Spidersecu
Don't Believe the Hype
Matylda Swan
It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.
Ginger
Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.
Leofwine_draca
VAMPIRE NATION is a very poor vampire action B-movie shot in Bulgaria with an unknown cast. The plot and style are borrowed from bits and pieces of BLADE, the UNDERWORLD franchise, plus any other Hollywood vampire flick to come out in the last fifteen or so years. The story is set in the near future, where humans and vampires co-exist peacefully in society, until that peace is shattered by violent events. It's entirely predictable and lacking in atmosphere and originality, with no action or even a decent performance. At least director Todor Chapkanov went on to greatness by directing BOYKA: UNDISPUTED IV in 2016.
grantss
Not great, but better than expected.This movie had the makings of a B-grade (at best) vampire movie: Syfy channel, no-name actors. Plot seemed reasonable though, so I gave it a go.Plot turned out to be reasonably basic, and just a platform for action scenes. Action scenes were okay though. Performances were so-so, but not terrible.Ultimately, not that good, but not terrible. Had its moments, moved along briskly, and was reasonably short. Still had the feel of a made- for-TV B-grade movie though.
SlinkyVamp
Maybe I went into watching this movie for entirely the wrong reasons. Primarily those were that a) I like a good vampire flick, heck... sometimes I even like a very bad vampire flick ( but not this one ) and b) I like Andrew Lee Potts. I had a bit of a soft spot for him after totally falling for Hatter in Alice that I then followed him to Primeval where that cheeky little chipmunk face just made me want to hug a pillow. So during a late night bed-avoidance TV channel surf I came across this little nugget of mucus on the SyFy channel... which incidentally should stop changing it's title cos we all know that a rose by any other name will still smell of horse manure at it's base. There are some moderate performances, but no real character depth to speak of. The best of the bunch, in my opinion, was probably Neil Jackson who came across best when he was being a bit angsty, but as for Andrew...dear sweet Andrew... no. Just.. no. Awful. He slide in and out of his accent so often I'd swear he was lubricated. The Assorted Girls With Long Hair ran around and looked pretty and there was so much clichéd sci-fi posturing I wish I'd turned it into a drinking game.So in summary, it was never ever going to win an Oscar. The script was underwhelming, the effects look like they were funded with someone's lunch money, acting didn't overwhelmingly stink .. but you wouldn't want to sit next to it on the bus either. I gave it a 3 because sucky as this may be it's still a vampire movie, and Andrew is still gerbilishously adorable. That said, when my daughter vomited all over her bed just after the ending credits due to a particularly nasty gastric flu I can't say I wasn't relieved to have something less dire than this film to focus on as I climbed into bed.
Paul Babbel
The entire film is not worth watching. Unless your a director doing research on what not to do. Like a vampire being made in 5 seconds. Also a new vampire making a human into another vampire before they have even fed for the first time. The actors needed to get a clue. Vampires do not fidget. There is no such thing as a vampire with ADHD. It makes them look too human. None of the actors did well. They should get an F for effort and research on their characters.The plot was pathetic and predictable. The graphics were boring but thats to be expected, why try when everything else is so sub par? This is one of the worst movies ever made in a vampire genre. Was it fun to watch? Hell no.
