Vampires Suck - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Vampires Suck Reviews

Page 1 of 292
Super Reviewer
January 26, 2013
Basically Twilight with additional fart jokes and pop culture references.
Super Reviewer
½ November 26, 2012
Possibly one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. There is no purpose to this film's existence. It is a parody of an already mediocre film. The fact that its source material is almost just as poor in quality made this film not funny but rather tiresome and depressing.
Super Reviewer
½ September 15, 2010
Not bad for a spoof movie. Actually it looks pretty good and though the story is obviously stupid, being a mash up of several Twilight movies, the actress who plays Becca actually has Kristen Stewart's mannerisms down pretty well!
Super Reviewer
½ July 21, 2012
It's sad, that the funniest and best movie from Friedberg/Seltzer, still is a bad picture. At least it's much more better that the last works of both and present a good performance by Jenn Proske.
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2012
Making a spoof about twilight good, making it badly not good.
Super Reviewer
½ August 21, 2010
When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I knew it would be bad. Apparently I was right. Alot of people walked out during this movie. But, its better than disaster movie and meet the spartans (Which where both horrible.) Again it is the same formula as all the other parodies that Friedberg and Seltzer made before this one. Anyone could of made a way better parody then this. If you go on youtube you can probably find a hundred better parodies then this. Dont go see it.
Super Reviewer
½ August 8, 2010
Oh my, oh my, oh my gosh, where do I start with this fanged teenage parody? I think we can all agree that a vampire themed comedy about the flaws in the Twilight films, and just regular good old fashioned parody, is a good enough reason to be enticed by this. There have been a slew of mocking, juvenile, made in three seconds series of films that have been regurgitated in the past couple years, including the other films of this particular filmmaker: Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, and Disaster Movie. We can all agree that those were generously displeasing films in anyone's opinion. This was also a major disappointment mostly because I truly believed they could have done a lot more with the material they had. I'm not saying I laughed out loud at any particular point in time, but it didn't try too hard in a good way, and some of the choices in scenes didn't completely make me want to scream in frustration. This probably relates back to the acting in the film. The only people with any street cred who did this movie were Ken Jeong and Diedrich Bader, who are famous character actors, and neither has to ploy down to gross out humor or anything too demeaning and uncular. Jenn Proske, the parody version of Bella Swan, actually did a great job imitating Kristen Stewart's performance, and looked kind of like her too. I didn't like all the slight name changes, because none of us really cared about that, and the two main men of the film don't matter. Neither does the plot, as this film doesn't have one, and that's the one thing a parody needs to hinge on if nothing else. This film takes the last two movies in the saga and squishes them together, and what comes of it is malarkey in the least. No, do not watch this, do not sacrifice your time and curiosity to a venture that will bring you shame for allowing yourself to finish it. Escape, and be wiser than I.
Super Reviewer
January 22, 2011
Hey; they're better than the actual Twilight actors! I couldn't get through the whole film, it was spewed bad from all corners, not a shining moment in this dull and unneeded spoof.
Super Reviewer
½ June 16, 2011
You know, every movie after Scary movie 1 by Friedberg and Seltzer are usually the same. Like they all are badly written (in both comedy and common language) and are just terribly stupid. Although some are exceptionally funny, like some of the Scary movies and SOME of Meet the Spartans, but then we have movies like ummm, this, and Disaster and Epic movie.

So i thought when this came out, i kinda thought it would suck, and much to my surprise... I was totally right! This was again terribly written and just unpleasant. I remember sitting in the theater and just watching it while my friends were lol-ing themselves and I just sat there with some other adults next thinking: WTF are they laughing at? What they're laughing at fart jokes like if they're 5, and cheap non-creative humor involving random Satirical items like Lady Gaga and the Kardashians? OMG that's not funny at ALL!

So yeah, at times i actually thought the original Twilight was more funny... Yeah, I found it funny, it was over-the-top stupid. And even though it's stupid, you have to admit they have pretty good visuals too and atmosphere that's somewhat entertaining, at least more entertaining than this crap.
Super Reviewer
½ September 16, 2010
Cast: Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Diedrich Bader, Chris Riggi, Ken Jeong, Anneliese van der Pol, Charlie Weber, Arielle Kebbel, Bradley Dodds, Wanetah Walmsley, Emily Brobst, Crista Flanagan, Marcelle Baer

Director: Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer

Summary: From the creators of Disaster Movie and Meet the Spartans comes a spoof of pop culture and teenage vampire movies starring Jenn Proske as Becca, a high schooler who must choose between two hunky boys who both have killer smiles. While surrounded by vampires, werewolves (wereChihuahuas, anyone?) and gossipy teens with their own romantic dilemmas, the neurotic Becca also copes with her overprotective father and the school's impending prom.

My Thoughts: "There's not much to say about this film so this will be short, it sucked. Not funny at all. Boring as a film can be. There was so much to work with when it comes to the Twilight films, but the jokes were not very creative at all. Pass on it."
Super Reviewer
½ July 30, 2010
What a great spoof!! This movies has as much relevance as the original movie it mocks! Jenn Proske does a GREAT job exaggerating Kristen Stewart. Anyone that can't understand the idea of a satirical movie, should not watch it! By the reviews, I think few understand the concept of a spoof... it is not intended to be a great piece of cinematic work, but simply humor from mocking!! Relax folks and just laugh and you will enjoy this movie.
Super Reviewer
½ August 23, 2010
This movie was a parody of the first 2 films of the twilight saga. It was suppose to be funny but seems like the director forgot to do that. If I laughed 3 times is alot, the only good thing I can think about this movie is that it was very similar as the original first 2 films and it followed a pretty good timeline. If you plan on watching it don't expect to laugh alot and just rented or watch it online.

A spoof of vampire-themed movies, where teenager Becca finds herself torn between two boys. As she and her friends wrestle with a number of different dramas, everything comes to a head at their prom.
Super Reviewer
½ September 18, 2010
Like many spoofs out there, the laughs are far and few between and its not laugh out loud sketches but more of a giggle.
Its a lttle bit boring and drags, i wouldnt say its really one that shouldnt be missed though!
Super Reviewer
½ November 7, 2010
For a spoof flick made by two of Hollywood's biggest hacks, this was surprisingly okay. Maybe it's because I was in a good mood and saw it with some of my best friends, or maybe it's because it makes fun of the annoyingly overrated Twilight-saga. Either way, I had a pretty good time watching it. Most of the jokes are lame and unfunny, but when it does get something right, it does so to hilarious results. I laughed a lot more than I thought I would, and it's definitely the least disasterous movie by Friedberg and Seltzer so far. As expected though, the directing, timing and editing is really off the mark. They just never seem to get out of the "we're fresh off film school"-phase. However, despite all its technical blunders and second-rate humor, it does have enough funny parts to be worthwhile. For that reason, it gets 2 1/2 stars from me, which in my book corresponds to a so-so, yet watchable comedy.
Nate Z.
Super Reviewer
October 16, 2010
I anticipate and dread the arrival of each new spoof from the wretched comedy team of writer/directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. The pair are responsible for some of the worst movies of the modern era, blindly groping for some sort of fleeting pop-culture relevance. I vehemently oppose their idea of what constitutes comedy and I resent that these two nitwits get to keep making their reprehensibly awful spoof movies at the pace of one a year. They may have taken 2009 off but they released two regrettable spoof movies in 2008 (Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie), and those two films tied for the honor of my Worst Film of that year. Think of all the exciting, groundbreaking, eclectic, and challenging independent movies that could be bankrolled with the budget of one of these self-indulgent, disposable, juvenile, pop-culture-saturated comedies. Each new Friedberg/Seltzer movie is like a slap in the face and a reminder that the lowest common denominator rules along with the almight dollar. So I have an open slot at number one on my annual Worst Movies list for whatever Friedberg/Seltzer slap together. I anticipated that their spoof of the popular Twilight series would be more of the same. Vampires Sucks is another ghastly, failed attempt at parody that goes off the rails early and often, but it's not as egregious as past Friedberg/Seltzer comedy abortions. It's not even the worst movie of 2010 I've seen this year, which is a complete shock. After careful deliberation, that ignoble honor remains with The Bounty Hunter. I never thought a movie could out-suck a Friedberg/Seltzer suckfest.

The plot pretty much follows the first two Twilight films closely. Becca Crane (Becca Proske) is the new girl in Sporks, Washington (laughing yet?). She's living back with her father (Diedrich Bader) and looking for a way to fit in. Then along comes Edward Sullen (Matt Lanter) and the two can't resist each other. He's a vampire, she's a moody teen girl, blah blah blah. There's also Jacob White (Chris Riggi) who turns into a little toy dog instead of a werewolf. He also chases after cats. How can you resist?

There are less throwaway pop-culture references that have a predetermined expiration date soon approaching. Sure, there's still references to pop-culture figures without any meaning of setup, context, or satire, like half-hearted momentary glances to the Jersey Shore goons, Gossip Girl, The Real Housewives of Atlanta, and an inexplicable reference to Alice in Wonderland. The heroine is seen getting shot by a stray bullet and falling down the rabbit hole. What makes that funny? Is it funny because we recognize the identity of who was shot? Would it therefore not be funny if it was an unknown victim? Wouldn't it be more amusing if the figure who got clipped was someone who people secretly, or openly, wished would get injured? Does anyone hold such animosity against Alice? But this example also showcases the comedy construction issues that plague Friedberg/Seltzer movies. I just don't know if these guys understand the fundamentals (fall down = funny) but they haven't advanced beyond the infantile stage. Take for instance a scene where Edward promises Becca that he won't ever let anything hurt her. Obviously we know what will happen next and sure enough the roof caves in on her while Edward stands and grimaces. The joke sort of works (I'm feeling charitable) as long as the onslaught of bricks keeps falling on the off camera Becca. But when Friedberg and Seltzer cut to a shot of legs kicking underneath an increasing pile of bricks and hold onto the shot for ten seconds, it kills the gag. Editing choices change the violence from cartoonish to uncomfortable, and realistic violence is rarely funny.

Friedberg and Seltzer litter their script with wandering setups in desperate search for punch lines. Take the line: "We're just like any normal family, except we never go to sleep and drink blood." The line is begging for a "like" reference to make a further connection. As is, it's a setup disguised as a weak punch line, and they're everywhere in Vampires Sucks. I kept waiting for punch lines that never came. The best example is Bella and her friend leaving a theater that is playing the final Twilight film, Breaking Dawn (unclear which half). They stroll along the theater loudly complaining about the absurd ending and then the Twilight fans waiting outside are upset that the ending has been spoiled for them. This joke stands in direct conflict with the Twilight subculture it intends to satirize. Twilight fans are obsessed about their brand and alliances (Team Edward vs. Team Jacob). And these people would not wait a nano-second to be surprised by plot. They voraciously consume all things Twilight and know every detail. The idea that obsessive Twilight fans would willingly abstain from knowing the ending of the book series is preposterous. This joke does not work at the construction level.

Perhaps the reason why Vampires Sucks feels less scattershot and cannibalistic of pop-culture is because the film spends less time lampooning Twilight and more time replicating them. Many scenes play out in the same fashion as Twilight and New Moon, so you're left scratching your head and waiting for when something deemed a "joke" in other contexts, though they don't have the same feel here. What happens is that you end up with a Twilight movie that just ends scenes with people getting subjected to slapstick violence. A rule you can set your watch to: in a Friedberg/Seltzer movie, if a character throws something off screen, it will hit another character in the head or, if recipient of broadside is male, the junk.

Since the Twilight series is so overwrought with teenager hormones and old-fashioned yearning, it practically begs to be mocked. Because it's so ripe a subject for redicule every now and then Friedberg and Seltzer stumble upon a mildly effective shot at the goofy, gooey nature of the vampire series. It's all criticisms that have been well established, including the pre-teen wish-fulfillment angle I've touched upon in all three of my personal Twilight reviews. One of the three and a half laughs I gave this movie was a faux alt-rock song by Magicwandos called "Panties" with lyrics like, "I feel so lonely/ Nobody gets me/ I feel so unhappy/ Why can't I find a cool, alternative boyfriend?" and the chorus, "We can watch Degrassi/ Shop at Hot Topic/ Sexting dirty pics of me in my panties." It's pretty one-the-nose and not very nuanced but it got me to laugh, plus it's a laugh I can credit to the band Magicwandos and not Friedberg and Seltzer. After five movies, Friedberg and Seltzer have made me laugh a total estimate of 8 times. At a combined 410 minutes, that's .87 laughs per hour.

The lead actress is far, far too good for this movie. Proske delivers a spot-on impersonation of Kristen Stewart's acting mannerisms, from playing with her hair, to lip biting, to the blink-heavy shifty eyes and mumbled monotone. Proske isn't given much assistance from Friedberg and Seltzer but she still provides one reason to watch the screen for those painful 80 minutes. It's too bad she isn't given anything funny to do or say. It's a waste of a perfectly good Kristen Stewart impersonation. You may also recognize Ken Jeong (The Hangover) and Dave Foley (Kids in the Hall) and openly wonder why good comedic actors would be duped into a Friedberg/Seltzer production. The answer can only be that of gambling debts. I'm shocked that Carmen Electra is nowhere to be seen, thus breaking her streak of appearances in 4 Friedberg/Seltzer movies.

In the realm of crappy cinema, Vampires Sucks definitely lives up to its lofty title. Yet it's not the outright creative abomination and entertainment vacuum that was Epic Movie (worst films of 2007), Meet the Spartans, and Disaster Movie. Does that qualify the film as good? Not even close. Relying less on Friedberg and Seltzer's M.O. of disposable pop-culture references posing as "jokes," Vampires Sucks manages to suck less by the sheer genius act of laziness. The film doesn't attempt as many jokes therefore offering fewer opportunities for jokes to die horrible, excruciating deaths. The ratio of comedic failure is still the same depressing level of ineptitude, but less jokes equates to less mind-numbing torture disguised as comedy. It also makes the movie more pointless and an even bigger waste of time than previous Friedberg/Seltzer efforts. It's the kind of accident that doesn't even allow for rubbernecking.

I'm finding it hard to as incensed as other Friedberg/Seltzer movies have made me. These guys bring out something virulent from me. Maybe it's my love of movies and comedy and my distaste for hacks being rewarded for repeated hackwork. Maybe I'm trying to take a final stand against the cultural shift that confuses situation-free pop-culture references as jokes. Whatever the case, the guys are at the top of my cinematic shit list. So you can trust me when I say that Vampires Sucks is easily terrible, poorly conceived, poorly filmed, and with limited aims that it still misses by a mile, but it's not the abysmal, faith-destroying experiences that the last three Friedberg/Seltzer offerings were. It is simply just bad. Really, really bad. And yet with Friedberg and Seltzer, that is an improvement. It's all about perspective, people.

Nate's Grade: D
Super Reviewer
October 1, 2010
This was terrible. The only thing I liked about this movie was the actress (Jenn Proske) who acted like Bella. She was awesome and in my opinion better than the original Bella (Kristen Stewart). There are some things in Twilight that I didn't liked. But this movie couldn't make a decent joke. Not even a tiny smile appeared on my face. It was painful to watch and to hear their lame jokes.
Super Reviewer
August 23, 2010
From the guys who couldn't sit through another vampire movie

Twilight sucks, therefore Vampire Sucks doesnt!

OK despite it being stupid, this movie has it, it was able to build up a story out of a spoof, and personally dis the saga i have hated for years now (twilight).

A Parody not only of vampire movies but an entire new generation with a actual story, Vampires Suck has the capacity to make the awful twilight saga become something we can all laugh at, and it actually has a better story line than twilight itself.

The acting in the movie is amazing, i am going totally against all critics when i say this. All the actors are able to impersonate their other characters role, Proske for example plays a better Bella than Kristen Stewart Bella, and therefore make a better Kristen. S then Kristen herself

Overall Vampires suck is the parody we have been waiting for long, a parody with an actual total dis towards one movie bringing other characters around it, not like the past fail attempts; where the parody is on the people and not the movie they are in. So Im not sure if Ive made myself clear, but, Vampires Suck, sucks so much, that its good! Its stupid, Its Ridiculous, Its dumb, Its Funny!

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: I was trying to help you, bitch!
Super Reviewer
½ September 6, 2010
Atrocious! However, It's so God Awful that it actually comes off as mildly enjoyable. It is one of the only spoof films that actually follows the true back story of the series. Although it gives away the ending and can be fixed in no way, I say you watch it just to laugh at how bad i is. If it is trying to be seriously funny then allof these people should be fired. But, taking the God Awfulness out of the film makes it one of the worst films that I have ever seen. Unquestionably one of the worst films of the year and I enjoyed watching for fun!
Super Reviewer
½ August 22, 2010
schticking corny twilight movies means double the corn ... groan... even tho the acting here is curiously better than the series ... ?
Super Reviewer
July 8, 2010
Average spoof. Some funny parts but others not so funny. At least watch this movie one time.
Page 1 of 292