Vamps - didn't do too well in the theatres

I saw the trailer for the movie Vamps a couple of weeks ago. I figured it looked okay. A horror comedy about two female vampires. One of them’s Krysten Ritter and I like her on Don’t Trust the B. And Amy Heckerling’s made so good movies. So I was thinking I might catch it when it played at a local theatre.

But I see it’s coming out on DVD this week so I missed its theatrical run. However I don’t feel bad because apparently a lot of people missed this movie in the theatres. According to Box Office Mojo, Vamps only made $548 on its opening weekend.

And it gets worse. On Monday, November 5, the fourth day of its release, Vamps earned $12.

Which makes me wonder - do you think one person bought a full price ticket on that day or was it two people who saw it at a matinee?

Yeah but the word of mouth is spreading. Look at the grosses for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: $67, $69, $75.
Before you know it, it will break the c-note a day barrieer.

Your cite says its only ever shown in one theater. That seems a little bizarre.

I’m thinking they basically gave out free tickets to a few showings as publicity for the DVD, and then basically made it direct-to-video.

It’s unfortunate that the movie didn’t get a full release, as it’s written and directed by Amy Heckerling, who previously made Fast Times At Ridgemont High and Clueless. And a couple of years ago, she made I Could Never Be Your Woman, which also was sent direct-to-video.

I’ve got Vamps on my Netflix queue and it’s scheduled to be available Tuesday. I liked almost all of Amy Heckerling’s previous movies, so I’m hopeful for this one.

I think there are often contractual issues that require a theatrical run, even if it’s just a token one.

Apparently, campy vampires are played out.

Still, Krysten Ritter, Alicia Silverstone, and Sigourney Weaver? I might watch it.

Stories about minimum required runs always remind me of this movie: Zyzzyx Road.

When I first saw the trailer for it it I thought it was some lost 90s movie, the way it looked and having Alicia Silverstone starring in it (plus she hasn’t really aged) but the other actress looked familiar, like from a current TV show, which would be Don’t Trust The B…

Anyway I just saw it and I liked it. It wasn’t THAT funny, but Krysten Ritter was pretty good in it. At times it kind of felt like a TV movie. Other times it felt like a cool little homage to vampire films. I like the one scene with the Sigourney Weaver’s shadow moving ala Nosferatu. Weaver was pretty good here too.

Wikipedia says it cost 2 mill to make and made 8 mill but IMDb says it only made $548 like the OP said. That’s too bad if true.

I watched the trailer. It looks great. FWIW I would watch the whole thing.

With a budget that low, it’ll almost certainly make its money back via dvd and cable sales.

Gerald II? You need to schedule an appointment with your eye doctor, STAT! If you saw that movie and said Silverstone hasn’t aged, you shouldn’t be without a dog and a cane in traffic…

I watched it on cable, it’s been on for a while. A fine little comedy, not challenging in any way, but still, it would have done OK at the box office with some reasonable marketing efforts. Got no idea why they dumped it to DVD.

Seriously? Because here’s a picture of her at the Vamps premiere and she’s looking good.

Anyway, since my first post, I’ve seen the movie. Not bad. A lightweight comedy with some good jokes. It wouldn’t have made my top ten list for 2012 but it wasn’t a waste of ninety minutes.

I’ll agree, nice little movie to fill in between projects - I wouldn’t go out of my way to track it down, but if I run across it again I will definitely watch it.

Keep in mind I like stuff like this - light filler that is entertaining. I don’t want everything I watch to have deep inner meaning, I tend to just want light filler amusement in the background.