Vampires: Los Muertos (2002) User Reviews

You ain't lived till you got head from a hot vampire.

[Fella_shibby · 5/10 · 17 October 2021]

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.

Wanted : Undead or Alive - Mostly Dead Though

[boo_4ever · 4/10 · 22 February 2005]

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.

Better than I expected for a sequel of this sort.

[Dan-76 · 6/10 · 30 September 2002]

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.

Likeable trash

[uds3 · 9 October 2003]

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!

Don't' Know What People Were Expecting From A Low Budget Vampire Flick

[slightlymad22 · 5/10 · 11 January 2015]

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.

I love Bon Jovi, but...

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 4/10 · 15 January 2004]

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

Just Plain Poor

[JBLOSS · 3/10 · 22 November 2002]

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

'80s rock star battles the undead

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 5 February 2011]

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.

Awful

[MLDinTN · 3/10 · 15 July 2002]

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.

Better than I had expected, especially since the star was JBJ

[oxfordzoo · 7/10 · 20 July 2002]

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.

Decent follow to the original but still not as good.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 15 January 2011]

Vampires: Los Muertos starts as Vampire hunter Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi) is hired by a mysterious client to recruit a team of Vampire hunters & travel to a small town in Mexico to wipe out a nest of Vampires situated there, however it seems that someone is one step ahead of him as all of his potential team of hunters are being killed off. Derek becomes suspicious & eventually assembles his own team of a half human half Vampire woman named Zoey (Natasha Wagner), a Mexican kid named Sancho (Diego Luna) & a Catholic Priest Father Rodrigo (Cristián de la Fuente) who brotherhood has been killed by the master Vampire. Derek learns that the Master Vampire Una (Arly Jover) is trying to find the anti-crucifix & perform a ceremony that will allow her to walk in daylight...

Written & directed by Tommy Lee Wallace this was the first sequel to John Carpenter's rather good horror film Vampires (1998) who already has previous when it comes to horror film sequels having helmed the criminally underrated Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) & the fun Fright Night Part 2 (1988), while not as good as the original Vampires or featuring any of the original character's or even referring to the original events this sequel isn't that bad as far as follow ups go although I doubt I'd want to ever watch it again. The script feels a little routine, ideas & themes are taken from other better films such as the Mexican setting already seen in From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) & the anti-crucifix aspect is ripped directed from the original Vampires. The script takes itself very seriously & plods along in unspectacular fashion, there are these people who talk about killing Vampires, drive for a bit, kill a few Vampires & then talk about killing Vampires some more in a rather underwhelming manner that gets repetitive. At 90 odd minutes long the pace is alright even if there isn't enough story to fill that time out, the character's are all dull & no-one comes across as particularly likable or interesting with the Master vampire Una only speaking a few lines of dialogue during the entire film. There are a few decent moments, there's nothing amazingly bad about Vampires: Los Muertos either & it passed the time harmlessly enough but I doubt I'll remember anything about it by the end of the week.

Shot in full 2:35:1 widescreen the film looks nice enough with strong Earthy colours & nice enough locations & sets but again nothing stands out that much, sure it's competent & while it's on screen it's find but once the end credits roll you will probably forget all about it. There's some alright gore here & luckily I didn't notice any CGI computer effects, a bartender has his head punched off & his stump spurts blood over a pool table, there are slit throats, a fair amount of blood splatter, burning Vampires, decapitated heads & several stakings as well. Set mainly in the daytime at least you can see what's going on, there's none of that shaky hand-held camera crap either which is appreciated.

Actually filmed in Mexico the production values are nice & it looks like Vampires: Los Muertos had some money spent on it. The acting is alright, the obvious thing of note is the casting of rocker Jon Bon Jovi as the lead Vampire hunter who to be fair does OK, Natasha Wagner is poor while Arly Jover plays another Vampire after appearing in the original Blade (1998) as Mercury.

Vampires: Los Muertos is passable horror sequel fare that is neither particularly great nor particularly bad, it's just sort of middle of the road entertainment that you can watch & use to pass the time but will have forgotten about by the time the end credits finish rolling. Not as good as the original Vampires but maybe worth catching if you were a fan of it, followed by a further sequel Vampires: The Turning (2005).

A decent vampire guilty pleasure

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 9/10 · 12 November 2015]

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.

A Different Vampire Movie Again

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 4 October 2003]

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.

Nothing new in this vampire movie.

[nicknight · 3/10 · 28 October 2002]

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 ;)

Bloodsucking By Numbers

[Leigh L. · 13 January 2003]

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'.

Lacked the Intensity of the First Movie

[Uriah43 · 4/10 · 16 August 2016]

"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.

Shame on you, Jon Bon Jovi

[rthibes · 1/10 · 11 February 2004]

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.

Oh dear

[Lyssie_Adams · 1/10 · 3 February 2005]

Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.

The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).

As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.

Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.

A Shame for Vampire's Films

[Juan_from_Bogota · 3/10 · 27 March 2007]

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

Just a waste of time !

[jakescorpio · 3/10 · 19 October 2002]

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

Not Bad at all.

[lmiller66 · 6/10 · 27 March 2011]

I have to say, this film really was not bad at all for a vampire flick. I found it while surfing on Netflix and figured there's nothing like a bad horror flick, so I'd try. I was expecting some B-rated movie with horrible acting, but was really impressed. I really liked Bon Jovi's character, and that kid he was with (can't remember the name, it's been awhile). I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to see it, but it's not a total wast of time, either. Also I've never really been a Jon Bon Jovi fan. This almost made me one. Apparently I need two more lines. So I'll just keep typing. The vampire chick also was pretty good in her role.

This movie sucks worse than any vampire!

[Logan-22 · 1/10 · 27 October 2002]

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.

Almost too well done...

[itom2001 · 10/10 · 19 January 2003]

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)

There is only one flaw...

[S-Reisner · 6/10 · 14 April 2006]

The acting isn't great, but who cares??? acting is bad in like every movie these days. The only problem i really had with this movie is that the vampires could walk during the day after they performed a ceremony or something which didn't exactly make any sense. I thought the weapon Jon Bon Jovi used in the beginning was awkward, but original (a pistol that shoots stakes, it looks weird) but the rest of the movie isn;t really bad. I liked the vampire scene in the church when they use the spears to kill the vampires. The plot is weird and doesn't go along with other vampire movies, but i managed, I say you just check this film out not expecting the best, its not the best, but its not the worst either.

Don't waste your time

[jcyc_me · 1/10 · 1 June 2008]

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.