User reviews

I first saw bits n pieces of this movie in the early 2k on cable tv n kinda disliked it.

Revisited it recently.

This is the sequel to the John Carpenter's Vampires.

This one is not at all action packed or brutal like its predecessor.

There is a lol scene where the character of Bon Jov blows up the head of a vampire and that too when the entire body was already in the process of being pulled out for death via sun.

What was the need for it i dont understand.

The lead female vampire is hot but we only get to see her tits via her thin dress.

All in all a lousy sequel.

Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.

But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.

The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.

So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.

I'm amazed at some of these reviews, a low budget vampire movie starring James Woods is a modest success in 1998. Four years later we get a lower budget sequel starting Jon Bon Jovi.

Plot In A Paragraph: In Mexico, vampire slayer, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), is hired by an unknown client provided he build a team of slayers. Father Adam Guiteau (from the first film) is shown to have been killed in this one. This team ends up including the vampiress Zoe, who is fighting her affliction with medication, Father Rodrigo, and Sancho, a teenage boy in finding a large nest of "suckers" and their powerful leader, a vampire princess named Una (Arly Jover). She is seeking a legendary black crucifix: the Berziers Cross, the same crucifix used unsuccessfully in the first movie to perform a ritual which will enable vampires to walk in sunlight and be invulnerable.

It's, silly, rude, crude, over the top violent and ridiculous. But it's also fun. Jon Bon Jovi will never be an Oscar winner, but he has enough talent and charisma to get by in fare like this!! In fact he is the best actor in this movie.

Gotta take my hat off to Carpenter....putting his name up as exec producer here. Gives new meaning to the term low budget! Little more than a juvenile re-make of the original. Vampire Hunter (Jon Bon Jovial), girl who has been bit but not turned....Priest-for-a-partner, snatch of the old "locked into the vampire's wavelength" nonsense and a few sporadically exploding vampires that wouldn't look out of place on Guy Fawkes night!

But man...have a look at the hack editing, the childish and garish colors everywhere (MUST have been made ostensibly for the Mexican video market)the totally awesomely vapid acting....its a classic! For some indefinable reason though, the film takes itself soo seriously its almost enchanting.

In the upshot, about as frightening as Sesame Street, as intelligent as Mike Tyson and as relevant as a 1972 typewriter! The one decent scene...the two girls about to KISS and they wimp out!

This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching

This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.

4/10

This movie isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.

FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on this.

I'll admit that Bon Jovi isn't my first choice when I think of "actors" to play vampire hunters but somehow his presence in this film works. Essentially, VAMPIRES: LOS MUERTOS is a retelling of John Carpenter's 1997 film VAMPIRES, featuring a vampire killer who gets together a team of fighters to go up against the undead menace. As the title would suggest, this sequel travels south of the border to engage in some Day of the Dead shenanigans and vampire action slightly influenced by the likes of FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.

I'll admit that I'm not a fan of Carpenter's original film, whose '90s-era excesses have dated very badly. This one's a definite step up from that, although it's still no great shakes. The story is so simple a child could have written it, just going back and forth between humans killing vampires and vampires killing humans. There's absolutely no depth, and not even any twists to enliven things.

On the plus side, the characters are drawn a little better than usual, and there are opportunities for the supporting cast members to get a look in (including a youthful Diego Luna, later to turn heartthrob in DIRTY DANCING: HAVANA NIGHTS). Bon Jovi, as ageless as ever, betrays his lack of training as an actor but isn't required to do much other than look cool and determined.

The vampires are a clichéd menace and the chief villain is pitiful. At least there's some gore to keep horror fans happy. More interestingly, the director has been well chosen: Tommy Lee Wallace, who once made HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH and IT, has a long association with the genre and gives this film a certain style it would otherwise have lacked.

I was expecting a poor sequel, similar in nature to the Dusk to Dawn franchise, but I was somewhat surprised. This movie follows the same pattern as the first John Carpenters' Vampires (1998), but features none of the same actors. John Bon Jovi does a quite credible job as the vampire hunter, and Natasha Wagner performs well as the partially infected vampire, rounded out by a resonable supporting cast of hunter assistants, who actually manage to survive the second scene. The problems with this movie mainly come from lack of motivation of several of the characters, particularly Zoey, and strange mistakes made by the villan Arly Jover (from Blade), who up until the final was quite intelligent and managed to fool the hunters at every point. And a general lack of energy from the cast. If you liked the first one you will like this as well. Well worth a rental for anyone who likes the vampire genre.

Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.

Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.

John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?

Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.

By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.

Following reports of movement in the Mexican desert, a group of hunters teams up with a woman able to sense their presence to track down a vampire clan attempting to acquire a sacred relic and kill them before they are able to walk in the daylight.

As it stands it's a really good film that has a lot to really like. Among the positive points here is the continuation of the plot point of its predecessor in some absolutely fun hunting scenes throughout here that manage to employ a lot of great hunting tools and tactics. Managing to employ the same winching mechanism and pulley system as before to drag them out into the sunlight which again sets them ablaze in really explosive reactions as before, a series of extremely creative and unique hand-held weaponry designed to deliver stakes into their bodies and sharpened poles, along with the usual amount of sword-play and knives that are all featured here which makes for some solid continuity. As well, the continuity here by incorporating the storyline about the lone member with a connection with the lead vampire which causes a great deal of fun by not only allowing for more action in this by featuring more chances at dismembering victims and blood-drinking but also managing to delve into storyline points to help spell out the plot to this one here by giving away clues and actual fates to what was only hinted at otherwise during the current scene. Done in stylish flash images, these are an important part of the film as while at clearing up the rather novel idea here at furthering what was hinted at before with the need for the cross and the blood ritual that allows them to survive in the sunlight which is all nicely woven together here into a pretty good story. As well, there's also a ton of really enjoyable action scenes throughout here, from the opening ambush in the alley, the diner attack where she rips apart everyone with exceptionally quick speed and a great bloodbath sequence where she attacks a church-yard in spectacular fashion while leaving the graphic mess for the group to stumble upon later. There's even a vicious rampage in a small town in broad daylight and a really impressive finale where they hunt the creature several times in the creepy underground crypt providing a series of impressive action here in such tight quarters and being such a fantastic, multi- tiered setting for a vampire hunt as their weapons and tactics come into play here for an overall great time. Along with the fine blood and gore here in the great kills along the way, there's not a whole lot really wrong here, but there's some minor flaws here. One of the biggest issues here is the clumsy final half, which is quite goofy in structure here with the first attack falling short only to fall back to the village for the extended transfusion sequence then to further inject him in another extended sequence before launching the final attack, and as a whole this just seems overlong and needless, especially going through several days to do this without an attack which is quite off. As well, there's also the fact that the female vampire here doesn't really come across as a really intimidating figurehead as she doesn't really do much else others have done and just comes off as threatening solely for what she is. Otherwise this one has a lot more to like overall.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

The original Vampires (1998) is one of my favorites. I was curious to see how a sequel would work considering they used none of the original characters. I was quite surprised at how this played out. As a rule, sequels are never as good as the original, with a few exceptions. Though this one was not a great movie, the writer did well in keeping the main themes & vampire lore from the first one in tact. Jon Bon Jovi was a drawback initially, but he proved to be a half-way decent Slayer. I doubt anyone could top James Wood's performance in the first one, though... unless you bring in Buffy!

All in all, this was a decent watch & I would watch it again.

I was left with two questions, though... what happened to Jack Crow & how did Derek Bliss come to be a slayer? Guess we'll just have to leave that to imagination.

Hi folks

Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.

The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.

Just a waste of time thinks ...

JAKE Scorpio

Let's look at the facts here.

Straight-to-video. Lower budget. Different director. Cast of nobodies. James Woods: no. Jon Bon Jovi: yes.

You're probably not expecting much. Frankly, it's just as well.

Despite some moody establishing shots, one or two genuinely classy action moments and the odd tenuous attempt to link this film to its predecessor, the whole thing is hamstrung by a total lack of ambition, dismal script and some of the worst acting I've seen in years. It's a poor man's retread of the original on a far more modest scale, and in sequel terms about as necessary as Highlander II.

And... you know... Jon Bon Jovi. What were they thinking? At least his character was called 'Derek'.

Ok, I like Bon Jovi, I like the first "John Carpenter's Vampires" and I like trash movies. But nothing could prepare me for one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Call this trash it's not fair. Roger Corman would be ashamed. This is just a real bad movie. Bad lines, bad story, bad directing, bad editing, really really bad effects.

After that, I hope Jon Bon Jovi goes back to his rock'n'roll career, 'cause at the movies I'll always remember him as this "surfer-vampire-killer". Jon, you gave the trash movies a bad name.

First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)

"Derek Bliss" (Jon Bon Jovi) is a vampire hunter who has temporarily relocated to Mexico to continue his quest against vampires. Aided by a secret firm with possible ties to the Roman Catholic Church, he is advised to seek certain members of the initial group of vampire hunters featured in the previous movie "Vampires". Unfortunately, each time he tries to track down any of these individuals he finds that they have all been brutally murdered. However, on his last stop he finds a young woman named "Zoey" (Natasha Gregson Wagner) who seems to know quite a bit about his occupation. What he also discovers is that she has been bitten by a vampire and has found a medicine which keeps her from turning into one. At least for the time-being. Not long afterward he finds other people to join his group but not all of them can be trusted as one of them is in league with a vampire named "Una" (Arly Jover) who is intent on finding the mystical "Berziers Cross" which will enable her to walk in the sunlight. Now if any of this plot seems familiar it is probably because some of it is a retread from the original movie. And if this lack of imagination wasn't bad enough, what really impacts this film, in a negative sense, is the absence of a solid lead and an almost complete lack of suspense. To be sure, Jon Bon Jovi performed in an adequate manner and Natasha Gregson Wagner was definitely cute. But the previous film had better acting and was much more intense than this version. Because of that I have rated this movie accordingly. Slightly below average.

The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.

It's certainly not perfect, but John Carpenter's 1998 action-horror film 'Vampires' was well made and a good time overall. I don't particularly think it needed a sequel, but I'm the boss of no one, and it's not like the world at large will ever stop making vampire flicks. For what it's worth, there are far worse people who could be writing and directing a horror sequel than Tommy Lee Wallace, who has a strong record in that regard, and truth be told I think he mostly does a fine job here. I'm definitely not saying 'Los muertos' demands viewership or is even on par with its predecessor, because neither of those statements are true, but it's pretty well made overall, and enjoyable on its own merits.

The tone is softer in every regard, the direction has less bite (hah!), the acting is less nuanced, the storytelling is decidedly more direct, the dialogue is more blunt, and the computer-generated imagery is much more prominent and obvious. None of this inherently means that this 2002 title is bad, only that it has upper limits. The wry sense of humor is intact, and the blood, gore, and other practical effects look great. Brian Tyler's score borrows a bit from Carpenter, and otherwise has its strengths and weaknesses, but is mostly just swell. The filming locations are terrific and easy on the eyes, further keeping as much as possible the look and feel previously established, and excellent art direction also helps. The narrative might walk some familiar territory but is unique enough to stand as its own creation, with some excellent ideas all its own, including the characters.

If it's action-horror you want, it's action-horror you'll get, and there's plenty of fun to be had in both capacities. The stunts and choreographed sequences are splendid. The acting may not be especially remarkable, but everyone here was having a good time, and some performances are more plainly admirable than others. Honorato Magaloni commands strong presence and warmth in his small supporting part, with commendable poise; Natasha Gregson Wagner shows more nuance and range than her co-stars; Arly Jover is clearly loving her embrace of a darker side as villain Una. And while other facets may not carry the same strength as in Carpenter's feature, by and large this is solid - Wallace's direction, too.

From the time this was released I never had reason to assume much of it, and my expectations were mixed to low when I sat to watch. I'm pleased that those expectations have actually been exceeded. By no means is this something that demands viewership, and it's best suggested for those who are major fans of those involved. Yet I had fun watching, which I didn't think would be the case, and even if it's a less robust viewing experience it's sharper and smarter than not. Don't go out of your way for 'Vampires: Los muertos,' but if you're looking for something on the lighter side and don't mind imperfections, this is a decent way to spend ninety minutes.

Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.

This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.

You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.

I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.

3/10

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)

Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi) is a vampire slayer chasing a beautiful vampire woman, who wants to have the power of walking during the day. This is another modern movie having the theme of Vampires. But like most of the recent ones, it does not have the charm of those original films. The vampires in this movie shall be decapitated and are destroyed by the sunlight only, sleep in churches, are not affected by cross (but are affected by bullets), move fast like "The Flash"... That is OK as an action movie, but does not have the charm of the original vampire movies, for example those from Hammer with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing. I liked it as an action movie, but regarding vampire movies, better off the Hammer`s ones. My vote is six.

I'm gonna be honest, Jon Bon can't act. Imma be honest again, Darius should have been the lead. His character Ray had way more style and charisma and could have helmed this POS to at least be a little darker and less campy.