Caitlin Gerard is the main focus of the film as Lizzy Macklin. The story centers around a couple who has moved out to the prairie in the late 1800’s. Life out there is tough enough but it’s even more difficult when there might be something whispering in the wind. Something that doesn’t want you there.
If you love quiet horror and don’t mind a bit of a slow build this is a solid film. There are points that drag a bit but not so many that the viewer will be totally tuned out by them.
The film jumps back and forth in time with Lizzy recalling interactions with her new neighbors, Gideon and Emma played by Dylan McTee and Julia Goldani Telles respectively. These flash backs start revealing a larger horror and as the film goes on there is a satisfying reveal to the situation. I don’t want to spoil too much of the film but I will say the setting and the small cast of characters works very well to bring intensity to the situation and the drama ratchets up nicely.
I’m not sure the time jumping was strictly necessary and I think I would have given this film another star if there wasn’t as much of it. As far as the performances go all the actors deliver but Caitlin Gerard is exceptionally believable in her role and Julia Goldani Telles really shines every time she is on screen.
If you are looking for a suspenseful and intense film with a good amount of horror this is worth watching. But if you need more action or a faster pace, this one is skippable. It’s definitely not the worst horror film on Netflix but it’s also not the best. If you’ve seen everything else, give it a go.
Windily yours,
Slick Dungeon
Liked this review? Consider Making a one-time donation
Welcome back dungeon crawlers, it’s me Slick Dungeon. I’ve been a bit busy this last month so haven’t posted as much as I would like but I’m back to review a pair of zombie films by the same director. My favorite movie monster (and the one I’m actually afraid of) is zombies. There are a million zombie films, shows, books and comic books out there so if you’re a zombie fan, there’s plenty of content to choose from. Zack Snyder has directed not one but two zombie films and although they are not directly related, they are both zombie films so I decided to watch them back to back to see if either one is worth watching. I’ve got my opinion on which one is the one to watch but there will be spoilers for both so you have been warned.
Dawn of the dead
⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 2.5 out of 5.
Dawn of the Dead is a “remake” of the incredibly memorable and hard to find on streaming film of the same name. The original was directed by the king of zombies himself, George A. Romero. That film was groundbreaking in its use of the zombie film to make commentary on society and consumerism. In many circles the original film is considered to be one of the best if not the best zombie film ever made. I’m not sure I would go that far on the original but if you have not seen the original and you like zombie films, do what you need to in order to get your eyeballs on it, because it is worth watching.
The Zack Snyder directed remake released in 2004 is not what the original was by a long shot. It’s full of zombie action and gore, stars several of the original cast members in cameos and has a fantastic soundtrack. In other words, it’s all gloss and no substance. I can’t recall a single character name after watching it. There are definitely memorable scenes and I did enjoy the film as a whole but this is no transformative movie going experience. I’m not saying every zombie film should be an in-depth character portrayal that reflects the soul of our world back to us. I’m just saying it would be nice if the film didn’t feel like a ninety minute movie trailer where the best thing about it is each scene delivers a little more shock than the last.
Like the original, the central plot of this film is a group of people from different walks of life end up in a shopping mall at the end of the world and must rely upon one another if they want to survive. Because of some assumptions on the part of the characters there is a lot of conflict and it’s just as likely some of these people will die because of humans as they will from the zombies. The goal for the group is to survive and figure out how to escape the mall without losing their lives in the process.
There are some stand out stars in the film and as always Ving Rhames shines in his role. It’s entertaining to watch him blast zombies with cold hearted proficiency and be realistic enough to want to leave everyone because they are likely to get him killed. Of course he stays with the group.
There are plenty of plot holes in the film but I don’t really think that’s what makes this film disappointing. Rather, I think the problem with it is that it is in no way a new idea when it comes to horror or zombies or… anything. It might as well be a series of vignettes of what someone thinks might be needed to get audiences into theaters to watch a film. It does that job but barely. I’ve certainly seen worse zombie films but I have absolutely seen better. If you’ve seen every other zombie property under the sun and just need a little zombie fix, this film is serviceable, just don’t get too excited over it.
Now that I’ve laid out my feelings on Dawn of the Dead that leads me to….
army of the dead
⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Army of the Dead is an original film directed by Zack Snyder made for Netflix. It’s a heist film inside a zombie film and has a star line up including Dave Bautista, Tig Notaro and Ella Purnell.
It’s the end of the so-called “zombie wars” and there is only one hot zone left. Las Vegas is still teeming with the infected but the city has been walled off and is scheduled for nuclear destruction to finally rid the world of zombies.
In the opening sequence we see how the zombie infection originally spread and we see scenes of our cast of misfits kicking zombie butt. It’s a glossy sequence with an Elvis Presley song playing over it but in less than five minutes establishes a large cast of characters quickly and is done well. Soon we meet our heroes who are all living mundane lives again, despite their life saving actions during the zombie wars.
Scott Ward is making a living flipping burgers when a mysterious man offers him a job. There’s still a ton of money left in the Vegas casinos and if Scott and his team can recover it, they will be rich, no taxes to be paid on their earnings.
This sets up the heist adventure and allows the movie to have the required “getting the team together” scene. In this film, I really liked how that played out. Usually with these things there’s at least one character who has to think about it and is barely convinced to come despite all the good reasons for doing it. In this one everyone jumps at the chance and the sequence ends up not only being funny but unexpected.
I don’t want to spoil too much of this film but suffice it to say that there being zombies in the hot zone of Vegas where the characters need to be is not nearly the only threat. It turns out there are smarter, faster, and armed zombies here who have an army.
Things go awry and the team is going to have to try to escape.
Unlike Dawn of the Dead there are several quiet character moments. Some of them do seem rushed but overall I felt like I got to know at least a few of these characters and could understand why they were in the movie. And the way Tig Notaro played her character is going to go down in zombie film history as the perfect way to deliver dry, dead pan humor that works in a zombie film. She actually gets some of the best lines in the whole film.
Now, the idea of a heist film inside of a zombie film is not one hundred percent original, there have been other films that do something similar. The idea of smarter, faster zombies is not new either. But there is enough new or mashed up here that the film feels like an original idea. The action is good albeit predictable and it adds up to a really fun ride.
While this film may not be as worth watching as the original Dawn of the Dead it is absolutely worth watching.
If you’re trying to decide on Snyder’s zombie films go with Army of the Dead.
Do you have a favorite zombie film? If so, let me know what it is in the comments.
Hey horror film fanatics, it’s me, Slick Dungeon. Today I am going to review the first film in one of the weirdest and most unique horror franchises ever, Phantasm.
This is part of my film challenge for the year and it checks off the box, watch a movie that scares you. If you want to participate in the movie challenge you can download it right here. If you want to check out all my challenges for the year, check out this post.
Phantasm sits in an unusual place in horror. It’s a slasher film but it’s also a sci-fi film. When I was a kid, I remember watching this and being terrified. I wanted to revisit it to see if it held up and was as creepy as I remembered. I am going to give some spoilers below. This is a movie that a lot of people have not seen so I won’t give away anything too major but if you are interested in seeing it I would recommend doing that before you read the review. You’ve been warned.
In a small little town in the 1970’s a man is murdered by a woman in the middle of a cemetery. The victim is Tommy who is friends with Reggie and Jody. Jody and his little brother Mike are the stars of the film, although all of the characters shown have important roles to play. Tommy getting stabbed to death in the cemetery at the beginning of the film might be the most normal thing that happens in the whole movie.
Mike sees the tall man who runs the cemetery pick up Tommy’s coffin all by himself and load it into a hearse. The Tall Man is played brilliantly by Angus Scrimm who has a face and demeanor that is sure to be memorable. Unlike other slasher villains, The Tall Man doesn’t need a mask to be terrifying. It’s all in his face.
Soon Mike is telling his brother strange things are going on at the cemetery. There are odd sounds, creatures that may or may not be resurrected bodies and floating spheres of death that can come flying at anyone who is poking around the cemetery.
In one sense this plays out like a normal slasher film. People are at risk of death and have to escape the situation and try to kill the killer. The interesting thing about this film is the tone is utterly menacing and although the reveals at the end might seem to be odd to viewers, for the most part they work. The movie also views somewhat like an art film. There are parts that no matter how many times you watch them, they don’t quite make sense. In the end it doesn’t matter. The effects don’t hold up that well and as an adult it’s pretty easy to see how they made the scares happen. But there is no mistaking the menace in The Tall Man. And the silver death spheres are still frightening in my opinion.
If you are not a horror fan I don’t think it’s necessary to seek this one out. But if you like horror and you want something that is a little more surreal than normal and something that isn’t just your standard killer invades a home type of horror, consider checking this one out. Even if it doesn’t scare you at all, I guarantee there will be something here that you will remember long after viewing.
If you have watched this one, especially recently, let me know what you thought of it in the comments.
Hey all you dungeon dwellers out there, it’s me Slick Dungeon. I’m back to review another movie for one of my 2021 challenges. This time I watched a movie with a dragon in it for my read-watch-play challenge. If you don’t know what that challenge is or you want to play along you can find all the details here. I decided to go with one of the most famous dragons of all time, Smaug who appears in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.
If you have read this blog much at all you will know that it is no secret I enjoy fantasy. My favorite fantasy author of all time is J.R.R. Tolkien. I love the writing and the world he builds. Every time I read something of his I feel immersed in it and I am wrapped up in the story whether it is humorous, adventurous, whimsical or dramatic. To me it’s the kind of work that I would always want to see on film, after I have read the story.
I have to preface my review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey by saying I don’t hate this movie. My review might sound that way but it’s more accurate to say I hate parts of this movie. There are some wonderful things here that are hard not to like. Matin Freeman makes the perfect Bilbo with just enough attitude to make the character work. In my mind no actor will ever replace Ian McKellen as Gandalf and it brings my heart joy to see him reprise his role for this series. And the look of the film is gorgeous and it’s easy to believe the characters are standing in Middle Earth.
I like the opening although I have mixed feelings about having Frodo appear at all in this but the way that Peter Jackson connects the films is more or less fine.
I love the “Good morning” conversation between Gandalf and Bilbo and it plays out almost exactly like the book. I like the way the dwarves come to Bilbo’s door that plays out almost just like the book. I like the riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum that plays out almost just like the book.
However, there is a lot in this movie to dislike. There are random character threads that were thrown in for no reason, there is a goblin antagonist that just feels tacked on, there are times when the film takes itself far too seriously and no one who made the film seemed to realize that since The Hobbit is 1. a single book and 2. much shorter than the Lord of the Rings books we did not need to stretch this out into three films.
I think I can sum up my main objection to this movie in a single word. Whimsy. If you read the book, it is chock full of whimsy. There’s a bit of adventure in there and a good dose of humor but whimsical is what the book is. That’s something that is nearly impossible to film. It’s hard enough to capture comedy at all but whimsy is elusive anywhere other than in a book. And in a book it’s still pretty hard to find. There simply is not enough whimsy in this film. There are moments of it, like when the dwarves are tossing dishes around in Bilbo’s house, although to be honest, even that feels a bit forced. The best example is Gandalf asking Bilbo, “Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?” The exchange establishes that Gandalf does not play by the common set of societal rules. The fact that Bilbo sort of goes along with it shows he has the potential to change but hasn’t done so yet. Then in the book he goes on this magical journey with colorful characters and it’s simply a great time all around. We didn’t need a tragic backstory overemphasized with dramatic music and helicopter shots to convey the feeling of the book. In fact that fights against the feeling of the book.
The film is still watchable, I just have to set aside the fact that it strays from the book so much. I understand that some people think that might be biased because movies can be better than books. In this case, I am not of the opinion the film is superior to the source material. I just don’t understand some of the choices that were made in the filming and it feels kind of like a manipulative money grab for anyone who was a fan of the Lord of the Rings films. I would have much preferred a shorter, more whimsical film that wasn’t trying to pull in an already established audience. I hope that at some point the perfect film adaptation of thee book is made but until then this is the closest we can get. You do have to slog through two more movies to get the whole story but again, it’s the best adaptation available.
If you decide to watch this movie or re-watch it if you have already seen it let me make one small suggestion. After you do so, go read the book and get swept up in the beloved children’s classic that will have a place in my heart forever.
Whimsically yours,
Slick Dungeon
If you loved this review consider making a donation to this Blog.
Hello out there internet people, it’s me Slick Dungeon. I’m back to review the third film from my film challenge for this month. This is the third movie in a row I have watched from director Alfred Hitchcock. If you want to play along with the film challenge you can find it here.
There are going to be a few spoilers below so be forewarned.
Secret Agent is a film from 1936 that stars Madeleine Carrol, Peter Lorre and John Gielgud. It’s about a soldier who has returned home only find out that his obituary is all over the newspapers. The reason? England needs him to spy on and kill a German spy so that the war effort can succeed. He agrees to the task and sets off to complete his mission. He is surprised when he gets to his destination to find out the war office has assigned a female spy to pose as his wife. The soldier, his wife and a Mexican general played by Peter Lorre all have to find the spy and finish him off. The catch? The female spy falls for the soldier for real and doesn’t want him to murder anyone.
The premise sets up a complicated moral dilemma that is interesting to watch play out. Does the soldier save thousands of lives for his country or does he lose the woman he loves? As always, Peter Lorre, is fascinating on screen and makes the film much more enjoyable to watch.
This is one of Hitchock’s earlier works but it’s the kind of film he would go on to make over and over again. It’s great fun and I would recommend watching it if you have not. It’s not the best Hitchcock movie ever made but it is still very good.
If you haven’t seen this one put it on your to watch list, you’ll thank me.
Praisingly yours,
Slick Dungeon
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS REVIEW CONSIDER RENTING ME A MOVIE. ANY AMOUNT IS APPRECIATED!
Hey everyone, it’s me Slick Dungeon back to review another movie for my film challenge. Don’t know about my film challenge? Get the details here. This month I am watching three films by the same director. Today, I am reviewing Rich and Strange directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is also known as East of Shanghai.
The film is from 1931 so some of the techniques and themes are a bit old fashioned. There is still ample use of text cards despite the fact that this is a film with sound and dialogue. I wouldn’t consider this by any means one of the best of Hitchcock’s films and apparently audiences of the day were not too keen on it either as it was somewhat of a flop.
I would be derelict in my duty if I did not warn you that there will be spoilers ahead but this has been around since 1931 so you have probably had time to watch it since it was released.
The movie centers around a couple named Fred and Emily Hill. The two have been married to one another for the past eight years. Fred is bored with his life and wishes he had more money. Emily is relatively happy but would, of course, like to see more of the world.
Their wishes are granted when they receive a letter from a relative who wants to give Fred an advance on his inheritance so he can enjoy himself now, rather than wait until sometime in the future. Suddenly the couple have some money and they decide they want to go on a cruise to “the Orient”. That’s the film’s term, not mine, just fyi.
As soon as they set out Fred becomes seasick. He is stuck in bed for days on end and Emily makes a friend in a Commander Gordon, who anyone can see would be a better romantic fit for her than her husband. They flirt a bit and get to know one another but don’t go too far with it.
As soon as Fred is up and about again, he falls head over heels for a “princess” who happens to be on board. It’s pretty obvious she is just after some cash but Fred doesn’t see it that way.
The film chugs along with our opposing romantic partners, all the while forgiving Fred for his indiscretions, but essentially punishing Emily for hers despite the fact that a. she actually loves the man she is getting to know and b. she doesn’t take it anywhere near as far as Fred does. If you think I am exaggerating, here is a quote from the movie,”If a woman can’t hold her man, there is no reason why he should take the blame.” This is said to Fred by the “princess” who is just after his money but it’s hard not to get the impression that the whole film believes this.
The princess makes off with Fred’s money and he and Emily become stranded. They have to rent a much cheaper boat to return home. That boat has some sort of off screen accident and Fred and Emily are locked in their cabin to work out their differences.
Another boat passes by after Fred and Emily are able to escape their cabin and they get on that one. They make some really cringy racist remarks towards the people on that boat who happen to be Chinese and then make it home where I assume Emily is stuck to suffer through Fred’s inevitable future affairs and never be allowed to love for herself again.
There are a few sort of funny moments in the film but most of what makes this interesting at all is that it is a Hitchcock film that is not a suspense or thriller film. It’s kind of a film oddity but unless you are a Hitchcock completist or really love romance films from the early era of film making, I would say this is skippable.
For my third Hitchcock film I will be reviewing Secret Agent so be sure to come back to check that out.
Historically yours,
Slick Dungeon
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS REVIEW CONSIDER RENTING ME A MOVIE. ANY AMOUNT IS APPRECIATED!
Hey out there all you people hidden by the fog, it’s me Slick Dungeon. I have a film challenge for the year going and this month I am trying to watch and review three films by the same director. After debating about what director I should watch, I realized there is only one absolute master director and his name was Alfred Hitchcock. I’ve seen all of his most famous films but I must admit I haven’t seen a lot of his very early work. Well, his early work that survived anyway. The man was prolific. The first one I could get my hands on was The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog. It’s also just known as The Lodger depending on what continent you live on but either way it is a Hitchcock film and you can see his fingerprints all over it.
I’m not sure if this is needed considering the film is from the 1920’s but there will be some mild spoilers ahead. If you can’t stand someone talking about the most basic plot elements of a silent film that is nearly a hundred years old turn back now. You can always read this after you catch up on pre-depression era films.
The Lodger is a silent film from 1927 directed by the master of suspense himself, Alfred Hitchcock. In the streets of London in the late night fog every Tuesday a murderer has struck. The killer has gone on a streak of murders, specifically targeting young women with blonde, curly hair. The film centers on a small inn where there are rooms to let. The family has a daughter named Daisy who happens to have blonde, curly hair. They also have a good friend who is a policeman interested in Daisy in a romantic sense. Joe, the police man, is determined to catch the killer and then sweep Daisy off her feet.
Everything is fine until a mysterious stranger shows up to rent the room. He’s got more cash than most, seems a bit odd about the pictures in the room he is renting and locks a bag up in a dresser. The remainder of the film is a guessing game. Is the lodger the killer who is doing suspicious things to hide his guilt or is he an innocent man who just looks guilty? To get the answer you’ll have to watch the film.
One thing I will say is that even in a silent, black and white film, Hitchcock knows exactly how to build suspense. He’s probably one of the few early directors who can make a game of chess look utterly menacing. He knows how long to hold the camera on a subject’s face so that we think we know but aren’t quite sure what they are thinking.
In the era this was made I would think this would be considered masterful filmmaking. For modern audiences it is going to be easier to catch on to what is happening but that doesn’t make this any less important to film history.
If you are a fan of suspense, or Hitchcock himself, and don’t mind silent films this is worth watching. It does run a bit on the long side for these types of films and it still has the sort of strange shots where people are talking but we have no idea what is said that was common in silent film. There are plenty of text cards to tell us what is being said, more or less. You’ll be able to glean the plot just fine assuming you are able to sit through a silent film.
If you want to watch The Lodger it’s streaming on HBO Max at the moment.
The next one I will be watching for my challenge is Rich and Strange from 1931. It’s billed as a romance so that should be interesting.
If you want to participate in my film challenge you can get all the details in this post.
Silently yours,
Slick Dungeon
If you Enjoyed this review consider renting me a movie. Any amount is appreciated!
Choose an amount
¤1.00
¤3.00
¤5.00
Or enter a custom amount
¤
Your contribution is majorly appreciated. Like, seriously, I mean it.
Hey everyone, it’s me Slick Dungeon back to review another film in the Saw franchise. The sequel is back with some surprises and plenty of gore once again.
That’s right, the world’s most deadly escape room host, Jigsaw, is back and he wants to play a game. If you find yourself waking up in one of his cleverly engineered scenarios, it’s a good bet you are in trouble and you darn well better play by the rules if you want to win. And survive.
The huge reveal and surprise at the end of the first film is nearly impossible to beat. I didn’t expect a surprise as large as that one in the sequel and I saw one of the twists coming from a mile away. But, the movie still contained enough surprises and interesting death traps to be worth a watch. And there was at least one twist I simply did not see coming although in retrospect, it probably should have been obvious. I think the original is superior in most aspects although, I thought that the performance of Donnie Wahlberg was really solid in this. I liked how the series expanded out a bit too, having a full police force trying to catch the guy before more innocent people die.
The majority of the film has Jigsaw face to face with a police officer who is trying to save his son. I don’t want to give away much more than that because these films are all about the plot twists and I would hate to ruin that for anyone. It did make me wonder for most of the film how in the world the killer might escape to continue the series and by the end the film delivers a satisfying answer to it.
Some of the film felt a bit formulaic already because we had seen it the first time around. There were layers to it though and we get a little more background on who Jigsaw is and what he is all about.
It’s also still full of gorey and bloody imagery and there is one scene that I think will stay in my head for months. I don’t want to spoil anything but if you say the words syringe pit to me, I am going to shudder with horror.
While I am giving this film the same star rating as I did Saw if I had to choose one over the other, I prefer the original. I think both films are clever and if you are a horror fan, I do think this is a series you should explore. They both surprise and horrify enough to keep the viewer’s interest if you have a strong stomach. The original just feels a touch more… original. I’m looking forward to seeing where they take it from here but I have my doubts they will be able to outdo the original. However, they sure have surprised me more than once in this series so who knows?
Horrifically yours,
Slick Dungeon
IF YOU ENJOYED THIS REVIEW CONSIDER MAKING A ONE TIME DONATION SO I CAN RENT THE SEQUEL
Hey out there all you dungeon crawlers, it’s me, Slick Dungeon. I’m back to review the start of a horror franchise that I never watched before. This time I am reviewing Saw.
Saw is one of those horror movies that is legendary for being talked about as being highly disturbing. It’s got a bunch of sequels and has made a boat load of money so it clearly caught on with a particular audience. It’s also known for having a ton of gore in it and creative death traps that ensnare victims who have to make terrible choices in order to survive.
This is one of those series that I meant to get around to as a horror fan but just haven’t found the time. I watched the first installment and there is plenty to like but there are also some flaws here. I am going to give mild spoilers for the movie so be forewarned.
The movie starts with a pair of men in a grungy bathroom chained to pipes on the wall. They’re obviously in a dire situation and their lives are threatened. The film develops mostly through these two characters talking to each other about who they are and how they think they go there. They also try to work together on occasion to try to escape. The whole time this is going on, they find little clues that might give them an idea of who kidnapped them but it’s vague enough to keep them off balance. And the audience is welcome to speculate the whole time on who might really be behind the action, including the men chained in the room.
The whole movie plays out like an escape room scenario where if the characters can “win” the game, they may get to live. It’s a pretty sick and twisted idea and it works well as far as horror goes.
I think the thing that surprised me the most, however, was the casting. I had no idea that Cary Elwes, Danny Glover and Michael Emerson were in this. I thought it was so low budget that it didn’t have any star power at all.
Everyone here puts in a decent enough performance but there are some plot holes. The one that really gets me is that one of the characters starts underwater in a bathtub. It’s a cool and horrifying start to the film but on a practical level, how did the kidnapper know that character wouldn’t just drown and then there would be no movie?
There are a few other plot holes that I spotted but I don’t want to go into them because I will say that the end surprised me. I did not expect it and although it was surprising, I’m not sure that it made for a better movie. I respect what the filmmakers were going for but there are some logic problems with it.
While the premise is inventive, and there is plenty of gore in it, I feel like some of this could be executed (pun intended) better as far as filmmaking goes. I liked it enough that I will continue watching the series because I am curious what they come up with for the franchise but this series is not going to replace any of my top five horror franchises unless they really step up the game in the sequels.
One thing I will commend the filmmaker with though–that puppet is really creepy and they used it well!
If you have watched this, what did you think? Was it clever or contrived? Let me know in the comments.
Horrifically yours,
Slick Dungeon
If you enjoyed this review consider making a one time donation so I can rent the sequel
Hey everyone out there in internet land, it’s me, Slick Dungeon. I watched a movie on Netflix called Vampires vs. the Bronx and I’m here to tell you all about it.
Most vampire movies are pretty standard fare, you have blood sucking immortal enemies, some group of heroes and the two groups face off in a bloody battle for the world. That’s basically the plot of Vampires vs. the Bronx so I can’t say it is touching much new ground here. However, this film has something in spades that I have missed in vampire movies lately. What is it? A sense of fun.
The film follows a group of boys who live in the Bronx and are concerned with the fact that their neighborhood is being sold off bit by bit to a wealthy real estate development company. In addition to that, there are people that have gone missing lately. Some of those people seem to have sold off their property or business and it would make sense that they left but others are simply missing persons cases.
One boy, Miguel is particularly concerned that one of the businesses he basically grew up in is in danger of being sold. He goes around the neighborhood trying to raise funds to save Tony’s Bodega. He has a pair of friends who help out, although they are a bit more interested in just hanging out than saving the neighborhood.
Since this is a film about vampires, I think you can guess the real reason these people have gone missing and businesses have been closing. Miguel is the first in the neighborhood to clue into what is going on. And like any good horror film, they main character is not believed by anyone else until they see definite proof of the vampires themselves.
I don’t want to get too much more into the plot here but this is basically The Lost Boys set in the Bronx. The location is a refreshing change for a vampire movie and although there are plot holes you could drive a semi-truck through, it doesn’t really matter because it’s just an enjoyable watch. It’s not scary and it’s not particularly original but it still works.
If you have been looking for a vampire film that can be a fun and enjoyable watch, have a look at Vampires vs. the Bronx.
