Vampire in Vegas (2009) User Reviews

What Happens in Vegas, Should Have Stayed in Vegas

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 27 March 2010]

In Las Vegas, the powerful three hundred year old vampire Sylvian (Toni Todd) hires Dr. van Helm (Delia Sheppard) to research a cure to survive in the sun. She uses three vampire women as guinea pigs to test the serum in the desert and a couple that is camping witnesses the failure and calls the police. Detective Stanton (Ted Monte) and his partner Detective O'Hara (Gigi Erneta) are assigned to investigate the case. Meanwhile, Jason (Edward Spivak), who is going to marry Rachel (Sonya Joy Sims), and two friends travel to Las Vegas for his bachelor party with a couple of strippers, but the women are actually vampires that attack them. Out of the blue, Rachel and her friend Nikki (Brandin Rackley) decide to travel to Las Vegas to surprise her boyfriends. The group is captured by Sylvian that uses them to feed the pack vampires and test the new research.

"Vampire in Vegas" is one of the worst vampire movies I have ever seen. The story is silly and the acting is so bad that becomes hilarious. Toni Todd lures the viewers working in this awful movie. Fortunately most of the "actors" and "actresses" are young and have time to make a reflection and chose another profession and business to survive. In the end, this movie that happens in Vegas, should have stayed in Vegas, preferably buried or burnt. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Vampiro em Vegas" ("Vampire in Vegas")

This film should have stayed buried in Vegas

[dbborroughs · 2/10 · 15 November 2009]

Tony Todd stars in a film that had to be done film for cash. Its an odd mix of horror comedy and enhanced cleavage as various dark forces battle it out in Vegas. Forgive me if I don't go into the plot, I don't think the filmmakers ever had a clear idea what that was to begin with. That said the film is a mess with a great deal happening but none of it making sense. The film seems to be on the level of a bad adult film's exposition scenes. You know the ones where no one takes it seriously since its only suppose to move you to the next sex scenes. There's little sex in this film, none of it erotic, though all of the women are well endowed and shot to show off their assets to maximum effect. Todd is the only one who gives anything remotely like a performance and he seems to be embarrassed to even be associated with this film. I'm embarrassed to say I've seen it, so don't make the same mistake.

Disappointing

[wbwalthers · 3/10 · 15 December 2022]

I've seen a few films directed by Jim Wynorski and they've all been pretty good. But the casting Director in this movie delivered a bunch of really terrible actors for him to work with. As usual in a Wynorski film there are some really sexy great looking women. No disappointment there. But the script was pretty darn bad and Jim failed to reel in a really bad acting. Some of the female actors were actually pretty good and believable. But the majority of the male actors were some of the worst actors I've ever seen and I'm speaking of Tony Todd, and Ted Monte. Beautifully shot and good camera angles no problem there. I just can't stand bad acting and the Director of the film is responsible for getting them to do their job well or booting them. Seems like this movie was just being shot in a hurry, and not taking the time to get the best out of the actors.

Awful horror movie

[Krijn · 1/10 · 23 February 2009]

It's like watching a porn movie without the sex scenes. It has been a while since I've seen a (horror)movie that was this bad! This really has no redeeming qualities, the story is awful, just like the actors, the visual effects, etc, etc. Tony Todd is not in his Candyman mood, here he is just plain bad. All the other actors are even worse, all of them people I've never heard of (and probably won't in the future if this is a reference...). The story is something we've seen many times before (and much better), It's you typical 'Vampire wants to find a cure to be able to survive daylight'-type of films. You are better of watching 'Zombie Strippers' than this piece of garbage! A.A.A.C. (avoid at all costs).

A Big Wast of One Hour and a Half ...

[petersundlin · 1/10 · 4 December 2009]

This must be the worst movie this year, 2009, but what had I really expected from a director like Jim Wynorski? Take only The Pandora Project [ 1998 ] as a deterrent example.

That producers give Jim Wynorski money to direct films is for me a mystery. But what can you expect from producers as Bryan Sexton and Julie K. Smith?

Isn't Julie K. Smith a former scream queen, slash soft porn star? Now crap movie producer?

In the epilogue you can see a lot of interesting facts, that the associate producer Steve Goldenberg also are Best Boy and Rigging Gaffer, and that associate producer Rob Sanchez, who played the Security Guard number 2, also work as the movie sets gaffer.

Who payed for this?

An absolutely Amazing Film!! Truly Groundbreaking!!!

[darkdelphi · 10/10 · 29 October 2009]

It is as if Francis Ford Coppola, Shakespeare and Andrew Lloyd Webber had a love child that became this script. The acting was flawless, and each gave what I believe to be an Oscar caliber performances. The set design was pure perfection as it really created an ambiance and tone that really drew you into the story. The musical orchestration could be described as nothing less that flawlessness as it whipped away the last few shreds of disbelief and completed your journey into becoming part of this dark fantasy. As with any good film you can really tell the absolute mastery this director had over his craft. Shaping and forming the awesome talent wielded by the actors and actresses to deliver a story, as I am certain of, that was the true vision of the writer. The originality of concept of trying to find a cure for sunlight is a truly frightening idea if they were ever able to accomplish it and serves to really keep you on the edge of your seat. I am certain that this film will be used as THE example of proper film making in generations to come. A MUST SEE!'

Really Disappointing Horror Film

[Michael_Elliott · 19 August 2018]

Vampire in Vegas (2009)

* (out of 4)

Sylvian (Tony Todd) is a 300-year-old vampire who wants to be cured so he travels to Las Vegas where he wants Dr. Van Helm (Delia Sheppard) to find a cure. She begins experimenting on local vampires and once their bodies are found the police begin to investigate.

VAMPIRE IN VEGAS is a pretty disappointing horror movie that has way too much going on in it and sadly very little of it is actually entertaining. Not only do you have the story of the lead vampire trying to get cured but you've got the whole story with the doctor doing her evil things. All of that is covered in a horror fashion but then you've got the investigation from the detectives, which goes for silly laughs and then you've also got more subplots that involve a more erotic nature.

Director Jim Wynorski is the best in the business when it comes to these type of movies but this one here just didn't work and that's a real shame and especially since he had the great Tony Todd (CANDYMAN) with him. These two normally don't disappoint but there's very little that works in VAMPIRE IN VEGAS. The really bad CGI effects certainly didn't help things and there's no question that the film is very uneven and at times just flat out boring.

With all of that said, there's no question that there's no doubt that the screenplay just isn't interesting enough to work. The characters are boring, the dialogue is bland and there are too many attempts to mix the genres. VAMPIRE IN VEGAS actually makes VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN look decent.