Charming and brutal

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I came upon "Sundown" in my search to see a bunch of Dracula movies since reading Bram Stoker's novel, but this one doesn't have anything to do with the book except for a couple character names, and a love triangle involving a vampire has some thematic similarity to Stoker's subtext of infidelity. For seemingly no real dramatic reason, the revelation of those names, Dracula and Van Helsing, is delayed. Bruce Campbell, of "The Evil Dead" franchise fame, plays the great grandson of Stoker's Dutch doctor, whereas David Carradine, son of John Carradine, who played Dracula in at least four films, plays a Dracula who changes his name to the near-anagram of "Mardulak" because, as he claims, his name became too famous. At least, they didn't use the semordnilap of "Alucard" again, which was used, among elsewhere, in "Son of Dracula" (1943) and "Dracula A.D. 1972," the latter of which one of the human daughters in "Sundown" has a poster of in her room.Departing entirely from Stoker, Mardulak owns a town full of vampires, where they drink synthetic blood and try to avoid killing humans, because the Count wants God to forgive him and his fellow creatures. Another fraction of the town's vamps disagree. Led by a bloodsucker named, appropriately enough, "Jefferson," they start a revolution, which ends up as a western-film-styled shoot-'em-up, but with wooden bullets. In the fashion of Hammer's Dracula series, there's a bunch of other vampiric lore employed, including a makeshift cross. The vampires also venture out in the daylight thanks to some powerful sunscreen lotion and sources of shade, such as hats and umbrellas. Again, none of this was in Stoker's book. His Dracula could be exposed to sunlight; it merely diminished his powers.But, never mind, it's not necessarily a problem that the film doesn't respect the source. That is, if does anything intelligent in its alteration, or at least something fun. My favorite Dracula-related comedies, including "Blood for Dracula" (1974) and "Love at First Bite" (1979), do both, to some extent. "Sundown," on the other hand, is just goofy. Rather than Stoker or any other novel idea, it clearly takes its inspiration from playing around with other movies--bad vampire movies (if the poster of "Dracula A.D. 1972" is any indication) and westerns--and mixes them up. Fortunately, the result is light and seems as though it doesn't take itself seriously. The fake bats are especially absurd. It's fun.(Mirror Note: The human mother character doesn't see a vampire behind her through the mirror due to his lack of a reflection. Van Helsing also uses sources of reflections twice to confirm vampirism.)

This a movie about Dracula in modern times. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It has great special effects. And it is very scary. 6.3 is underrating it. If it does not scary you no movie. This a classic horror film. Dracula (March 1931) is better. So is Dracula (1992). Nosferatu (1922) is also better. But still this a great film. It is a lot better then Nosferatu (1979). That movie is just overrated crap. I give it 7 out of 10 because it is an awesome horror film. This movie is a must see. Dracula (1958) is better. Dracula's daughter (1936) is also better. Son of Dracula is also better. This is a lot better then A Nosferatu in Venice. That movie is overrated crap. See this movie is a is a great Dracula film.

This is one of the movies that totally didn't move me. Actually, it didn't have a single aspect in it that interested me. I was hoping for an atmospheric vampire movie, and got a comedy movie that simply isn't funny. Not even Campbell was able to help in that aspect. This guy was amazingly funny in the evil dead 2, but here, he felt totally misplaced. I guess, there is no way that he could actually play clumsy and sappy at all. Even though I like the actor, for this movie he was pretty much the worst cast possible. All other actors did OK. But that just didn't help with an awful script like this one. I can't believe that the original has been a book. The whole movie felt completely like a trash movie. Sense was almost lacking completely.For me, either a movie has to move, that means, transport emotions. Or it has to teach something, that means, transport informations. This movie didn't do either. It didn't even make me smile a single time.

Not to be confused with the Henry Hathaway war drama from 1941 that was nominated for three Oscars, Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat is a light-hearted comedy that combines the horror iconography of the vampire with the desert landscapes and open vistas of the western without straying too far in either territory. The plot involves a colony of vampires trying to go straight by using UV lotion and artificial blood and a rival faction that tries to bring vampires back to their predatory roots.The opening scene that sees three bearded old men that would make passable ZZ Top clones sit in a bench outside a seedy gas station in the middle of the desert and involves a decapitation is terrific. The longer it lasts however the more it fizzles out and the end is a bit of a misnomer. There are stop motion animated bats, a western-style shootout near the end and vampires burning and exploding but it's never really violent - certainly nowhere near what FROM DUSK TILL DAWN offers or even Carpenter's VAMPIRES to name two similarly themed movies.The best part of Sundown is Bruce Campbell in the role of the geeky professor and great great great grandson of Van Helsing. David Carradine is obviously here for the paycheck and the rest of the acting is just okay. Not a terrific film but still a fairly enjoyable campy comedy with some action thrown in for good measure.