A band of mercenaries led by Jack Frost and his best friend Nat McKenzie, travel the world taking on assignments too dirty for the U.S. government. While wrapping up their latest mission, Nat gets bitten by something the ... more »locals refer to as the "Vampire Demon." When Jack finds out that Nat has been killed on a mission, Jack sets out to avenge his friend's death only to find out that Nat isn't dead, he's become a vampire! The former friends face each other in a final confrontation that pits two trained killers against each other.« less
Less than 1 Star. This movie was horrific to view!!
Karen Mead | USA | 11/19/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I couldn't wait to see this movie. I went to BlockBuster to rent it and they told me it had been stolen off the shelf. I'm thinking "wow, must be a really good movie" so then I pay $14.99 to buy it. After watching the fabulously bad acting, listening to the seriously horrible sound (the actors appear to have dubbed their lines in after the film was shot) and the preposterously poor special affects I had to shut it off. I could barely watch 1/2 hour of it. It is THAT BAD. What the heck was Gary Busey thinking for God's sake?? I got suckered bad on this one, my only hope is that I can foist it off on someone else on E-bay. DO NOT BUY OR RENT THIS PILE OF CRAP!!"
You have been warned!
Scotty S | USA | 06/20/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)
"There are a lot of bad vampire movies out there. This is the WORST!
The story had some potential I suppose, but the actors destroyed any hope that this movie may have had. "Horrible" doesn't begin to describe how poor the actors were. Maybe it's fitting. It is a vampire movie after all. It was lifeless, and you better believe it [was bad]!!! Buy "Near Dark" or "The Lost Boys" or "Interview.." or "Queen of the Damned" Heck, get a season or two of Buffy, but please don't waste your money on this atrocity!"
C. Seggelin | Littleton, MA USA | 11/14/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)
"You know, I tend to actually *enjoy* bad movies. There's nothing like getting together with friends and poking fun at a goofy movie.Unless it is REALLY bad--so painfully bad you can't stand to watch it."Frost" is of the latter variety... bad acting, boring dialog, lame plot, paltry and fake-looking CGI effects, and one halfway decent actor (Gary Busey). If you really *LOVE* vampire movies, do NOT rent this film. The basic vampire storyline is so tried and true that its hard to ruin, but Frost succeeds in ruining it royally.If you want a shlocky vampire film that's fun to watch, try "Vampires" with James Woods."
Not Even worth the 1!
Anthony S. Smith | Hyattsville, Maryland USA | 11/10/2003
(1 out of 5 stars)
"This movie is just terrible, first the main character Frost, looks like Kevin Smith the director and we are suppose to take him serious as some bad ass special oops solider give me a break. The story has holes in it and the CGI effects makes it look cheap. For flicks like this it should be latex and nothing else. The reason I gave it a 1 is because its a good story and if handled right could have put a new spin on vamp movies. The first vampire is from the middle east so that would have been something new but they just screwed it up tooo much. if you do see this rent it don't buy."
BLOODLESS VAMPIRE MOVIE
Michael Butts | Martinsburg, WV USA | 02/10/2005
(2 out of 5 stars)
"And I don't mean literally. There is a good deal of blood spilled, but the problem with FROST PORTRAIT OF A VAMPIRE starts with the title. Wouldn't it indicate that Frost was the vampire? Not! Next: the movie hops around so much you don't really have any true concept of where we are in the script. There was an attempt in originality to make the vampire an Afghanistanian (or is it Afghan?), because that means he can walk around in the daylight. (Although later on, a big faux pas: Nat, the vampire, tells Frost the vampire hunter that guns can't kill him. BUT Nat himself shot the first vampire right in the head.) Also another convenience: you don't become a vampire until you die (that could be years later). Problem: We never really know when Nat died. ACTING: Well, Charles Lister as Nat tries hard, but other than the schlocky red eyes and the blood syrup, he isn't given much to work with. Why does he like being a vampire? He was a good Catholic boy at the start of the movie; he even chomps on a priest in the confessional later. No explanation is given for that one, either. Gary Busey (once nominated for an Oscar for "Buddy Holly Story" if you can believe that one) turns in another incredibly bad performance as the blind museum curator who spins the story for us. But, lordy lordy, where did Jeff Manzanares come from? The end credits said he was the stunt coordinator for the film, too. But why was he given the lead role? Now, let's focus on the word LEAD. With a long e, it's "lead", with a short e, It's "lead," like in the mineral. And that's what this beefy jerk gives in the role of Jack Frost (really, we've had killer snowmen and Michael Keaton already take this name, why bother with it again). The climax in the graveyard is downright silly, and the ending is so predictable, one can only sigh and say I told you so. So why 2 stars instead of one? I don't know, guess I'm just in an unusually forgiving mood. But, what could have been an interesting vampire variation, merely becomes another one of those movies you can find in the 5.50 bin at Walmart. Wait until they drop it down to 2.50."