Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf (1996)

Directed by Conrad Brooks [Other horror films: Jan-Gel, the Beast from the East (1999), Jan-Gel 2: The Beast Returns (2001), Jan-Gel 3: Hillbilly Monster (2003), Gypsy Vampire (2005), Gypsy Vampires Revenge (2008), Gypsy Vampire: The Final Bloodlust (2009), Zombie on the Loose (2010)]

Despite the wild title this film has, this straight-to-video film really isn’t as fun as you might hope. It’s not dreary or lifeless – certainly the people involved in this movie had some fun – but Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf does tend to be a bit repetitive, overlong, and generally, not my type of film.

The budget is quite low here, but you have to give director Conrad Brooks credit for doing what he was able to. The film opens up with a ‘This film is dedicated to the memory of Ed Wood,’ which is then followed by the fakest bat I’ve ever seen as it flies around. If you can’t get into low-budget horror, I can promise you that this is not the movie for you.

I can get into some low-budget horror films, though I generally gravitate toward slashers (such as The Horrible 4 and You’re Not Getting Out Alive). The problems I have with this movie have little at all to do with how cheap everything looks. Well, I guess one problem is related – the audio, while mostly audible, wasn’t particularly great. I don’t think I ever lost track of a conversation, but I don’t think they had much in the way of audio equipment when they made this one.

Otherwise, though, the problem is that the movie is an hour and 44 minutes long, and it’s just dull most of the time. A vampire lady makes a slave of a big horror movie fan, and uses both him and a mute servant to send out and collect blood for her. It’s not until the final 40 minutes that things get mildly interesting, as a British police officer (apparently here in Hollywood because he and another cop traded places for training or something) works with a woman to investigate some mysterious murders.

And that doesn’t mean that the final forty minutes are good, either; just that they had more going for them then the previous material, and I suspect that’s largely to do with Michael Hooker’s character, who I sort of liked.

To be fair, I thought that Don Miller did okay with his role, but it’s hard to stand out when you spend most of your screen-time as as a soulless blood slave of a vampire queen. Before that upgrade, though, he seemed like a pretty fun guy. I can’t say that Jennifer Knight’s portrayal of a hundred year old vampire did much for me, and Annette Perez didn’t add much either, but like I said, at least Michael Hooker was fun.

There’s not really much in the way of gore here. Early on, we do have a guy who’s stabbed multiple times with a hatchet (we get that classy ‘blood-running-down-the-camera-lens’ thing going on with it), and that was a decent scene, but otherwise, I’d say most of the kills are entirely ineffective, and wouldn’t be a drawing point to this movie.

What really should be the drawing point is the heart they put into this. I may not have enjoyed it, but it’s good to see people put hard work into cheap movies – case in point, I despised The Stripper Ripper, but I never once doubted that they had fun making it. The problem is that this movie is an hour and 44 minutes, which is way too long to warrant, and I just don’t think there was enough meat in the story to keep it that engaging.

If you enjoy the occasional lower-budget vampire movie, Blood Slaves of the Vampire Wolf may be worth a visit. Personally, it’s not the type of movie that I really cared much for, but on the other hand, I’ve definitely seen worse in my time.

3.5/10