Gimmickthegnome

You can't blame a movie's quality if there is a lack of budget. In a perfect representation of "you get what you pay for", a low budget movie will appear so.

First, the good. When you get capable actors Heather Morris, veterans Judd Nelson and John Rhys-Davies, and talented newcomer Damian McGinty, you would think there could do something worth watching, but they can only do so much with what they were given. Other than that, this movie feels like it had its heart in the right place, but there isn't much more to celebrate.

So now, the bad. Again, the production quality is hard to ignore as it becomes evident in almost every scene. That said it's hard to get pulled into the story when fast motion makes the video strobe (watch Mrs. Ortega walk in front of the tapestry), when characters look yellow when they're indoors (no white balance?), or when McGinty's great voice sounds like he's singing in a bucket.

I could even look past these production issues if the story/humour/narrative is pleasant. But strange errors, stranger decisions, and an awkward story make that an impossibility as well. I could look past the punny title of this movie. (It's in Santa Fe, get it?) I could look past 'toaster effects' to show the characters travelling cross country. I could even look past the climactic finale's "proposition" that is, well, odd. But when the FBI agent says a briefcase needs to be fingerprinted, then IMMEDIATELY hands it to his partner who is not wearing gloves, I couldn't help but yell: DID NO ONE SEE THIS?!

So, while this was a valiant effort, this movie unfortunately falters in almost all aspects. 2 out of 10.

This is not a great movie, but it's certainly not bad. Here's some of the good that may have been overlooked...

You immediately get the notion that there is a lot of information to relay to an audience that may not be familiar with the books (myself included), and the movie does a fine job of presenting said information in easily-digested pieces that even a guy like me can accept.

The 2 teenage girl protagonist characters are refreshing examples of teenage girls with enough depth that you actually care about them. (I can thankfully report that they are far more role model worthy than "Twilight's" Bella character.) Rose, the rebellious fighter-type, kicks ass, has a quick wit, and bends the rules without being too unrealistic. By contrast, Lissa is the (literal) princess-type who is a reluctant heir, well-mannered, and amazingly vulnerable despite being powerful in her own way. These two characters create a fine base to build the movie around.

The story itself unexpectedly turns into a mystery that, ultimately, is satisfying when all is said and done.

The cast, on the whole, does an 'okay' job, but it's lack of strong, well-known, well-established actors may have hurt this movie's quality overall. The shining star in this movie is clearly Zoey Deutch who does a amazing job at believably and perfectly portraying a girl who can kick butt, crack wise, be an honorable protector, and still be a fallible teenage girl at the end of the day. I look forward to seeing more of her.

This movie is far from perfect, but by the end of it, I didn't feel like punching someone in the face for it. (Which, I must be honest, is typical for this movie genre) I have seen thousands of movies and I know BAD movies. This is not one of them.

In the end, "Vampire Academy", while only being above average, at least presents a unique vision into an over-saturated, over-visited intersection of teen fiction and fantasy. 6 out of 10.

So a friend told me how the book was very different from the movie, and made me read the book... and boy was he right. But more about that later...

I recall seeing one of the producers say in an interview that due to all the superhero movies out, they intentionally went for a more "realistic" approach. I kept this in mind as I watched this movie. That said, I can only say that it's good, not great.

James McAvoy, who I've been a fan of since "Rory O'Shea Was Here", does an acceptable job as the movie's main character. However, I couldn't help but notice his accent seem to be just a little off here and there, which was a little distracting for me. Morgan Freeman and Angelina put in some reliable, albeit unremarkable, roles. And Common, a guy who has more on screen gravitas than most actors, is sadly underused.

The action scenes, which are vital for a film like this are very good. There are plenty of "okay, that was pretty cool" moments for adrenaline junkies out there. (Fyi: McAvoy actually did the "on the car hood" stunt with no CG. Nice job.) The story is good, but considering the original story, it would have been really hard to make a horrible movie. The special effects do a good job of making you believe in the unbelievable and some interesting camera-work and slow-mo also do well to enhance the experience.

All in all, above average, but not outstanding. 6 out of 10 BONUS COMMENTARY: The real tragedy about this movie is what it COULD have been. The original comic book wasn't about him being an assassin, you see, it was about him training to be a supervillian! That's right, in a superhero world, he's the Green Goblin, or Lex Luthor, or even the Joker! Now imagine what that movie would have been like! Additionally, they had to train him to be a cold-hearted, homicidal, remorseless bad guy. The book, which is definitely not for kids, is chock full with so much f-you, in-your-face, unapologetic violence this version of the movie would have been looking at an R rating for sure. Anyway, if you get a chance, track down the book and have a read. You can thank me later.