To be frank...I watched about 15 minutes of the movie and decided I was done with it, because nothing exciting, entertaining or at least interesting happened. It just seemed like a rather lackluster attempt at a vampire movie, that was counting on winning viewers by placing it in the late 19th century of the USA. The initial roster of characters primarily consists of low-brow townsfolk, some of which quickly display an inability to cope with conflict in any other way other than violence.
Accordingly, I thought I knew where the story was headed. Luckily, I skipped forward by a few minutes, instead of just hitting the stop button. The movie has quite a few subtle surprises, by featuring dialog and depth of character that are rather unusual in this budget range and genre. Especially Michael Pate, an actor known for playing villains with astounding charisma, is making the plot a lot more intriguing than I expected. I was also pulled in by Edward Binns' portrayal of the sheriff, who doesn't look like the part, but convinces in dialog and action.
Two things that disappoint despite the pros. Missing almost entirely from the events is any horror. The movie mostly plays out like any western. It just adds a touch of the supernatural without sufficient depth to it. Additionally, the story never steers from the clichéd path, to explore a slightly different narrative than "good vs evil". It doesn't have all of the same character tropes as other movies of the time, thus a different outcome might have helped it gain more attention.
Two things that disappoint despite the pros. Missing almost entirely from the events is any horror. The movie mostly plays out like any western. It just adds a touch of the supernatural without sufficient depth to it. Additionally, the story never steers from the clichéd path, to explore a slightly different narrative than "good vs evil". It doesn't have all of the same character tropes as other movies of the time, thus a different outcome might have helped it gain more attention.