.

I think I'd rather have a root canal. Or chew glass.

Abysmal. Horrible. Plain awful. These are just a few words that come to my mind when I think of this movie.

Let's take a closer look:

ACTING - practically non-existent, wooden,amateurish overacting;

ACTORS - horrible 1990s choice of actors and characters (three utterly annoying American tourists) and Christopher Lambert. Yes, that Christopher Lambert, who once was a big star (don't ask me how he ended up in this piece of junk);

PLOT - makes little or no sense (not to mention the terrible distortion of historical reality and truth);

SETTING - probably the only positive think in the whole film;

ENDING - clear and predictable after some 30 minutes into the film; etc.

I could go on and on, but there's no point to. It's simply one horrible horrible film which should never have been made. And Mr. Lambert should fire his agent ASAP and start making decent films again.

This movie isn't too bad, at least the special effects and plot were on par to its competition. The only sad note about this film is something that plagues many could've been good movies... bad acting.

I don't know how Corey Sevier, the lead male actor, has received so many parts in his acting career; his acting is just plain stale and contrived. His role started out OK, but I'm not sure why the director didn't do his job; i.e., inform the actors when their skills aren't up to snuff. The kid tries, but I think too hard and the result is painfully artificial. The worst part was when he detailing some history he had researched, but the way he spoke of it was like he had been there and experienced it. Just stupid. Oh yeah, I don't know too many historians doing this type of research who appear like they've walked off the beach. Who cast this guy in the role, it should have been someone more fitting and collegiate for the role.

The second acting faux pas was the Nickelodeon-acting provided by Jennifer Higham. I've seen much better talent at a Jr. High play. Where do they screen these people? Her acting, if you want to call it that, was so off-the-cuff that you would've thought she was trying to make it seem like a joke. Jennifer, you need to not only memorize your lines by get in-character when you read them; i.e., make it at least a little realistic! Overall, given it's shortcomings in the acting department, the movie wasn't too bad, though was a bit quirky at points. If you like vampire films you might want to check this one out, though prep yourself for some B-C grade acting with the leads (Irena Hoffman did much better & hot too!).

Helo everyone!

I rented the movie yesterday to watch the mesmerizing Chirstopher Lambert in this adaptation of Blood Baroness Bathory story, who actually existed, and must say I was bitterly disappointed.

First, the moving pictures that I've seen on the screen were in poor quality - not the TV seen, but the photography and cinematography were not what you can expect even in low budget movies as this one. Alone the camera movement tried to capture the mystery/horror atmosphere of the movie, but lightning was just bad - as made from students that just ended their program.

Second, the Characters of the movie were mostly two dimensional, with no ability or possibility in script to give them emotional(human,when we are talking vampires) depth.

Don't get me wrong; the work of actors was acceptable, but the Characters were boring. The only ones that stood out were Lambert as the Bad Guy of the story with his performance, that actually had similarity to his Mortal Combat character, and Hofmann as the Elisabeth (the "good Vampire") because she succeeded to grow over the cliché of seductive vampire woman and let me believe that Elisabeth is truly caring about Keith (played by Sevier, who still has to prove himself as an actor).

The FX were OK, but the some scenes were just not working as suspense visual vehicles for the audience(for example, when brother Alexander sticks his javelin trough sister's Chaterine's heart and Hihgham character, and they disintegrate, the J.J, played by Hollway, stands in the Picture and is not afraid but amazed that the scene is actually taking place...?)Really, not funny.You see this in experimental footage of movie students. The white light of the purgatory works OK, but you can see almost the whole time, that it is not...well, that is fx.

OK,enough of bad mood. The Idea of "time is slower in purgatory" and the visualization of it was really good.It worked in building the suspense and it worked as the idea of "follow the white light" was finally clear.

I've seen films shot using phome cameras that are better than this. This was just a BAD movie. The acting was terrible. What was Christopher Lambert thinking. Not that he's a critically accalaimed actor or anything. The writing was terrible. Scenes were stitched together with some not making any sense in sequence of events. I love vampire movies and some of them are pretty cheesy but entertaining at least. Not this film.