The Forsaken (2001) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

I learned a lot from this movie. For example, I learned that vampires always attack guys named Hoot or Mose. I learned that you need to forget about those stakes and crosses and garlic. There are really only three ways to combat vampires:
1. Hunky, squeaky-voiced WB guys in tight genes.

2. Female vampires? Undress 'em, feel 'em up and throw them in cold water. Interestingly, you have to leave their panties on.

3. Drugs, and plenty of 'em. 


Izabella Miko bares her breasts in two lengthy scenes

Julia Schultz flashes from a convertible

Phina Oruche flashes one breast very quickly in about one frame

one unknown woman is seen topless in bed with Jonathan Schaech

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1, also a full screen version

  • Full-length director commentary

  • two making-of featurettes

  • deleted scenes

You see, vampirism is a virus like any other, and it can be treated (but not cured) with anti-vampirism medicine, and contemporary Top 40 tunes. So if you are challenged by any creatures of the night, don't call on Von Helsing. You actually need reruns of ER, and Casey Kasem. 

The hero here isn't trained in medicine, but he knows his music and is a gifted medical amateur. He carries around some plasma bags and IV's and hypodermic syringes, and he's ready to rock and roll. Oh, and guns. He carries those, too. Not sure why, because they seem to have minimal value in counter-vampire warfare.

Boring, mindless movie, with no apparent point except to show the grisly, mean-spirited murders. As far as I can determine, it adds nothing to the vampire film legacy, and you should have forgotten it about a week after you read this. Maybe sooner.

The Critics Vote

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.9/10, Apollo users 51/100 
  • With their dollars ... budget $5 million, gross $7 million
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. I guess genre addicts will find the production values adequate to justify a watch, although I can't imagine why.

Return to the Movie House home page