Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Before I start bashing this movie, let me start with the actual Blu-ray 20th anniversary edition quality. It's terrible! It's not even 1080p, The picture quality is comparable to a DVD. The so-called special features aren't exactly all that special. Having six movie trailors do not count as special, certainly not in my book. And what's with that video Zone first subspecies. Not exactly special either. You would think that full moon would at least go the extra mile when it comes to special features especially if they're going to release it as a 20th anniversary Blu-ray. And that includes a better digital transfer. Now that I got that out of the way, let's get to this cheesy movie. And that's what it is a Cheesy low-budget movie with so-called special effects if that's what you want to call it. The evil vampire is obviously a cheap knockoff of the old silent movie Nosferatu. The movie, The acting, the story and the effects had me rolling my eyes so far back in my head I ended up with a headache. And I've seen plenty of low budget movies, like Flash Gordon and even Plan 9 from Outer Space. But at least those movies were so bad they were good. Subspecies went right past good and went right back to bad. How this movie got an 80% from Rotten Tomatoes is beyond me. But, then again, people have been known to rush to theaters to see other crap like Batman versus Superman, and don't even get me started on that!
Can't figure out why anyone likes this - horrible animation (what passed for special effects then), poor acting, etc
For a Full Moon movie, it isn't too bad. It certainly doesn't reach the production values of Puppet Master, but those were completely different circumstances. And it's certainly better than some of the other crap (Seedpeople) Full Moon was releasing in the early 90s. It's a bit slow and not really the most unique vampire movie out there, but it's still pretty good. I didn't find anything too memorable except the villain Ragu. He looked pretty good, even if the cheap fingers were falling off at times. (I like calling him Ragu because then he reminds me of spaghetti)
Subspecies holds a great setting, but has a slow moving, boring plot that is missing some key pieces to make it whole.
Pretty atmospheric and scary film from Charles Band and company.
One of the best vampire movies ever made. The original good vampire vs bad vampire story in my book.
Yes it is indeed watchable! But not much of a vampire movie. Campy Culty nonsense. A Friends circle movie.
A great gothic vampire story filled with gore and lots of fun nerd pleasing special effects! Tons of fun for that late night horror itch!
A vampire film from producer Charles Band's Full Moon pictures. Band started out in the declining days of grindhouse and drive-in movies and soon realized there was money to made in the direct-to-video market. Especially if you made low-budget genre films. The good points of this film is that this film was one of the first movies made in post-Communist Romania and director Ted Nikolaou takes full advantage of this (actually filming a vampire movie set in Transylvania in Transylvania). We follow three attractive female university students as they drive off into the Romanian countryside to study local folklore and blunder into a family struggle between two disparate vampire half-brothers and a bizarre family struggle that goes back centuries. Angus Scrimm ("The Tall Man" in the Phantasm movies) gets star-billing here but his appearance is pretty short. Anders Hove plays Radu, the principle heavy and his creepy makeup job looks intense. The problem is that he spends 3/4 of the film looking menacing but doing very little that is actually menacing. And when he does do anything menacing, he relies too heavily on his creepy demonic homunculi that look incredibly fake. Then there is Stefan, played by Michael Watson, who is the brooding good-guy Byronic vampire. Back in 1991, this probably was a fresh idea but we've had years of romantic brooding good guy vampires and his romance with Laura Mae Tate is pretty weak. This series got better (and weirder) as the 1990s progressed so I give this film three stars because of its potential and the novelty of being the first western film made in Romania after the Cold War. The slow plodding nature of the script and wooden acting (apart from Hove and Scrimm) and the really bad homunculi FX means that this is actually a two star movie.
80%? In what way did this movie deserve an 80? That's even higher than FORREST GUMP!!! Anyways, to the review!
The acting was bad, save for Anders Hove as Radu. He gives an equally creepy and cool vibe the whole movie. A truly menacing villain. That being said, thestory was pretty predicatable and largely clichèd. There is the clichè old woman telling the story and warning the protagonists to leave or die. But, overall the movie is a reasonably entertaining horror film. Special effects (for the time) and acting by Anders Hove were top notch but the movie is hampered by bad storytelling, a non-stop barrage of clichès and, for the most part, bad acting. Overall, meh.