THE DEVIL'S GRAVESTONE is another indie thriller with vampires as the key subject. The main character loses her kid to the vampire threat, so she goes gunning for revenge against them. Except this is an indie film, so most of it takes place in the same location and very little in the way of incident happens. The story is slow and long-winded, fairly well shot but lacking in real plot. The 'look' seems inspired by the SAW franchise and the film noirs of old.

This is not at all bad for a low budget unadvertised Vamp flick. As others mentioned there was some effort put into the story to try and explain Vampire abilities - although it's pseudo-science, and the film throws in plenty of mysticism so defeats it's own explanations. At least they tried to be original and not just crank out the same old clichés.The editing is not bad - not jumpy or with inexplicable transitions like some cheapies. The sets, effects, and acting are all better than many bigger budget flicks ("Queen of the Damned" - yikes !) that had no excuse. The photography and lighting are a bit poor, sometimes showing a grainy "video taped" look to it.I watched in on Netflix streaming and didn't think it was a waste of time.

Vampire movies almost always leave me wanting to die a slow horrible death. So I went into this a little scared of what I might find. To my surprise, the movie ended up being an exception to the rule. It was really quite good.Story - Jaq (pronounced Jack) was a wife and mother whose life was turned upside down when her husband was turned into a bloodsucker. He quickly feeds on his own son to satisfy his bloodlust. Disappearing into the night, Jaq becomes obsessed with finding him and avenging her child's death. From there we have virgin pregnancies, demonic chants, and a decent amount of gore as the plot widens to have much larger implications. Though it had it's share of creepiness, the movie isn't as scary as I normally would like, but still, the story had me glued to the screen.There's no escaping the fact that it's a low-budget film, but it's obvious that a lot of care went into each step of the process. Some nice set pieces. Acting, Sound, Music, Editing, and Cinematography are all very well done. It's unfortunate the filmmakers couldn't afford a top quality camera. That being said, it's still one of the better vampire films I've seen.7/10

Welcome to Roach City, where the vampires are running amok and the hunters are out to get them. But the vampires also want the hunters... oh my! And unlike "Buffy", don't expect the hunters to fall for these blood-sucking freaks.The effects people did their job. I see cool sky effects, not bad work on the blood and wounds -- and the bottomless corpse was well-constructed. Outside of big effects studios like KNB, this is pretty much as good as it gets.The filming is somewhat of a home video quality, but well edited to mask this. It could have been worse. The acting, unfortunately, is hit and miss... too much deadpan, and some poor casting choices. Not all lines should be delivered in monotone... and the girl in the beginning should not have been cast.My favorite thing about this movie: the explanation of why vampires drink blood is very interesting... I have never heard it before, and assume this is a creation of the writer. It makes sense that vampires require more blood and can burn it off as waste, with the level of energy they would need to have that sort of speed and strength. I appreciate that they opted for a natural rather than supernatural answer. Great twist on an old concept.