Stakes

Overall grade: D- (avoids an F rating since the unintentionally-funny scenes will make you laugh out loud)

If you've seen your share of porn movies (and I know you have), then you've come to know that cheap, shot-with-a-camcorder "look" that most porn movies have. That's the same sort of cinematic quality you'll encounter with this vampire flick.

The quality of acting is, if anything, actually worse that what you'll see in your basic porn movie (don't even get me started on the acting of the guy who plays the priest - he makes everybody else look good).

This movie does have CGI, but I mean that only in the sense that technically it was made using a computer. We're not exactly talking "Shrek" here. This is more on par with what you'd see in a computer game from about 5 years ago. You'll love the computer-generated blood you see on the first vampire victims at the start of the film.

And what can you say about the plot? .... Well, that's about all you can say about it.

In short, if you want the perfectly bad movie to rip to shreds with your friends (as in MST 3K), this movie is the perfect choice.

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.

Its low budget, the actors do not make 10 mill per movie and the equipment is not state of the art.But it was better than Blair Witch and that made millions. There is a nude scene that has no reason to be there except to show a nude scene.But all in all it is a good movie from a small company. If you want main stream its maybe a 2 out of ten If you like independents its a 5 out of 10. If you like cult classics/low budget its a 6 out of 10. I normally don't like cult classics but this caught my interest and was well worth the $5.00 to buy it.Vampire movies are everywhere this one seems to have taken some original ideas, that alone was refreshing. Peace enjoy, hope it helped

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'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