SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

barnthebarn Odd fourth entry in the Subspecies series of films. This time there is little mention of Radu, instead focusing on a new character Zachery. Zachery wants to seek revenge on the vampire that killed his beloved Rebecca. Thus he befriends a concert musician, Sofia and uses her to find Ash, performing as much graphic vampire violence as he can on his crusade. In itself this is a superbly well acted and filmed addition to the series, though the lack of Radu is noted and at times problematic for the tension. A grand fable though and David Gunn and Kirsten Cerre, as Zachery and Sofia make a grand 'couple'. Incidentally Cerre attended acting school with Gunn and admits that everyone found him very scary as he is so serious and intense - though actually he is a lovely guy apparently. Jonathan Morris plays Ash again to maximum effect and one can only wish that all three leads were in either every film made or at least hundreds more vampire legacies. Grand.

Paul Andrews Vampire Journals is set in some unnamed Eastern European country where a Vampire named Zachary (David Gunn) decides to take in some culture & spend a night at a classical concert, there he notices master Vampire Ash (Jonathon Morris) who seems to be taking an unhealthy shine to pianist Sofia Christopher (Kristen Cerre). The next day & Sofia is contacted by a woman named Iris (Starr Andreef) who works for Ash & owns a nightclub called 'Club Muse' & says that Ash wants her to play for him in a private concert which Sofia agrees to. Ash wants to turn Sofia into his Vampire bride while bitter Vampire hunter Zachary wants to kill him & all of his kind...This American Romanian co-production was written & directed by Ted Nicolaou was produced by Charles Band & his Full Moon companies responsible for all manner of low budgeted horror film crap over the years. The script takes itself very seriously & there's lots of brooding silly sounding dialogue that I presume is meant to be Gothic & compliment the look of the film. It's also quite noticeable how much Vampire Journals reminded me of Interview with the Vampire (1994) in terms of the way it looks & feels. The character's are poor clichés, the main villainous Vampire who falls in love with a beautiful woman, the Vampire who hates his kind & has set out to destroy them all along with the human followers who do the Vampires bidding during the daytime. It's all rather predictable, it's all rather slow & pedestrian & there's too much silly talk in it. The story itself is threadbare to say the least, it's mostly just people walking around & talking about things which don't matter a whole lot. If your a die hard Vampire flick fan then you'll probably lap this up as, well it's got Vampires in it but anyone looking for an effective horror flick will surely be disappointed at the dull bland nature of this film & a lack of a decent engaging story.I'll give Vampire Journals credit where it deserves it because it looks fabulous, the lighting, the Gothic sets, costumes & production design are very impressive & atmospheric. The only problem is the entire film is set in the same building so there's not much variety. The opening credit's play over very atmospheric & evocative shots of a snow covered graveyard with large stone statues, crypt's & headstones & the film continues with a nice rich, Gothic look running throughout it. There's not much gore here, there are some bitten necks, some splashed around blood & a couple of good looking decapitations. There's some female nudity as well if that sort of thing interests you.Technically the film looks very nice with good visuals & it's well shot. Filmed on location in Bucharest in Romania to keep the cost down even further & as such there are also lots of unpronounceable names both in front & behind the camera. Those living outside the UK probably won't know him but for those living here yes that is the same Jonathon Morris who appeared in the comedy series Bread (1986 - 1991) as Adrian Boswell & he is terrible in this. He will forever be remembered in the UK as 'that guy who was in Bread' & for little else. The rest of the cast are alright but nothing outstanding.Vampire Journals is much better than the usual Full Moon horror flick & looks surprisingly good but the story isn't great & there's not a lot going on. Better than expected but still nothing more than average when all said & done.

pippa-7 I gave this a 2 simply because I enjoyed looking at the sets in the movie, and that was pretty much it. There was about one joke in the film that made me laugh, and everything else I found funny because it was so ridiculous.This is a cheap rip off of "Interview with the Vampire" as in: thriving in eternity, basking in immortality control freak and mean vamp teases the woe-is-me, I will never be human again pathetic vamp. The crucial differences here are that "Interview with the Vampire" is a very respectable film whilst "Journals" looks like something a bunch of high schoolers binded together for a school play.Zachary (Gunn) is a self-pitying guiltaholic who is travelling the world on a quest of revenge. Killing humans depresses him but killing other vampires doesn't phase him, mind you, as he is self loathing and feels no loyalty to his kind anymore. In the beginning, you see another vampire named Ash (Morris) that looks like a drugged, washed up rock star old man, kill Zachary's female companion, setting Zachary off on his journey to find Ash and claim his vengeance by killing him and all of his offspring.Predictability ensues. Zachary finds Ash, but a woman gets in the way, the woman both of the vampires want, a repetition of their last dilemma except this time Zachary is determined not to lose.You can't take this movie seriously at all, but it's almost one of those "so bad it's almost good" movies that you can only bear to watch once. The acting is very cliché, the dialogue is corny, the plot isn't that interesting, and the characters you like are the schemers that have it in for the ones who are supposed to be the heroes of the movie. If you're a patient person I suggest watching it if you're intoxicated and you have absolutely nothing else to watch and it's a dire emergency.But like I said, the sets are cool.

res0r506 I have seen a lot of vampire flicks in my day. This was on the edge of being a good story. I love the Victorian flair of the inside of the mansion, the four poster beds, etc. That's apparently where the budget ended.The master vampire, Ash is the only real actor in the film. His lines are delivered believably. The only time our hero, Zachary actually acts is when Sofia catches him drinking blood from the psychofant and screams her name and throws himself at the door. The one thing that really brought the film down a notch was the deadpan monologue from Zachary. It was clumsily read, with no feeling, no passion. Granted, Zach was a depressed vampire.. but you can be passionately depressed.I think it would have been better to have had a third party read the monologue. Perhaps someone found the 'Vampire Journal' and was reading it... with a bit more pizzaz than it's writer.Watch the film, rescue the elements that are good and marvel at them. There is some good camera work, their corpses reconstituting themselves every evening was a nice touch, knowing the master was a once a vampire hunter... nice.