Genres

Visitors Review

Scott Weinberg 2013-05-22 03:49:01

A sometimes entertaining mess. (The TV series is, shockingly, a whole lot better.)

2013-05-21 17:39:47

At least it got a second chance in a tv series

This movie isn't the greatest. So many things were wrong.1. The birth mark (It was big and nasty)2. Flying Vamps (Stupid)3. Vamps don't dust (There would be to many bodies)4. Vamps didnt change their face (Human faces w/ weird eyes & big teeth)5. Slayer Cramps (Stupid to have cramps as a reminder about vamps near by)Just a few examples. I know this was back in '92 but it still could have been better.The T.V series however is the best! The movie is not important to the show so dont even give it a chance.

jessieswift 2013-05-21 11:10:59

Breezy, cheesy fun, just don't expect a moody Sarah Michelle Gellar

It's difficult to understand how this movie, seemingly designed to beas trashily disposable as possible, spawned one of the most successfuland influential TV shows of recent years. Naturally, writer Joss Whedonhad to totally change his original creation to create the much largercast of characters and ever more labyrinthine mythology of his muchdarker TV series and there is little similarity between that and thismoderately entertaining early 90s cheesefest, more a cross betweenClueless and the Lost Boys. Kristy Swanson is amiable as popularairheaded cheerleader Buffy, obsessed with some disastrous Saved By theBell fashions, light years away from Sarah Michelle Gellar's troubledteenager with "issues". Donald Sutherland, as her watcher, exhibits asimilar wry, detached sense of humour as Anthony Head but is often sodetached he appears to be acting in a completely different movie andinitially appears to just be pervy old man creepy ("You must come withme to the graveyard"). There are no real signs of even early versionsof Buffy's quirkier sidekicks Willow and Xander (although apparentlySeth Green was in the movie but was cut from it), instead her friendshere are interchangeable airheads, check out double Oscar winner HilarySwank in an early role in excessive make-up and permed hair. Thevillain is a camp and easily defeated Rutger Hauer who offers no realthreat but flounces around in a ruff or, occasionally, a dressing gownand appears, at one point, to decide to have a snack on a monkey for noparticular reason, while the love interest goes to perpetual teenagerLuke Perry's rather pointless "bad boy" (although when he does any "badboy" stuff in this film is hard to see, he doesn't even dress thatscruffily). While Whedon developed on some ideas, some simply fell bythe wayside, there's a notable lack in the TV show of Buffy's abilityto sense vampires through supernatural cramps ("My secret weapon isPMS"). While undoubtedly the lack of interesting, developed supportingcharacters, in many ways what made the TV show watchable, is definitelya flaw with Buffy the movie, its very disposable silliness is in factmuch of the attraction here. While aspects of the TV show becameimpenetrable to casual viewers like me, demanding constant attentionacross hours of series, this movie is fast paced almost to a fault andis light hearted fun enough to sustain you through it, evenoccasionally giving some of the witty dialogue the TV series was famousfor. Certainly worth watching if you've got time to spare, just don'texpect a masterpiece, or the TV series.

2013-05-21 05:54:45

It's a blu-ray of Buffy.

This review is from: Buffy the Vampire Slayer [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) Some special features, but not much else other than the film. It plays & that's really all one can ask for w/ a Blu Ray.

2013-05-19 01:47:37

The beginning of Buffy!!

I grew up loving this movie. I still do. Its funny and witty, like the show, has a fair amount of drama for a comedy, and is just basically a good movie.The tv series reinvigorated my interest in it 2 years ago, and I think it stands up fine against the series. They're two seperate entities, and i think it is impossible to compare them. For any fan of the series ( its the BEST show in tv!!), I would recommend seeing it, just to see how the basic plot has evolved. But if you want to know about Buffy's tv continuity genesis, READ THE 3-PART SERIES ENTITLED BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER: THE ORIGIN, from Dark Horse Comics. And for everyone who hates this modern classic, just be thankful it was made, because without it we would never have the series. And Kristy Swanson was a great Buffy (not to mention good looking!) All in all, this was a memorable movie, which should be treasured by all=:~) Also recomended:The movie soundtrack, all the Buffy books and comics, and basically anything Buffy!!!

MrGrundle 2013-05-18 13:39:36

Different films earn stars in Different ways....

Buffy the vampire slayer is not a terrific film. It is not the type ofcinema that leaves you breathless and reeling, nor is it the type ofcinema that idles at first creeps through your dreams with pervasiveintensity. No, this is Time Capsule Cinema, a voyage to the neonpanoply of early 90's California in the self described "Lite Age."Kristy Swanson is lovely as the wise cracking eponymous star, nicelyalternating between clinical sarcasm and tenderness in what is,essentially, a limited role. Donald Sutherland and Rutger Howard arehilarious as ancient figures who just happen to be hip to the slangynature of late 20th century teen dialog. Luke Perry, David Arquette andHillary Swank (far from her best role, but my favorite film of hers!)and a few others are fine as the assemblage of irreverent teenagers,eye rolling to the max! A highlight of the film is Stephen Root,playing the principal, regaling Buffy with a cautionary tale of hisexperiences with LSD in the 60's..."I was at a Doobie Brothersconcert..."Oh, and by the way, that's PEE WEE FREAKIN HERMAN as the fanged creepLefty. Boy he got outta jail just soon enough. Paul Ruebens isphenomenal, of course, and it may be his presence that allows me toshamelessly enjoy the rest of the film through my rose colored glassesof guilty nostalgia!Too many serious films reek of Los Angeles- you can almost taste thesoy burgers and smog- when they take place elsewhere. This makes itdifficult to differentiate the cast of actors from the characters theyare paid to represent. This film revels in LA's lack of charm andsophistication. I half expected an In-N-Out Burger commercial to pop uphalf way through. Not enough comedies are as unselfconscious as thisone, content to poke fun at themselves till the vampires come home!7*/10 CAMPY FUN

2013-05-16 13:14:12

Too much camp, very poor action sequences..

Finally got around to watching this movie which was the precursor to one of my favorite tv shows, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Now, dialogue wise, I thought it had the same kinda of witty remakrs that's present in the Buffy tv series, however, it wasn't as refined. The action scenes were very slow and poorly coordinated. You didn't really feel like she could slay a fly. It didn't help either that special effects were non-existent. Even the old Christopher Lee Dracula movies had vampires turning into dust. What happened to the vampires in this movie? Nothing. They just plonked down and died after being staked. The master vampire and his flunkie aren't much for villains either. They're a little too unfunny to even be entertaining. David Arquette was more entertaining as a vampire and wished I saw more of him in the movie. Kristy Swanson did pretty good as Buffy though she looked too soft to be a Vampire Slayer. I'd say if you were expecting something like th tv series, you might as well skip this movie. But if you're bored with nothing to do, you might as well see what started the cult hit tv series.

Obi-Laz 2013-05-15 19:23:12

Way better than I thought!

I'd never seen this movie, but being a fan of the TV series I had heard alot of rumors about it being terribly bad.Well, now I've just seen it and can confirm that it is, but not as bad as Iimagined!Acting, for example, is terrible, the only acting I save is DonaldSutherland's, but certainly not "Buffy"'s, thank God they didn't use thisactress in the TV series.Special effects are horrible too. Vampires don't disappear when they're hitto death, that was probably too expensive for the budget.Still, in the plot, one can see the lines and ideas, by writer Joss Whedon,that later brought fame to the TV series, so I'd recommend it to all thefans who haven't seen it yet.For all the other people, please do not watch this at all, watch the TVseries instead.

2013-05-14 20:28:58

Not as good as the show but

This review is from: Buffy the Vampire Slayer [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) The movie is nowhere as great as the tv series. Sarah M Gellar did portray a better Buffy. The acting in this movie sucked...but Luke Perry was hot in his prime(early 90s) One of the only reasons I purchased this movie...I've seen better quality blu ray films then this.

2013-05-14 12:25:16

Great fun for the whole family

This review is from: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (DVD) This movie is great...a classic. What better metaphor for teenage angst than Buffy?

Noel Bailey 2013-05-14 09:23:01

Only visible through a narrow window of opportunity!

I can well understand people thinking this film to be utter rubbish - I didthe week I saw it in '92. My children (12, 10, 9 and 6 at the time) loved it- "You just can't SEE it dad" said Kate, my eldest daughter (10). She wasright!It has grown on me in the multiple home viewings since. Of course it isstill rubbish - it was MEANT to be rubbish. It has a rather lovable feel toit though and hell, I don't know, maybe suffering a middle age crisismyself, Kristy Swanson as Buffy was just so quietly sexy and desirable,something that to me Sarah Michelle Gellar could never put over in alifetime of make-overs!Unaccountably watchable, you have to remember that this is a comedy, it wasnever intended as even a half-serious vampire spoof. Great to see RutgerHauer in his worst role ever, somehow it suits the film. Luke Perry? wellhe always was the screen's greatest wimp!

geostrom b 2013-05-13 23:24:51

good movie but the tv show that follwed it sucked

this movie should have been the pilot for the buffy tv show instead of sarah michelle gillar doing the role of buffy it should have ben krisy swanson who protrayed her in the movie but oh well i guess that is the way it goes sometimes this movie was cool i liked when i first saw it and like it to this day.

Chris Hicks 2013-05-07 05:49:43

...most of the way it feels like a padded TV skit.

veraguth 2013-05-06 19:54:47

This movie has a bad rap!!

This movie is always getting a bad rap, even by the guy, Joss Whedon, whowrote it. I loved this movie. It was funny and the fight scenes werereally cool.I find myself often at the opposition of others when it comes to movies.Forexample I loved "Bonfire of the Vanities" and hated the remake of "CapeFear." I loved the "Cable Guy" and hated "There's Something About Mary."Now some would say that I have bad taste when it comes to movies, but Isayinstead that I am not a sheep and don't respond to fartjokes.So I beg you. Please don't listen to other people. Rent "Buffy TheVampireSlayer" and if you've got a heart and a ironic sense of humor you won't bedisappointed.

2013-05-02 19:46:50

Original

I really enjoyed this movie, and when I heard there was a series coming out, I knew I would love that, as much as I had enjoyed the film. It is very funny, and I have watched it many times, and plan on watching it many more!

2013-05-02 07:20:59

Well, at least it paved the way for the TV series

Joss Whedon was so upset with the way things were going on the set of the movie, for which he wrote the screenplay but over which he exercised no artistic control, that he walked off the set. Indeed, this is a very hard movie to watch today after the TV series. I did, in fact, moderately enjoy the movie when it first came out. I actually appreciated and enjoyed the absurd tension contained in the title, an airhead bimbo cheerleader called upon to be her generation's vampire slayer. But viewed today, the movie isn't terribly successful, and is in fact made much worse by the genius of the television series. It isn't just a question of Sarah Michelle Gellar being more appealing in the title role than Kristy Swanson (though SMG's much smaller stature increases the paradox of a tiny girl beating up large, supernaturally strong vampires) or the movie missing all the familiar characters of the show; the movie is almost completely devoid of its own style, look, and feel. Although the TV series started off on a tiny budget, it instantly had a compelling look and visual style that the movie completely lacks. Furthermore, on TV they managed a coolness and hipness that the movie never comes close to. Unfortunately, the series has pretty much reduced the movie to a curio.Many talk of the movie falling short of Joss Whedon's vision in writing the original script. Actually, overall the plot isn't too terribly different. Buffy doesn't burn down the gym at the end in the movie as Whedon wrote, but while there are many stylistic differences, many of the main plot elements were retained. I find the main difference between the movie and the series to be in the "how" they tell the story rather than the "what" in the story. Cleverness and intelligence permeates the TV show; the movie is nearly entirely devoid of those qualities. Take the death of vampires. In the movie, they get staked and simply fall down. In the TV series, they explode, which is not merely a spectacular special effect used to great purpose, but, as Joss Whedon mentions on the DVD commentary, leaves less clean up as there are not bodies. Also, in the movie, there isn't anywhere near the emotional depth that one finds in the series.Another part of the problem with the movie is the casting. Kristy Swanson isn't bad except when compared to Gellar, but Donald Sutherland is just dreadful. He plays his part as if he were a cartoon character, with a degree of camp that subtracts considerably from his humanity. In fact, the performances are almost uniformly awful. Not just Sutherland, but Rutger Hauer (someone I have loved in many other movies, especially in his Dutch films) and Paul Reubens create one almost unwatchable scene after another. David Arquette is at his worst here as well. In fact, the vampires are both poorly conceived and horribly executed, in contrast to the TV series. Many have noted the number of performers in supporting roles who later became well known, such as Ben Affleck, Natasha Gregson Wagner, and Hillary Swank (not to mention Stephen Root, who memorably played Milton the stapler guy in OFFICE SPACE)On top of all this, the thing that set the TV show apart from most other forms of popular entertainment was the degree to which it allowed for deep interaction among the various character, something made virtually impossible by the short format of a film (and something that in the long run should prove to be television's innate superiority over film, if it can ever overcome the resistance of television network execs to produce art rather than vehicles for selling airtime for commercials--my fear is that BUFFY could be an exception rather than a harbinger of things to come).In short, while not an awful movie, the movie version of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER is not the masterpiece the television series is.

2013-04-30 03:49:07

better than people judge it

Its not that bad its quiete good actually but the tv series was better but love the totally americian attitude.

2013-04-29 18:21:41

awesome movie

this movie is so much better than the tv show based on it. kristy swanson is a total valley girl and hilary swank is hilarious. i have probably seen this movie around 100 times and i never get tired of it. anyone who is big fan of the show might not like the movie because the only similarities are that there is a slayer named buffy and she has a watcher. i think everyone should see this movie if they are into cheesy movies from the early 90's.

Patrick John Doran 2013-04-26 05:43:09

Why do people try to compare it to the show?

Ever since that show came out, people have been going back to video storesand renting the movie, expecting it to be a two hour episode of Buffy. Iliked this movie for what it is...a comedy.This movie is a very funny and original comedy. It started the whole actionvampire type genre. It has Pee-Wee Herman as a vampire. It has those funnylines and the extremely long death sequence from Paul Reubens.And then the show comes out. Darker, more serious and with a bigger cultfollowing. Guess what, I HATE THE SHOW! It is so STUPID! When I first heardthey were going to make a television show out of this I said to myselfGOD!!! And when it became a huge hit! GOD DAMN! It's like what they did tothe movie M*A*S*H* it was a VERY funny black comedy and then they made theshow with Alan Alda and he turned it into a DRAMA. And that show is morememorable than the movie.Back to the subject of BUFFY. Funny movie and WAY better than the show.(Which I Hate)Goodbye.

munir 2013-04-25 13:30:29

You want philosophy, read Wittgenstein. You want entertainment, see Buffy.

Buffy may be my favorite movie of all time. It preciselyhits its aesthetic target- it wasn't really made for peoplewho confuse art and movies. Since Apocalypse Now, I'vebeenbored to tears with movies that want to make a statementabout life and death. Heck, I wish only one studio made allthehustler-junkie-suicidal-caught-in-small-town-in-North-Dakota-but-has-an-artists-soul-life-is-meaningless flicks, shotit in black and white, upside down through a hand heldcameras.They would win all of the awards and be slavered over bythefilm students and critics. Then the rest of Hollywoodcouldstick to entertaining movies for the rest of us who gotoa movie theater to eat too much popcorn and be entertainedfor a few hours.Buffy is a perfect little entertaining movie. Donald Sutherlandand Pee Wee Herman are a blast, Kristy Swanson is cute,andher stunt doubles are fun to watch. The psycho-babble ofthehigh school counselors cracks me up every time I watch it.Rutger Hauer is delicious. Get some microwave popcorn,andhave some fun.You want philosophy, go read Wittgenstein (the Tractatus,not the later wimp stuff). You like boredom, go see Aguirre.You want entertainment, go see Buffy.