User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 72 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 72
  2. Negative: 22 out of 72

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 29, 2011
    Uh....the point of the movie?
  2. Jun 3, 2012
    This was a movie I was very excited for. I love The Cirque Du Freak novels and Darren Shan's books in general. The books give a mysterious mood and show a more darker side to vampires as compared to 'Twilight' or 'the Vampire diaries.' But, the movie of Cirque Du Freak is a comedy, having almost no relation to the characters I loved in the novels. I hated this movie, even when not compared to the books the poor acting, plot and digital effects makes it not enjoyable. Hopefully if they make a sequel (which is unlikely because of the poor critical response and box office failure) they will correct their flaws. Expand
  3. Mar 15, 2012
    This film was OK as it stood but must have had Darren Shan the author cringing. The crap americanisation of the story and condensation of the events was crass and departed so far from the original books to be barely recognisable. Crepsley was made out to be an almost joke and nothing like the book's sinister version. Likewise, Mr. Tiny's appearance in the story does not in fact appear until much later in the series and Darrens family never find out about his life as a vampire. All in all, this film takes the Title from Darren's books and little else. It is a typical american destruction of a really good story. Expand
  4. Jan 20, 2014
    Although John C. Reily tries hard, he can't overcome a poorly written script, poor dialogue, stale acting, horrid plot transitions, an overabundance use of special effects, and a scattered plot
  5. Lex
    Sep 17, 2010
    Sep 17, 2010
    Visiting a traveling freak show, 16 year-old, Darren is turned into a vampire. Half-vampire, half-human he joins the Cirque du Freak and descends into a fantastic life with a sideshow of fabulous freaks and as war looms between the Vampires and the Vampaneze (who kill whomever they feed on), his bravery will become humanity's last hope. This film by Paul Weitz did not
    meet my expectation to be a good vampire-based or let's just say... a bunch-of-freaks-based flick. Mediocre, that's my word for this one. Weitz did a nice job of making "In Good Company", but this one should be his spectacular movie of all time, and did NOT. Hmmmm... If I may say, this is like another 'no-making any sense' film like 'Batman & Robin' by Joe Schumacher. The books that make this movie possible were great, but the film didn't. The story focuses on two characters: Darren (Massoglia) and his bestfriend, Steve (Hutcherson). Darren, the one that favors spiders and Steve, the one that adores books about Vampires, and all crap breaks loose when jealousy comes up to one of them. It's just what we have hoped for, two bestfriends fighting for what they believed in. And one of them falls in love with a freak, a pretty freak, of course. The only notable characters were Steve, Crepsley, Murlough, and Mr. Tiny. But none of them got a clear brief of their past story and that's the main big hole of the story in the movie. Disappointing. I'm not being rude but, Paul Weitz did a mediocre job of making an adaptation of Darren Shan's book. Too many lacking detail of the story, especially the background briefed story of each character. Putting aside Weitz, Chris Massoglia (Darren Shan) did a horrible act as the main character in the film. I mean, look at his face; he even barely makes an expression, he looks like having a blank face, like day-dreaming or some kind. John Reilly (Crepsley) did a good job, also Ray Stevenson (Murlough). And the only person who saved all the acting problem was Josh Hutcherson (Steve), he did a fine job modeling out his role like all other antagonist role out there, not awesome, but nice. My conclusion? MEDIOCRE. That's it, with the lack of details and horrible acts (aside from Hutcherson), it should have been a direct-to-DVD. Expand
  6. Dec 7, 2010
    woops! accidentally forgot to change my score! I give it a 2
  7. Oct 15, 2011
    Much of the potential of the book series is wasted here and replaced by the ordinary-kid-gets-extraordinary-powers story. Although the acting isn't particularly bad, there is no spark between characters and no one appears to be at ease. The story is uneven and the ending is unsatisfying. Too much time devoted to light comedy and not enough to the darker themes present in the books. Characters are shallow, with no development. The special effects are decent and some action scenes are done well. Apart from that, there is not much to recommend about this movie. Expand
  8. Aug 1, 2011
    This review contains spoilers. When this first came out, we had a group of young couples that wanted to go to the drive-in. I donâ Collapse
  9. May 11, 2012
    Like they say, there is corny dialogue. At the same time it has quite of bit of action and it is somewhat funny. The only problem is that there has yet to be a sequel to this that answers the questions we still have.
  10. Jan 31, 2012
    This film was amazing, as a book fan i thought the book to film adaptation was actually quite a good, I admit it was lacking quite a lot information, but due to this being a film for children certain things should have been left out, and the fact that its based on the first trilogy of the saga yet was still good, the annoying part however was how out of sequence it was, but overall I love this film and wish there was a second one. Expand
  11. Aug 13, 2012
    This movie was pile of Garbage vampire assistant who half vampire then whole deal when he fell for monkey girl meh only thing was good was salma heyek was beard woman lol funny

    but rest movie pile of rubbish that have rotten
  12. Nov 17, 2012
    An interesting premise, but not nearly as good as the book series. It was okay, but i could have used some work. The plot got boring after a while, not as good characters as the books, but still an okay movie. Read the books.
  13. Dec 23, 2013
    If you want to know how to destroy one of the best book sagas, just ask Paul Weitz.
    It isn't a bad movie: great acting, good special effects and music... The adaptation is the mistake.
    The prove is that if you haven't read the book, you will like the movie; but if you have read them, you will only be able to be disappointed.
  14. Jan 31, 2014
    The books are magical, but sinister with a dark, twisted kind of humour. The only thing the books and the film have in common is the title. The films are of a totally different story, and it kind off ruined my feelings for the beloved book series. The whole thing was very disappointing. The dialogues are bad, the corny comments are bad, the special effects are BAD. The characters are weird only, and have no similarities with the book characters. The director deserves a slap in the face. Expand

Mixed or average reviews - based on 25 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 25
  2. Negative: 5 out of 25
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Debruge
    The Vampire's Assistant is too busy making impossible claims about just how spectacular its sequels will be to serve up a self-contained story with a satisfying finale.
  2. Reviewed by: Aaron Hillis
    Directed by Paul Weitz (American Pie), the movie suffers from the same tonal schizophrenia of that other recent goth wannabe, "Jennifer's Body": Is it meant to be scary or funny? Oops, it's neither.
  3. Subplots go nowhere, and characters -- many played by well-known actors -- barely get screen time. Willem Dafoe, Salma Hayek, and Jane Krakowski are among those who are there and gone.