Q: Screenwriter Lisa Lutz began writing the screenplay at the age of 21 in 1991

Is she even in business? If someone gave her another chance after this piece of crap, she's up for the most Fortunate Person Of Ever award.This movie sucks to no END...It never ceases to amaze me what the turn into movies...and the fact that they made this writer put it off for a bit? Seriously? I can write better crap than this in my sleep.

OK, so how many lines to I have to type? I don't get this at all. I guess I"m a newbie. I guess I don't understand why there should ever be a limit to what anyone has to say...or a quota? Seriously, I don't care if you have a one word sentence...or even a one word response. I mean, c'mon?

Thanks...is this enough, finally?

This movie is worthless.
A: negative
Q: Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.

And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.

As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.

I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.
A: negative
Q: "Roman Troy Moronie" is my comment on the movie. What else is there to say?

This character really brings out the moron in Moronie. A tough gangster with an inability to pronounce profane words, well, it seems that it would have been frustrating to be tough and yet not be able to express oneself intelligently.

Roman Moronie will go down in the annals of movie history as one of the greatest of all morons.

There is of course great comedy among the other characters. Michael Keaton is F.A.H. and so is Joe Piscipo.

I just like the fact that Moronie kept the movie from an "R" rating because he could not pronounce profanity.
A: positive
Q: Almost too well done... "John Carpenter's Vampires" was entertaining, a solid piece of popcorn-entertainment with a budget small enough not to be overrun by special effects. And obviously aiming on the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience. "Vampires: Los Muertos" tries the same starting with a rock-star Jon Bon Jovi playing one of the main characters, but does that almost too well...: I haven't seen Jon Bon Jovi in any other movie, so I am not able to compare his acting in "Vampires: Los Muertos" to his other roles, but I was really suprised of his good performance. After the movie started he convinced me not expecting him to grab any guitar and playing "It' my life" or something, but kill vampires, showing no mercy and doing a job which has to be done. This means a lot, because a part of the audience (also me) was probably thinking: "...just because he's a rockstar...". Of course Bon Jovi is not James Woods but to be honest: It could have been much worse, and in my opinion Bon Jovi did a very good performance. The vampiress played by Arly Jover is not the leather dressed killer-machine of a vampire-leader we met in Part 1 (or in similar way in "Ghosts of Mars"). Jover plays the vampire very seductive and very sexy, moving as lithe as a cat, attacking as fast as a snake and dressed in thin, light almost transparent very erotic cloth. And even the optical effects supporting her kind of movement are very well made. It really takes some beating. But the director is in some parts of the film only just avoiding turning the movie from an action-horrorfilm into a sensitive horrormovie like Murnau's "Nosferatu". You can almost see the director's temptation to create a movie with a VERY personal note and different to the original. This is the real strength of the movie and at the same time its weakest point: The audience celebrating the fun-bloodbath of the first movie is probably expecting a pure fun-bloodbath for the second time and might be a little disappointed. Make no mistake: "Vampires:Los Muertos" IS a fun-bloodbath but it's just not ALL THE TIME this kind of movie. Just think of the massacre in the bar compared to the scene in which the vampiress tries to seduce Zoey in the ruins: the bar-massacre is what you expect from american popcorn-entertainment, the seducing-Zoey-in-the-ruins-scene is ALMOST european-like cinema (the movie is eager to tell us more about the relationship between Zoey and the vampiress, but refuses answers at the same time. Because it would had slow down the action? Showed the audience a vampiress with a human past, a now suffering creature and not only a beast which is just slaughtering anybody). And that's the point to me which decides whether the movie is accepted by the audience of the original movie or not. And also: Is the "From Dusk Till Dawn"-audience really going to like this? I'm not sure about that. Nevertheless Tommy Lee Wallace did really a great job, "Vampires:Los Muertos" is surprisingly good. But I also think to direct a sequel of a popcorn movie Wallace is sometimes almost too creative, too expressive. Like he's keeping himself from developing his talent in order to satisfy the expectations of audience. In my opinion, Wallace' talent fills the movie with life and is maybe sometimes sucking it out at the same time. "Vampires: Los Muertos" is almost too well done. (I give it 7 of 10)
A: positive