MovieChat Forums > Reign in Darkness (2002) Discussion > The worst vampire movie rented, next to ...

The worst vampire movie rented, next to Near Dark


So the box for the movie looked cool. But it didn't hold up. I knew going into it that it was low budget, but I have seen good low budget films, this one was not one of them. The picture quality looked too bright and the cinematography wasn't the best. I could have done a better job, and I wish they would have contacted me about it. But I heard they were coming out with a sequel. Please god no!!!!!!!! The acting in the first one was bad enough, they should have used some of the money and went to an actor's guild or something.

All in all, don't rent this movie! I recommend renting any other vampire flick besides Near Dark (no matter how cool all you crappy viewers think it is...cause it sucked). Stick to watching Blade...Blade 3 will be out soon!!!

peace

Whitey

reply

Matter of opinion isn't it though?

reply

I too was fooled by the picture on the case at the video store. Honestly, from the picture you would have no idea what "horrors" lie inside. This is, without a doubt, the worst movie ever made. One star is too much for this piece of crap.
Please, please, please, save yourselves and do not see this movie!

reply

Sadly I have to agree, found it in the video store recently. Thought wow a low budget Austrlaian Film makes it to the video shelves. Having been involved in another low budget film that has been picked up by a b-movie distrbutor, I thought I would give it a go.

I can't say enough about how truly bad it was. It was trying to be Blade, Angel, Buffy and every other vampire related movie or tv show ever made.

The accents were TERRIBLE. Ok if you want to do amercian accents, atleast take the time to get them down.

Technically it was quite good, but to me the most aspect of a low budget film is to have a good, original story and good acting. LArgely because that is all you really have with low budget. The fact that they apparently spent 1 million on it. Filming on digital, in Australia, I would expect so much more.

reply

It's on the telly just now, as I'm typing this, and I have to agree - it's storytelling, character and plot that can make or break a film, not how much money you throw at it.
And you're right about the fake accents.
The image of a magpie comes to mind: the voice-over from Blade Runner, the odd bit of Reservoir Dogs/JohnWoo shoot-em-ups, and a genre that's been done to death. Little bits and pieces nicked from other films.
What's with the main character's name - Michael Dorn? Isn't he the guy who plays Worf in Star Trek - The Next Generation. Well, even if they got the real Michael Dorn to do this it wouldn't save it.

reply

Near Dark is one of the best vampire movies ever. As for this one, it's not bad, but yea, the accents are horrific. Im watching as I type this, so I cant share a full opinion. If all you like are Lost Boys type generic vampire flicks that click closely to the classic rules of vampires, youll hate movies like this and Near Dark.

reply

The fact that they apparently spent 1 million on it.
You got to be kidding? If they really got that much for making the movie, then i guess they used about 5.000 for the movie and the rest went into their pockets... This movie could have been done for next to nothing..

reply

Near Dark is one of the best Vampire films ever made. Full stop.

reply

Haha, so true.
The cover of the Dvd was pretty neat, so my sister and I decided to check it out.
We didn't make the 10 minute mark before turning it off.

-----
Anything you say can and will be held against you...in the court of Robocop.

reply

Are you kidding? Near Dark is brilliant. Blade is absolute trendy crap.

In memory of Sam Peckinpah

reply