The Vulture's Eye

I purchased this movie in a 4-pack titled "Vamps." The other movies are Vampire Stakes (2002), Abomination: The Evilmaker 2 (2003) and The Darkness (2003). Hopefully the others are better than this one.

The video has a lot of on-purpose camera movement which I thought was kind of cool and not distracting at all. Okay, it was a little distracting.

The movie has lots of visuals and not a lot of dialog especially toward the middle of the film (which is something to be thankful for). The acting and dialog are unintentionally funny. This may be one of those cult movies that's just so bad it's enjoyable...at least for some.

You could say this movie poses the moral question: Is it more merciful to kill a loved one to save them from becoming a blood-thirsty psycho vampire or to let them live?

Overall, the movie was "peachy."

(2004) The Vulture's Eye HORROR

Another straight-to-rental cheap quickie edited, co-produced, written and directed by Frank Sciurba, done by via camcorder shot on someone's abandoned house on the neck of the woods about an overweight and older Van Helsing's goal to kill a vampire who can walk around during the daytime victimizing two couples wives, with their husbands doing there darndest to keep them safe! Obvious, body double nudity were used on the two ladies in question- one of them had a name similar to what one could find from a bad stripper bar since they consists of some of the most saggiest looking breasts I had ever saw in a film. It's so bad, one can get better entertainment watching things on youtube.

Footnote: I have to confess that I've used my fast forward button while playing it at least 85% of the film, and that the two people on the poster I own are not in the actual film at all. The vampire looks like an old timer and the two actresses are non-Asian, one has a English accent and the other is an 30 something white American! Bomb or zero stars.

Maybe my opinion would be different if I hadn't already seen over 20 film adaptations of Dracula that vary wildly in quality, or if I didn't regularly watch awful low budget movies, or if I hadn't seen several awful low budget adaptations of Dracula. But in my eyes, this movie was solid. I was NOT expecting to come out of it with so much respect for it. Yes, it was clearly made with about $12, but it's pretty effective and honestly well-made considering they obviously didn't have much to work with. The plot isn't too far off from the book, which is something I look for, and it's pretty unique compared to a lot of other Dracula movies in a way that I liked a lot. The production quality is very low but it honestly kind of contributes to an unsettling vibe. The vampire Lucy scene may be up there with the 1979 Dracula as one of my favorites; it's very unusual compared to other versions.

Overall: If you're used to high quality movies with a real budget and name-brand actors, this is definitely very different from what many people consider to be a "good" movie. But when you look at it for what it really is, it's a solid, unique, effective, and respectful adaptation of Dracula that I would gladly recommend to any fan of the book.