Modern Vampires (TV Movie 1998) Poster

(1998 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
116 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Rod And The Boys From The Hood
bkoganbing3 June 2008
Other than Rod Steiger doing this tongue in cheek imitation of Laurence Olivier's Mitteleuropa accent and having a ball as a modern Dr. Van Helsing, this rather witless comedy might go over with the juvenile trade, but not too many others. It certainly does make vampires out to be such fun creatures.

Natasha Gregson Wagner and Casper Van Dien are a couple of modern vampires who are tired of the rule of that most notorious vampire of them all, Count Dracula as played by Robert Pastorelli. But all of them have to worry that that famous vampire slaughterer Van Helsing who's on the prowl with some new kind of help, a few boys from the hood.

Except when Steiger was on the screen I didn't get too many laughs out of this film though. Maybe it's because my taste in music just doesn't run to rap which blares at intervals during the movie.

There is one other good scene I did like. Kim Catrall pulling a freight train with the Van Helsing helpers and turning them all into vampires. It's the inevitable result of sex with one.

For the juvenile trade strictly.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Should be labeled as a comedy.
rhbwebpages26 February 2005
There wasn't much all that scary or thrilling about this movie, as its self-proclaimed genre suggests. Rather, it was a great movie to watch and make fun of. Seeing the esteemed van Helsing tromping around LA with his ghetto band of misfits was the most ridiculous thing I've seen on film in a while. And the scene where the four "brothers" gang bang the vampire is hilarious due to its unexpected nature and exaggeration. And hearing Count Dracula call multiple people "f**kwads" is great. Watch this for laughs, but don't expect to get nightmares.

Some of the special effects were cool, however, such as the "dying" of vampires when struck with a wooden stake and Dracula's hedonistic LA club. Overall, not bad. Just goofy.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Camp is not dead
shastar27 January 2002
The plot? barely!

The pacing? Plodding and inept!

the Characters? Nary a sympathetic character in sight.

So why am I laughing and liking this movie so much?

This movie is definitely more than the sum of it's parts. The movie is pure camp, but it never takes itself too seriously. Casper Van Dein, Rod Steiger, and the Crips chew up so much scenery that they should have styofoam poisoning. Oh, and may I say that Natasha Gregson Wagner is absolutely delectable in her tiny blue dress.

Just a fun movie that would be a great way to waste 2 hours. Invite your friends over and heckle away.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A film for vampire fans and misc. collectors
groucho371029 August 2004
Modern Vampires is the tale of a crew of ghastlies enjoying the night life of L.A. in relative obscurity until someone goes on a killing rampage which brings them to the attention of the local police, as well as the local don, Count Dracula, who likes discretion so much that he even has a special cleaning service for messy vampires. That tells you something about how seriously this movie takes itself. Who's doing the killing, why, and what to do about her (yes, her) is the basis of the plot. A parallel plot involves Dr. Van Helsing on another of his famous vampire hunts, so the predatory vampiress is triply threatened.

This is not an easy film to characterize. It's about vampires, yes, but they're not so much scary in the traditional sense of Lugosi and Lee as they are just kind of creepy and weird, and as disgusting as they are terrifying. They turn their victims into human sodas to be drunk in underground nightclubs They transform into gargoyle like creatures that seem to have more in common with modern sfx-driven horror movies than the original vampire legend. And for God's sake don't ever make love to one of them. That too has taken on new and dire consequences.

The film also explores the notion of degrees of vampiric evil (no surprise to any Buffy fan). Casper Van Dien's character Dallas has made two vampires to save them from unhappy fates, so humans are obviously something more than just food to him. These vampires have all kinds of family arrangements, from mafia like to almost normal human variety. There is even one who is eternally pregnant, a bizarre state of affairs surpassing even Ann Rice's child vampire Claudia, whose role, to some extent, is played by the (s)punky young vampire portrayed by Natasha Wagner. Although physically mature, she is an emotional child who gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'instant gratification.' And Van Helsing himself, a reputed Nazi collaborator, may not be a paragon of virtue. So nothing is quite black and white in the undead underworld of Los Angeles.

If you simply have to see every vampire movie ever made, you must see this as well. If you're a fan of Casper Van Dien or Rod Steiger, they're protagonist and nemesis, and you shouldn't miss the chase. Van Dien manages to look good even in fangs, which these particular bloodsuckers sport 24/7 and have to talk around as well as sometimes explain to the curious. If you're fascinated by show business dynasties, catch it for Natasha Gregson Wagner, who is at times eerily reminiscent of her mother Natalie Wood. Just be warned-everything in this movie is a bit overdone. The comedy becomes slapstick, some scenes are more disgusting than truly horrible, and the sex is approached as either grotesque or tongue-in-cheek, or occasionally fang in neck. They even throw in a bit of Lesbian activity, but the most interesting scenes involve Van Dien and Wagner-as visually arresting a couple as you'll ever find anywhere-who, before the movie ends, have managed to swap almost every bodily fluid imaginable.

MV can't decide if it's horror, comedy, romance or satire, and so mostly falls short of being really satisfying in any category, but it delivers some characters who can be fun to watch, notably Van Dien and Wagner as the young (in vampire terms) lovers fleeing the old vampire patriarch whose will they have defied. Rod Steiger looks and acts like a cross between Uncle Fester and the decrepit Van Helsing portrayed by Olivier in Dracula 79. And sometimes you just have to laugh at the homeboys who receive The Dark Gift like it was an STD, almost a satiric comment on AIDS stood on its head: this infection lets you live forever, if you don't mind being a homicidal maniac for the rest of your unnatural life.

To enjoy MV, you just have to turn off your critical faculties, pass the beer and pizza, and take it for what it is.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Sooo bad
lerno10 February 2003
I'm used to low level on vampire movies, but this one is easily picked out as one of the worst of it's class. The only thing that keeps me from giving it a 1 is that the climax was pretty funny in a "this movie is so stupid I gotta laugh" sort of way.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I hated it.
poolandrews20 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Modern Vampires, or Revenant as it's also known, is set in Los Angeles where a female Vampire called Nico (Natasha Gregson Wagner) who is also known as the 'Hollywood Slasher' is going around openly killing people & drinking their blood, the ultimate Vampire Count Dracula (Robert Pastorelli) doesn't like this as if she is discovered the human race will be aware of the existence of Vampires & hunt them down like the vermin they are so he orders her dead. Meanwhile Dallas (co-exectutive producer Casper Van Dien) the Vampire who turned Nico rolls into town & wants to protect her, he also brings with him the supreme Vampire hunter Dr. Frederick Van Helsing (Rod Steiger) who is on a mission to destroy all Vampires. Much hilarity ensues, not...

This made-for-TV piece of crap was co-produced & directed by Richard Elfman who also appears in the film at the end as the 'Cop with Doughnut' & I'll be brutally honest & get straight to the point & say that I thought Modern Vampires was awful. The script by Matthew Bright is obviously meant to be some sort of horror comedy, unfortunately Modern Vampires is neither horrific nor funny which is obviously a sizable problem. The films uses racial stereotypes with awful black jokes, there are terrible Vampire jokes & embarrassing slapstick comedy moments like the comedy sound effects when anyone hammers a stake into a Vampires heart or when the black dudes tie a female Vampire to a bed & take it in turns to have sex with her. The character's are also awful, just compare the annoying & irritating character's in Modern Vampires with the brilliant characterisations in Near Dark (1987) another contemporary Vampire film, it's like chalk & cheese to be frank & there is no comparison. In fact Nico has to one of the worst on screen Vampires in cinematic history & her character alone is going to knock a star off my final rating. The film is slow, it's dull, it's throughly predictable & I just had a hard time sitting through it. It's films like Modern Vampires that make me wonder what is happening to the horror genre.

Director Elfman (composer Danny Elfman's brother) obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word subtle, everything is garishly over-the-top & exaggerated in a cartoonish sort of way. I still can't get over Van Helsing hiring a gang of black guy's, lame. There's certainly nothing scary here & I didn't find it funny in the least either. There's some gore here, people have broken bottles stuck in their necks, Vampires bite & suck blood, there are several vampire stakings, a Vampire has it's head cut off with a saw & there are a lot of bare naked breasts on show as well along with star Casper Van Dien's bare butt during a sex scene if that sort of thing interests you.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 this looks alright but is a bit bland & forgettable, the constant hip-hop style music is just so out of place as well. There's actually a decent cast here which is wasted. Van Dien, Steiger, Kim Cattrall & Udo Kier put in hammy performances while Pastorelli is perhaps the worst on screen Dracula ever.

Modern Vampires sucks more than any Vampire in the film itself ever could, I'm sorry but that is what it basically boils down to & it's as simple & straight forward as that. It's neither horrific or funny & that's an absolute killer for a horror comedy, isn't it?
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
it's a joke...
Bo-2910 May 1999
... but not a very funny one.

If you're into "funny horror" movies, chances are you'll be mildly amused by this one. Like "House 2", "Evil Dead 2" and "Brain Dead" this movie is grotesque, gory and not to be taken totally serious. My only problem really is that a) it didn't say so on the rental and b) most other funny horror movies do the same job better.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not worth it
ewolfw30 September 2020
Has Casper Van ever made a film that was actually good? We have Rod Steiger eating the scenery with an accent, Kim Cattrall, Udo Kier... but it doesn't know what it wants to be - horror, comedy, melodrama - so it gets increasingly awkward, no one's very likeable and it keeps on getting all American heartfeely and bonding on us.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unspeakable and Inexcusable
Signet19 December 2000
One can only hope that the extraordinarily gifted cast that was gathered to act in this unmitigated mess was well paid for their efforts since this is a flick that they will not want to list on their resumes or tell their children about. This is a horror movie that will truly leave one goggle-eyed and slack jawed with horror at its consummate ineptness. The film simply has no tone, being neither funny nor scary, with back-alley special effects and a script that, from all appearances, was randomly compiled from notes scrawled on the inside of matchbook covers. Without even mentioning the scent of racism that pervades the latter half of the movie there is still plenty for the whole family to dislike. This is simply a ghastly film and other than keeping some pleasant actors employed, there is no justification for its existence.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A few new twists on the old bloodsucking myth.
mkiraly16 June 2004
Only in America can vampires expect to call for garbage pickup. No messy disposal problems here. As a vampire author, I'd far rather see vampire movies that feature something new, rather than rehashing the old myths - no matter how well it's done. (For a similar new take on vampires, though hardly as funny, be sure to see Dance of the Damned) Actually, though Modern Vampires seems to strive to be intentionally bad, this makes it very funny, very hip though certainly not for everyone.

I loved it for the early humor (The scene with the bitchy salesperson in the dress shop was worth the rental price all by itself), and was sad to see the over the top end did not work quite as well as the first half.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stupid, Stupid! STUPID! I can't believe anyone liked this.
ReggieSantori22 March 2004
MODERN VAMPIRES is an (obviously) independent (obviously) low budget "off-beat" little thing that features Casper Van Dien. His character is a vampire who smiles a lot and always seems to be thinking "dude! I'm a vampire!" All the vampires in the picture like to show their fangs a lot and have no conception of subtlety, even though they are supposed to be fashionable. Rod Steiger appears as Van Helsing in this version (who is somehow only about 60 years old at the end of the 20th century) and he has a huge grudge against Van Dien's character for making his son a vampire. A prostitute vampire figures prominently in the plot and our hero takes her under his wing to show her the ropes of vampire society and to save her from a vampire count who wants her dead. Any of this sound interesting to you yet? It isn't. I just watched it because I thought the Sci-Fi channel might be showing a real movie for a change. Wrong! This cheap, un-involving junk is on par with all the crap they show. The lighting and music are really bad points that go extra far to cheapen an already lame production. MODERN VAMPIRES even takes a few stabs at being funny, but these fail too. It's as if a made for TV film decided half-way through production to be hip and trendy like FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, but wasn't quite sure how to go about it. This is exactly what you'd expect it to be: wanna-be quirky, poorly acted, boring, predictable, and downright annoying when it tries to make you like it. I genuinely hope that this director never gets work again. Unless you're a sucker for seeing Rod Steiger making a fool of himself, stay far away from MODERN VAMPIRES.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
hilarious
apothekari22 January 2003
This movie is a hilarious satire of vampire lore. Anyone into Evil Dead 2 or Army of Darkness should appreciate this flick. Anyone who thinks they are a vampire will most likely be offended. Very original in content and way ahead of its time. Like Spider Baby, this is sure to be an underground classic.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fang-tastic new twist on bloodsuckers.
im00sev3 May 2001
I had a double impetus for buying this film. I'm gay and Casper is very, very cute. Plus, I love vampire movies. This one really surprised me and made me laugh. Unlike John Carpenter's Vampires, I easily accepted the new vampire rules because they were funny. It's not scary at all, or even eerie like Lost Boys. It's very fresh.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Life's to short to waste on this..
Markus-4021 August 1999
This is quite possibly the WORST film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. What promises to be a funny, gory, vampire movie turns out to be a turgid, badly acted, scripted and directed pile of rubbish. The effects were awful and the plot was...well I couldn't work out what the plot was. Casper Van Dein's performance was one of someone trying to get it over with as quickly as possible. Why films like this are still made and still make money is one of the Earth's great mysteries. Avoid it like the plague.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sleaze to please
Dr. Gore8 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Certain actors appearing in a B-movie scream quality. I'm talking about such heavyweights as Mario Van Peebles or Ice-T. Now add Casper Van Dien to that roll call of B-movie greatness. I long for the day when all three of those giants show up in the same movie. I can see the video box now: VAN Peebles and VAN Dien in "Kill Shoot II!" My VCR would explode with delight.

"Modern Vampires" continues Van Dien's tradition of quality B-mayhem. He's a vampire in L.A. and things happen. My God, how could you ask for more? The blood and naked breasts are out of control. One scene in a clothing store has Natasha Wagner making out with another vampire woman. WOO-HOO! Loved it. Rod Steiger shows up to kill some vampires and he brings some gang members with him. If you're a Van Dien believer like I am, check this one out. I'm not saying this movie is scary or even pretends to be a horror movie, but it delivers the sleaze to please.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Disturbing but amusing horror/comedy.
FiendishDramaturgy27 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I had to stop and ask: Am I laughing because it's stupid? or am I laughing because it's funny. That seems to be the dilemma. It took several viewings for me to determine the outcome of that quandary.

While there are some excellent elements here, both in the genre of horror and comedy, the blend is terribly uneven.

This movie tries to be unpredictable and raw, but instead, what it delivers is anything but the sophisticated humor it promises. It is not quite the giggle-fest some seem to think it is; for the most part, there was more eye-rolling than genuine laughs.

Kim Cattrall adds to this production what sophistication there is, while Casper Van Dien lends the eye candy element for those of you who are interested in that sort of thing.

The principal wretched element in this movie was Dr. Van Helsing (Rod Steiger) and his hapless sidekick, Time Bomb (Gabriel Casseus of "Fallen"). As in they are a joke, rather than being funny, they are just ridiculous as vampire hunters. The way their first victim just lies there and waits for Time Bomb to sort out his probational priorities with Van Helsing's heart attack before he is killed, was just infantile. His "Black Pack" pushing the van chasing after the bad guys was just stupid.

I honestly have no idea what to make of the ratings this movie has received. I fully appreciate and love dark humor, but this just is not it. This is some cheap teen-aged-level rip off of dark humor. It's not even good enough to be considered true camp.

The general consensus here at the Fiend's house is that it's funny because it is stupid, rather than being cleverly witty. Does that make it good camp? or just another inanity?

I have two votes for inanity, and it is a conclusion with which I tend to agree. That not withstanding, this movie does have a few enjoyability factors. I did learn one thing from this movie: if you're on fire, you can't put yourself out with a garden hose.

It is absolutely putrid!

It rates a 2/10 from...

the Fiend :.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
no worse vampire film has ever been made
vlagal1 July 2001
I rented this piece of trash based on a web-based list of 'best' vampire films. I'm trying to think of what would make anybody think of this as a watchable film; and I can't think of a single thing. I guess if you're about 9 years old then you can think of this as 'campy'. But this film has no script or story, is badly acted, horribly directed it's a complete and unmitigated piece of crap it's unwatchable and the worst part is that it's boring. I challenge anybody to watch this and not fall asleep! Not even the few naked bodies in this film could save it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A true piece of garbage...
grey-morgan9 May 2014
Do not waste your time on this... there are no words for how aggressively awful it is. The effects are terrible. The performances by some fairly well known and seasoned actors are dreadful despite their best efforts. The story is amateurish, at best. The only reason I could surmise for having such well known actors, is that it was directed by Richard Elfman, the brother of Danny Elfman. Only watch it if you're like me and enjoy watching awful movies, just to see how awful they are. Do not be deceived by the review shown on the page by a "mopedcecil". On further examination, the user wrote three shining reviews all were Richard Elfman movies. So, me thinks it is none other than the trash auteur himself. Be warned...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievable
Splodge8 August 1999
This is possibly the worst film ever made - I am not kidding!

We rented this film, fortunately as we had a free rental voucher we did not pay actual money to see it.

What a suck-fest!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They could do it a MUCH MUCH better than this.
A Detect-212 November 1999
What a disappointment; it was very boring comedy/horror movie nothing realy interesting during watching it, only one scary good horror scene and one realy comedy scene I think who watched this trash knows where these scenes.

Where is the silver knives??!It's only used during standing to take the picture of the poster,,,it was important!!!. If you still very interest with it I advice you to rent it.

2/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a new twist on familiar themes
jhelppi23 September 2002
Director Richard Elfman has taken the familiar themes of the vampire movie and has approached them from a skewed perspective in "Modern Vampires." The urban hipster Los Angeles setting couldn't be farther from Transylvania, and the old Universal Pictures bloodsucker flicks never exposed so much firm young female flesh - boobs, that is. Natasha Gregson Wagner and Casper Van Dien provide eye candy and show off their ability to memorize and recite short segments of dialog. There are a few familiar faces from television, and an all too short appearance by Udo Kier. But the picture belongs to Rod Steiger. He's one of the great ham actors, and he certainly doesn't hold back here. "Modern Vampires" is worth seeing if only for the scene stealing of Oscar © winner Steiger.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Lamentable
Leofwine_draca5 November 2015
REVENANT (originally titled MODERN VAMPIRES) is a low budget vampire comedy that was marketed as a straightforward vampire horror flick here in the UK. Either way it's a dog of a film, shot on what looks like no budget and in the dark, and made as a TV movie too. This spoofy yarn supposedly reveals the real life of the modern Hollywood vampire, which seems to involve hanging around in nightclubs and acting incredibly vapid and self-centred.

A plethora of gore gags and lame make-up effects are thrown into the mix to try to make something stick, but the truth is that this is a lamentable film indeed. There's nothing worse than an unfunny comedy, and REVENANT is exactly that; I can honestly say I didn't laugh once. John Landis's INNOCENT BLOOD is a perfect example of the genre at its finest and this film doesn't even come close to the quality of that movie.

Bizarrely, Rod Steiger makes an appearance as Van Helsing here, so you have to feel for him a little. But wooden actors like Casper Van Dien and Kim Cattrall both should know better. There's a mercifully brief cameo from Udo Kier, but for much of the running time we have to put up with the appalling grating accents of Craig Ferguson and his buddies. As I said, it's a dog of a film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Better than you might expect
mopedcecil4 April 2003
Matthew Bright and Richard Elfman team up yet again to give hollywood the middle finger in this over-the-top vampire film. If you liked movies like Near Dark and From Dusk 'til Dawn, but hated movies like John Carpenter's Vampires and Blade 2, you'll probably like Modern Vampires. It has just the right amount of story vs. ridiculous gore.

Elfman and Bright have been both critically acclaimed and critically ignored. They have been working together since 1980's The Forbidden Zone, Richard Elfman's cult classic musical in which Matthew Bright co-wrote and starred in. Modern Vampires is definitely a different flavor than anything either of them has done previously. One thing I appreciate in particular about this movie is the undefined line between good and evil. It sets a realistic tone in a movie that is not realistic at all.

If you haven't seen other Richard Elfman or Matthew Bright Films, I would recommend Freeway or Shrunken Heads before Modern Vampires. But if you're looking for a good vampire movie, be sure to check this one out; it's much better than the average.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than the average score suggests.
yakshasa4 January 2003
It is not a bad effort at all. For what appears to be a lower budgeted, no-extra-money-for-special-effects stab at the genre, it came off rather well. Rod Steiger gives an interesting, hysterical bent to his portrayal of Van Helsing, and Natasha Gregson Wagner is excellent in the role of Nico.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A bad movie
jacobjohntaylor19 May 2015
This movie is sequel to Dracula. Dracula as had a lot of sequels. Most of them are great. And this one is not. If you what to see a Dracula movie at this scary see Dracula (1992) or Nosferatu of Dracula (1931). But this one is not scary. It is badly written. It has an awful ending. I think Van H.e.l.i.s.i.n.g is the bad guy. But I would have to say not really. This is not as bad as it is said to be. But it is still pretty bad. Don't see this movie. Save your time and money. I don't think Dracula was good guy. But some of the vampires were. But not really. At lest I would say so. Don't see this movie. Don't see this movie. Don't see this movie.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed