Teen Vamp (1989) Poster

(1989)

User Reviews

Review this title
10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
It stinks, but I was IN it!
mlane-430 May 2004
From the desk of Delbert Haney...The comments are right - this wasn't a funny scary movie, nor a scary funny movie. But the script WAS funny - it was killed because the company ran out of money at editing time and chopped it to bits. I got to do a library scene with Mr. Gullager that taught me more about acting than anything to this date. Please take a moment to laugh at the GLARING continuity errors:

It takes place in the 50's, but a 50-star flag is the first moving thing you see. Also, when we're selling Cokes at the football game, the 70's Coke WAVE is plastered on the boxes...

Please notice at the end how clothes change miraculously (jackets on, jackets not on...now a sweater...not a shirt!) This was the most "special" effect in the entire film.

Just heartbroken that we didn't make MST3K - we've been great!
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wow ...
Steve_Nyland23 April 2006
This movie has about as much charisma as a small plastic soapdish from the dollar store. Even Clu Gulager as an over the top Midwestern minister cannot add much life though he gives it the college try. I sought it out for the presence of Angie Brown, an actress who made about five movies during the 1980's & then seems to have vanished off the face of the planet -- her other big film was the backwoods slasher DON'T GO IN THE WOODS. Here she plays the secretly psychotic love interest of a young schmuck or putzanoid nerd who turns into Fonzie after having a hotel room tryst with a hooker vampiress who's three minutes in the film are it's most interesting moments ... Until Ms. Brown starts going the psycho route (she isn't bad!) and a gym coach demands & gets 50 push-ups from his star football player turned vampire. Now THAT was new.

But I honestly don't know what to make of this film. The most expensive asset used in the production was the film stock it was shot on. The sets and costumes are all everyday pre-existing clothes or locations, the cast is made up of non-actors who were probably overjoyed to be in the production but didn't really do anything else afterward. The film purports to mix American Graffiti type 1950's period antics, 80's teen comedy movie formula convention (complete with actors in their mid 20s pretending to be 17 year old high schoolers), and of course the vampire angle. The idea had some potential, and the production was no doubt green-lighted after the unlikely success of the TEEN WOLF franchise. This movie was a product of greed, not artistic vision, and a perfect example of the home rental video age. Empty, disposable, forgettable, and over quickly enough so you can fit in three rentals of equally dismal garbage into one night of brain-dead viewing and not experience anything that might distract you from your life as a consumer.

The reason the film doesn't work is partly the plodding, uninteresting way it was filmd, and that the actor who got the lead role has about as much of a screen presence as the aforementioned soap dish. He starts the film looking and acting like an off-Broadway Potsie and is supposedly "changed" by his experience. Other than giving him an off-the rack leather jacket that doesn't quite fit (it's too big) and a greaser haircut, he doesn't look or act significantly different, coming across as a shrimp trying to act up the Jason Patric LOST BOYS part and unable to keep it up. The other commenter's assessment of the film's characters being unlikeable is also somewhat fitting. Not only do they fail to create enough interest for us to care about what might happen to them, they mostly come across as either fake character roles in a low-budget film, or losers who we actually would prefer to see bad things happen to. The problem with the film is that nothing really does happen to anyone, and in the end it appears to have simply been a Mastercard budget LOST BOYS ripoff with the added 50's period angle to make it appear different & tap into the "I WAS A TEENAGE WHATEVER" nostalgia. On paper it sounds kind of fun, but the execution is too plodding, pedestrian, lacking finesse and happy to be that way. It's not even bad enough to enjoy on a "bad movie" level, and ultimately just sort of sucks. The only reason to even consider seeing it would be due to it's complete obscurity. You won't find this on Netflix, and for some of us that is reason enough to give it a shot.

The film also has a curious agenda to it that strikes me as being somewhat queer-oriented. Nothing wrong with that, but aside from an extended image of "Bucky", the film's villain jock character, leaning stark naked against the wall in the boy's locker room shower (??) there is no nudity or sexual content in this vampire movie, and vampire movies are or should be about sex. Here is a movie that appears to be in the closet and has no sex, other than an extended image of an athletic 20 year old man's bared bottom -- Live it up, girls!! Mind you I have zero problem with Focus Group Horror catering to specific sects of viewers so this may indeed be a Gay Teen Vampire Horror/Comedy movie in disguise. The question is, was that the intent or just happened to have been the result? (DON'T GO IN THE WOODS also has an undeniably gay subtext to it, so I sense a linking theme implied here just by the presence of Ms. Brown). But since I don't care about the movie since it doesn't even care about itself the prospect of a subtextural agenda doesn't even become an intriguing prospect, only an annoying quirk to puzzle over. Without any charisma and generating no real interest the film remains a relic of the 1980s video rental boom years which is where it should probably remain. I don't dislike the film yet I cannot recommend it either, merely note it's existence. And that's kind of a shame: the premise is interesting but the way it was executed isn't.

3/10. "Anemic."
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
An extremely weak horror/comedy.
BA_Harrison30 November 2018
'50s high-school loser Murphy (Beau Bishop) plucks up the courage to ask cute blonde Conny (Angie Brown) for a date, but is bluntly turned down. Instead, he pays a visit to a local whorehouse where he hooks up with a leggy brunette who turns out to be a vampire looking for virgin blood. Having been bitten, Murphy transforms into a cocky, leather-jacketed bloodsucking hotshot who is strong enough to deal with jock bully Bucky (Evans Dietz) and cool enough to attract the attention of the once unattainable Conny.

No doubt inspired by the success of Teen Wolf, as well as teen-friendly vampire films Vamp, Fright Night and The Lost Boys, this low-budget horror/comedy fails on every level: it's not scary, it's not funny, the central character is unlikable, the love interest is a psychotic cat killer, and the plot is all over the place, even throwing some ghosts into the mix. There's little gore, and the only nudity on display comes from Bucky: a lingering shot of him from behind in the shower, and an extreme close up of his bare ass (making the film perfect for a double-bill with that queer horror classic A Nightmare On Elm Street 2).

After lots of quite frankly plain embarrassing silliness (Clu Gulager, what were you thinking?), the movie closes on a happy note, with everyone who was turned into a vampire reverting to normality when the hooker vamp is killed (all except for Conny, who is presumably still a nutjob). About the only good thing in the whole movie is the simple but effective look of the vampires: contact lenses and fangs and a bit of slap to make them look pale.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lacks comic and horror fangs
Wizard-819 October 2016
During the days when the video rental store reigned, this obscure horror comedy actually managed to get two releases on VHS (though the second time was on a budget video label.) But watching the movie, one has to ask why ANYONE would think that this movie was releasable in the first place. It's not that much of a step up from what teenagers would make with access to a video camera. The movie looks really cheap for the most part, maybe because some expense was made to set the action in the 1950s, a decision that has absolutely no bearing on the story - it would have been easier to set the story in modern times and use the saved money to punch up the look (and audio) of the movie. Also, the movie tries to be a comedy, but there's nothing funny about the screenplay as written, and things are made worse by the fact that director Samuel Bradford (who also wrote the movie) doesn't seem able to set up any gags with any skill or energy. In fact, the whole movie moves in a sluggish and endless manner. And don't get me started on the fact that the actor playing the title character looks about 30 years old instead of a teenager. This is one movie that was made to gather dust in thrift stores.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Teen Lame
hiyaboyos5 June 2023
I can totally see why this movie unknown. Par for the course.

Not entirely sure what writers and/or directors were going for comedy? Horror? Schlock? B-movie? Total miss on all of the above. I couldn't muster a laugh on any of it. But you could see that they were trying really hard to make you laugh.

Total unknown actors. Acting is obviously the worst I've seen lately.

I think it was an attempt to capitalize on Teen Wolf with Michael J Fox except with a vampire. These two movies don't even come close to comparison. This was more like a home movie project gone horribly wrong.

Don't watch it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Weird, weird movie..
Falconeer25 October 2015
There is something so strange about this production. The film stock they used is definitely not the same as is used by mainstream filmmakers. It looks almost like Super 8mm or something primitive and cheap. The performances are all beyond awful, like they cast good-looking non-actors to act in it. As far as Clu Gallager's presence, I suspect somebody got the man drunk and tricked him into signing a contract to appear in this seemingly student-film production.

But as poor of a film as "Teen Vamp" is, I still give it 6 stars here, first, because it is so weird and obscure. And it has some other qualities too. For some reason I found it kind of erotic, despite the fact that there is no graphic sex. The vampire is a strange looking guy who is obsessed with an unattainable female classmate who snubs him for being a loser. But when he is transformed into a blood sucker with creepy white eyes, she suddenly gets all hot for him. Simultanaesly she shows that, even though she is a pretty blond airhead, she actually has a fascination with evil. She even takes him to an abandoned house where a man decapitated his twin babies and switched their heads! Also, you keep expecting it be a comedy, but it never really gets there. Instead it remains quite dark and sinister. Others bitched about the make-up effects but I thought they were fine, and the white vampire eyes were suitably creepy. And I'm surprised nobody mentioned the heavy atmospheric quality it has. The washed out film stock, the 1950's cars and clothes, and this seedy quality somehow comes together nicely. The actor they cast as Murphy the vampire is suitably skinny and creepy-looking, but also kind of sexy. He reminded me of Ryan Gosling, if Ryan Gosling smoked a lot of crack and had some mental issues. Weird, very obscure title, that I'm sure is not easy to find. But worth searching for if you are obsessed with vampires..or just truly strange cinema.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
TEEN VAMP makes HOBGOBLINS look like CITIZEN KANE!
horror777729 June 2001
This film had a lot going for it. It had pretty good casting, bringing in the likes of Clu Gulager as a Reverend was just plain hillarious. But the film just can't succeed for these reasons:

1) When does this film take place? Everyone is driving 1950's cars and all that, but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning that the film took place in the 50's.

2) Everyone in this film is dull. The characters are alternitively dull and boring and no one looks comfortable in his or her roll. Also, the characters are very one-dimentional, and you get the feeling the writer was not trying to impress anyone with his material.

3) The make-up effects are awful. You can plainly see that no work was put in when doing the make-up.

4) This movie is trying to act as a spoof of vampire-type films, but it really isn't a comedy. It's not something you'd sit down as a family and watch and it certainly isn't spoofing any one movie in particular.

5) The film is truly boring and offers nothing new. The writing is not original and everyone just seems to be plodding along with his or her material.

6) The characters aren't likable. You get the feeling that the writers were trying to make you push for Murphy to get Connie, but you just get the feeling that he isn't the right guy for her.

7) There isn't enough gore and scars for this film to act as horror. And there isn't enough laughs for this film to be comedy/spoof.

8) The directing falls short on every level. I wasn't expecting much when I went into this film, but I came out feeling even worse.

9) The writer needed to include more character development. We don't really find out much about the characters.

All in all, the only memorable scene in this film is when Clu Gulager tried to perform an exorcism on Murphy because they felt he was possessed. That was great! And you get the feeling the producers were surprised and delighted when Clu Gulager agreed to do this film because they have his name all over the box. The catch is you don't see him until 45 minutes into the film. This film isn't great, so I wouldn't recommend it. I've seen worse then this but not much. This film is definitly MST3K material, and it's a wonder that it didn't get on the show. Truly, HOBGOBLINS had more going for it then this did. *out of****A Waste Of Your Time
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Move over Teen Wolf...
lost-in-limbo25 December 2021
Actually that film is quite safe. Okay, this was cheaper looking than I was expecting. And I wonder how they managed to rope in Glu Gulager? Reminded me of a two-bit horror-comedy (which doesn't always gel) take of Jim Carrey's 'Once Bitten', but set in a Bible Belt town during the 1950's.

A nerdy, unpopular teenager (Beau Bishop looking too old for the role... unless it's an in-joke) is transformed into a glowing green eyed vampire after spending a night with a lady of the night in a sleazy motel. Suddenly he's the talk of the high school, and his dream girl wants to get to know him. Still kooky, but a little darker and deadpan where the cheap look and execution plays to its advantage. The material's humour can be flat and have you cringing with dry character exchanges, but there's a weird vibe in its attempts of horror which can go for the jugular. Starts kinda slow, but once blood sucking begins. It gets better as it moves along with the odd surprise or two up its sleeve.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lousy horror comedy
lor_11 April 2023
My review was written in May 1989 after watching the movie on New World video cassette.

Only related by title to New World's "Vamp", "Teen Vamp" is an amateurish, Southern-fried horror comedy with little to offer home video fans.

Shot in Shreveport, Louisiana, on an evidently threadbare budget, pic wallows in '50s nostalgia for a nonstory of nerd Beau Bishop transformed (very unconvincingly) into a leather-jacketed hip dude after a prostitute at a road house bites him.

His vampire status is taken very matter-of-factly by all concerned, except his pretty girlfriend Angie Brown, who demands he bite her too!

Cornpone approach to the vampire genre doesn't work, and isn't helped by amateur sound recording, poor makeup effects and a far too talky script. Guest stars Karen Carlson as Bishop's mom and Clu Gulager as a hammy minister have little to do. Bishop's charmless performance is a drag.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Go Parkway Panthers!!!
whipsnade7617 October 2006
This horrible film was shot at my old High School. My older brother was going there at the time, but didn't try to be an extra -- the moron! I remember hearing all the excitement over the film as a kid. I also remember being aloud to watch it once it got on video ... which was great, since it showed boobies and I was like ... 12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, by default, it might be the most important film ever made for people who grew up in South Bossier City!. So, hail to the red. Hail to the white. Hail alter mater, hail to her might. (Go Parkway) True faith full students. True faithful students. We praise thee to the sky, Loyal forever to Parkway High Gooooooooooooooo Panthers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed