Very best movie i ever watch

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This a movie about Dracula in modern times. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It has great special effects. And it is very scary. 6.3 is underrating it. If it does not scary you no movie. This a classic horror film. Dracula (March 1931) is better. So is Dracula (1992). Nosferatu (1922) is also better. But still this a great film. It is a lot better then Nosferatu (1979). That movie is just overrated crap. I give it 7 out of 10 because it is an awesome horror film. This movie is a must see. Dracula (1958) is better. Dracula's daughter (1936) is also better. Son of Dracula is also better. This is a lot better then A Nosferatu in Venice. That movie is overrated crap. See this movie is a is a great Dracula film.

Every so often throughout "Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat", you see hints of some good ideas, both serious and comic in nature. Unfortunately, the movie as a whole fails to work. The main problem with the movie is that it tries to do far too much - there are many half-baked subplots, as well as a number of plot points that are vague or simply not explained at all. (There are signs that a significant amount of footage that might have explained things was cut out in the editing room.) Another problem with the movie is its attitude. Director Anthony Hickox seems to be intentionally making his cast give a sort of "Ha ha, aren't we funny?" tone to their performances, almost as if he and his cast are laughing at the audience. In the end, the movie simply isn't anywhere as funny as it thinks it is, and the horror angle of the movie also isn't terribly successful. The one good thing about the movie is the musical score by Richard Stone, though at times it sure sounds like it was composed for a completely different movie. If you must see the movie, make sure you watch a widescreen version, because the pan and scan version results in some very awkward moments.

i recently rediscovered this movie first in my memory and then in real life. i think my disappointment was partly caused by the fact that children (i was maybe 9 or ten when i first saw it) are so much more impressionable than the grown-ups (im 28 now), but maaaan, there was a lot of annoying stuff in this movie besides the acting (ever tried to make a movie with older people when you were a child? if anyone did, they might know wat im getting at).through the course of the movie the impression that the film makers just ran out of time or money and quikkly wanted to finish everything up became increasingly apparent. the choices and general behaviour of everybody involved seemed kind of illogical and irrational at times, which could, of course, be related to the bad acting. the thing that bothered me the most was the fact that the vampires just kinda became normal human beings by the invention of the wooden bullets. superior strength was implied when the one guy threw the other vampire through the diner window, but wat about other vampire qualities like heightened senses (besides the one smelling incident involving shane), overly fast movements or similar things that are generally known for vampires? i find it disappointingly bothering that all the super-human aspects were being dropped by the people responsible. during the last third of the movie it panned out to be more like some cheap western than a vampire movie. also, the progressive fact that vampire apparently explode when they see crosses.. what was that about? ever thought about how much danger a vampire will encounter in everyday situations?! just imagine they wanted to clean out the attic or the basement. if they haven't done that in, like, 300 years, i bet one or two things get crossed... and so they explode while vacuuming? man, that almost makes me p*s*ed.one could argue that it was the 80s and standards for acting, directing and special effects weren't as evolved as they are today, but i have seen older and much better movies, even by anthony hickox. interesting idea, not well executed. one thing i liked was deborah foreman. i haven't seen her before, but she was hot AND beautiful and was next to David carradine one of the tolerably decent actors.as already mentioned before me, this movie had potential to be a classic, but no. just no.

This is one of the movies that totally didn't move me. Actually, it didn't have a single aspect in it that interested me. I was hoping for an atmospheric vampire movie, and got a comedy movie that simply isn't funny. Not even Campbell was able to help in that aspect. This guy was amazingly funny in the evil dead 2, but here, he felt totally misplaced. I guess, there is no way that he could actually play clumsy and sappy at all. Even though I like the actor, for this movie he was pretty much the worst cast possible. All other actors did OK. But that just didn't help with an awful script like this one. I can't believe that the original has been a book. The whole movie felt completely like a trash movie. Sense was almost lacking completely.For me, either a movie has to move, that means, transport emotions. Or it has to teach something, that means, transport informations. This movie didn't do either. It didn't even make me smile a single time.