Waste of time

Very well executed

Really Surprised!

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

the first half of the movie and the second half seem to be two different movies. The first half of the movie is the priest talking to the vampire who is captured. It is slow but holds potential for a different take on the vampire genera. The second half is just plain terrible. The first half of the movie has a relatively good plot and acts like it is going somewhere. The second half throws any attempt at story telling out the window and jumps from one odd disconnected scene to another. the acting is the only thing about this movie that has any redeeming value. The special affects where what really threw me off in this movie. It was like they took claymation from the 50s and added some cgi on top of it. This movie was absolutely horrible do yourself a favor and go watch your lawn grow for an hour, it will be a better use of your time.

Straight faced surrealism that mixes the look and feel of an off beat, low budget late noir film (it's set in 1966) with a vampire movie and a priest's crisis of faith story. There's a gritty, trench coat wearing detective who happens to be a greyhound (well at least he's a dog, not a bus). Nobody seems to think that's odd--in fact the more important fact about him is that he's a recovering toad-licker. There's a very good, very restrained jazz score that matches the equally restrained acting and visual style, all of which somehow keeps one from thinking how absurd the whole thing is. A bit like a David Lynch film, especially Eraserhead, but with a cooler sensibility.Maybe the oddest thing about it is that it has what is perhaps the movies' most positive image of a Catholic priest in many years.Despite the absurdities, it isn't really a comedy; despite the vampires, it's not a horror movie or a action pic. But it's one of the best and most engaging bits of surrealism I've ever seen--surrealism used not as a prop but as an integral structure.