IN: Review: The main problem of the first "Vampires" movie is that none of the characters were sympathetic. Carpenter learned from his mistake and this time used a likable vampire hunter and a charismatic vampire. The female vampire Una certainly is the coolest vampire since Blade's Deacon Frost. Unfortunately while there are some good concepts like a cool slow motion restaurant scene (why didn't Carpenter use more of this??) this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been. I expected to see strong vampires in action and at least one longer lasting nicely choreographed fight sequence (for example inside a city) and was left somewhat disappointed. While "Los Muertos" proceeds at a faster pace than its predecessor, it still drags a little in some parts (though nowhere near as bad as "Vampires" did). Much like "Vampires" however this movie's climax near the end is not very intense.

Most of the above may sound like "Los Muertos" is a bad movie but it definitely isn't. It is generally enjoyable and ranks among the better entries to the genre. It is neither an unoriginal Dracula remake (like almost every other vampire movie out there) nor is it an unintelligent action spectacle like Blade II. It simply could have used a bit more excitement.

I'd really like to see a third installment made by Carpenter but it's probably not going to happen.

SPOILER WARNING The ending was way too predictable. Una should have gotten away- that would have made the movie quite unusual.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.

I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.

In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed.

Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.

Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.

2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.

Interesting look at a 40s horror film.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative