The Lost Boys (1987)

JUNE 24, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE

SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

NOTE – As you read this review, please have the following Youtube clip running (on a loop if necessary). It’s part of the Lost Boys experience.

Even as a kid I don’t think I ever actually watched all of The Lost Boys in a single viewing. My horror movie memory is pretty good but I honestly do not recall ever sitting down and watching it, instead just sort of catching parts of it on cable and eventually realizing I had seen it all. My last experience with it was about 7 years ago when I went over a friend’s to watch it and promptly slept thru the entire movie (I never even saw the Frog Brothers, and I think I might have caught a glimpse of Kiefer in between snoozes). And true to form, I even dozed off again tonight, but I borrowed a friend’s DVD for the extras and thanks to Joel Schumacher’s commentary, I was quickly able to re-view what I had missed.

Also, let the record show that this is the only time I would like to say “Thanks to Joel Schumacher” without being sarcastic.

I’m not sure why I didn’t spend more time watching the film as a kid. It’s got everything I liked then – “cool” monsters, a rock soundtrack, kid characters who were badasses (between this, Goonies, Stand By Me, and Gremlins, I realize now that Corey Feldman had pretty much the best fictional life a bored dude like me would ever want to have), etc. And I certainly liked it, but not enough to warrant a start to finish viewing for some reason. Christ, I even gave that much respect to Look Who’s Talking Too (twice!) when I was 11.

And now I like it just as much, albeit mainly for different reasons. Since I had no real nostalgia to draw my enjoyment from, instead I had a blast with the movie due to the things I love now, 20 years later. These things include unabashed homoeroticism (Corey Haim’s bizarre bathtub scene and poster of Rob Lowe are mighty suspect), comic book nerd dialogue, and ridiculous 80s fashion:

Also, still, the soundtrack. Shit is awesome. I never realized that Thomas Newman was the composer of the film. Newman is best known today for his sweeping, schmaltzy scores for movies like The Shawshank Redemption, American Beauty, and my personal favorite, Meet Joe Black (the 10 minute opus “That Next Place” from the soundtrack will accompany my funeral, in fact!). Plus the rock songs aren’t too dated, then again half of them are covers anyway. Still, it’s not like we have to deal with Wham or A-Ha like several other films of the era. Echo and the Bunnymen are timeless, dammit!

If there’s anything about the movie that doesn’t hold up, it’s the relative simplicity to the whole thing. It’s essentially a two act film stretched out to cover the lack of a third. They go to the town, meet the vampires, almost immediately turn on them, there’s a fight, and the movie’s over. A little more plot complication would have been nice (not to mention at least ONE other possibility as to who the lead vampire was). Also, the final line of the film, while hilarious, suggests something I actually would be interested in seeing explored – the idea that folks know that the town is overrun with vampires and look at it as a sort of nuisance.

Still, minor quibbles for what is otherwise a solid horror movie, and one of the very few purely FUN vampire films of the past 20 years or so. From Dusk Til Dawn is about the only other one I can think of, since all others tend to be moody and serious (Near Dark), or just plain shitty (Forsaken). There isn’t much in the way of gore (or even violence – it’s almost PG-13 in fact), but the cast and pace is hard to argue with, and the only thing that dates it is the style (both of the characters and the filmmaking itself), which is always preferable to a film that is no longer relevant due to its themes and plot. A solid effort all around.

The DVD is pretty packed. Schumacher’s commentary is OK, there isn’t much to it other than him praising the cast and offering the occasional anecdote (“the Coreys were mad that they didn’t get to drive the car here”). The deleted scenes collection is pretty extensive (20+ minutes!) but you cannot select individual scenes or even skip from one to the other, which is a bit odd.

There is also select “visual commentary” by the two Coreys. Haim just narrates everything and says how great it was to shoot the particular scene, and Feldman just sort of rambles like a drunk about Haim’s wardrobe and his acting choices. He also points out that Alex Winter was once in the movie a lot more but it was all cut, but Winter doesn’t appear at all in the deleted scenes, so who knows if this is just delirium or a half-assed deleted scenes selection. The pair also reminisces about how they met and why they ‘broke up’ after Dream A Little Dream 2, which I had forgotten existed. Another interactive piece is about all of the real vampires in the world who are apparently walking around waiting to kill us all. Cool. It’s worth noting that North America apparently has no vampires (though there are some in the British Isles – look out, Canada!).

Then there’s the usual recollections by the creative team and whatever cast they could assemble (why is Kiefer – the only one with a career – the only vampire to show up for this stuff?). Like most movies that were produced pre-DVD, the behind the scenes stuff is rather slim, and with everyone having perfect memories of the shoot, there isn’t really much to excite here. Come on, surely Jason Patric and Keifer came to blows over who was more of a badass, right?

I should note that Feldman introduced the film, and afterwards he brought out PJ Pesce, who is directing the upcoming DTV sequel Lost Boys: The Tribe. They showed us a clip, and quite frankly it seemed kind of weak – the vampire run like The Flash and it seems like they have replaced fun with gore, but without context I shouldn’t judge. Hopefully it will at least be a moderately entertaining vampire movie on its own terms, because there’s no way it can live up to the spirit of the original (or expectations of fans who have waited 21 years for it).

What say you?

Read more »

Vampire,

{[['']]}

Let The Right One In (2008)

JUNE 20, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FILM FESTIVAL SCREENING)

After the superb film Let The Right One In (aka Låt den rätte komma in) ended, I joked to my two friends that it “...was great. Let’s remake it!”, since it was in Swedish, didn’t have any big stars, and focused more on atmosphere and mood than violence and gore, and thus would not appeal to the average alleged horror fan in the States. So imagine my non-surprise when I went home and discovered that a remake was already in the works. *sigh*

Since it’s not made yet, I can’t really trash it, but while I am OK with remakes of older films that could use a fresh coat of paint (even if not entirely successful, I am perfectly fine with the idea of remaking something like Exorcist, in which the entirely different public attitude toward Catholicism today could be used for an interesting angle), I have zero interest in remaking a film simply because it’s “foreign”. It just suggests that Americans are idiots, especially when there is nothing in the film that we couldn’t identify with due to the fact that its characters are in a different country. Something like Shutter is a decent example – it plays on the rather commonplace idea of spirit photography in the East, but here we don’t really believe in that stuff on the average. So remaking it in English and having the characters learn about the idea – fine. Shitty movie, sure, but fine enough idea. But there’s nothing of the sort in Let The Right One In – its themes (adolescent love, bullies, protecting one’s children) are universal.

I love how quiet the movie is (something the remake will likely replace with Fall Out Boy); entire scenes go by without dialogue, or even music (that said, the sparse score is beautiful), relying on the two young actors to sell the ideas of the scene. Both actors are terrific, which helps. This also intensifies the “horror” scenes, as they are relatively shocking in many cases. I mean, the movie’s ostensibly about a little girl who happens to be a vampire aiding her friend, who is being bullied by classmates. What do you think is going to happen?

Between this and Frostbitten, it’s safe to say that the Swedish are at the top of the modern vampire movie game. So many modern films attempt to differentiate themselves by simply rewriting the rules (“our vampires have reflections!”) rather than simply make a good movie, but that is not the case with either of these films (that said, this one doesn’t have any real dealings with garlic or crosses that I can recall). I can’t wait to see this one again, and also to see if the remake “gets” what makes this one so great in the first place.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Fear Itself: "The Sacrifice"

JUNE 5, 2008

GENRE: ANTHOLOGY, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Tonight is the premiere of Fear Itself, a semi-sequel to Masters of Horror that is airing on NBC. Like MoH, each week will have a different director/writer, and is billed as a ‘new movie every week’. Of course, even if one considered an hour to be a movie, that’s not even the case here, with commercials we are talking less than 45 minutes, and with some obvious restrictions (while the gore seems intact, there is no nudity or profanity to speak of here). Tonight’s is called The Sacrifice and is written by Mick Garris (based on a short story by Del Howison) and directed by Breck Eisner.

Wait what? Breck “Sahara” Eisner? Why NBC chose to lead off their horror director-themed show with an episode by a guy who has only made one (non horror, or even successful) movie is beyond me, especially since it’s not even supposed to be the first (it’s listed as episode 4), but whatever. But what’s more troubling is that, if they are going out of order, they must think this is a stronger episode than the real episode 1, which is by Stuart Gordon. Which sucks, because this is hardly a home run.

The setup is fine (an isolated, borderline Amish town with a vampire problem), and the makeup on the vampires is good, but the way everything plays out is just so by the numbers, and I was hoping for a twist or two to the proceedings. Even for a TV show, the entire thing feels very generic, from the carefully laid out revelations (our female “villains” aren’t really the villains after all!), the downer ending, the horny guy whose desire to nail a broad he literally met 10 minutes before leads to his doom, etc. There is nothing we haven’t seen before in a regular, unrestricted film. And yes, the gore is there, but gore does not make a horror film – good ideas do. Whether Garris/Eisner just botched Howison’s original story or it was simply bland to begin with, I do not know, but either way it’s not exactly a strong start for the series.

It’s not a total loss though. The three girls are all hot, and Friday Night Lights’ Jesse Plemons is amusing as the talkative and nervous sidekick to our hero (Jeffrey Pierce). And the pacing is good – the heroes end up at the vampire infested compound in the first five minutes, and folks begin being attacked in the first 15. Not too shabby. There's also some great lines here and there, like "If this is luck I hate to see misfortune." - again, I don't know if this is Howison's doing or Garris' (and I am really sort of peeved that Howison's credit is buried in the end credits - it should be up front with Garris and Eisner. If it was based on Stephen King or Edgar Allan Poe, you can bet your ass it would be more prominently credited), but either way it's one of more than a couple instances where the talent behind the scenes really shone through. And honestly, for all its shortcomings, it’s still better than say, the MoH episodes Dance of the Dead or Cigarette Burns, but it’s nothing worth setting up a new Tivo recording for either. The very first MoH to air was also one of its all time best (Don Coscarelli’s Incident On And Off A Mountain Road); if that’s the case here, yikes.

And that is a shame, because there are a lot of great directors on board (Gordon, Brad Anderson, Darren Bousman) and NBC is certainly not against canning a show before giving it a chance. They aren’t as bad as FOX in this regard, but if the next couple episodes are as bland as this, I can’t imagine this thing lasting all 13 planned episodes, because hardcore horror fans will just watch their unrated DVDs and non-horror fans won't find much to win them over. Luckily, due to their ties with Sci-Fi and USA, it’s not like the episodes will be lost forever, but since horror is so rare on the major networks (with Moonlight canned, it’s basically just Supernatural), I want the show to be a success.

So uh, ignore my review and watch tonight’s episode!

What say you?

Read more »

Anthology, Television, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Sex And The City: The Movie (2008)

MAY 28, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SUPERNATURAL, VAMPIRE, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

While I love gore and insane prosthetic effects as much as the next guy, it’s nice to see a horror film that eschews all of that stuff in favor for more subtle horrors; a sort of ‘alternate’ horror film, much like Martin or something of that nature. Sex And The City: The Movie fits that mold; despite the R rating, there is actually only suggested violence in the film, along with a few morbid visuals.

Based on the TV show, the film is about three female best friends, each of them a different type of monster. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) is a vampire, Samantha (Kim Cattrall) is a succubus, and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is a werewolf. There is also a fourth friend, a human named Charlotte (Kristin Davis) whose only role in the film is show off her perfect human life to her friends, all of whom aspire to find her happiness while retaining their own monstrous needs.

Carrie the vampire is the film’s main character. She is engaged to a fellow vampire, a man only referred to as Big even though his name is John something or other. Unlike most cinematic vampires, they are not harmed by sunlight (the film even makes a little joke about this – they turn down an apartment because it doesn’t get any sun), but they are immortal. We know this because they have been dating for 100 years and have broken up and gotten back together some 15 times (this is explained to us a few times via dialogue – I assume it was detailed in full on the show). Big stands her up at the altar, and she begins a downward spiral – she’s been with him forever, and was prepared to give up her immortality in marriage. Now she is faced with being immortal forever, and alone.

Next up is Samantha, the succubus. She doesn’t live in New York with the others, instead she lives in LA where her kind is more common. The film’s opening sort of “previously, on Sex and the City” thing shows her pre-devouring of several men, and then finding a man she truly loves and thus does not want to eat. Now they’ve been together for five years, and she is discovering that she misses her succubus ways, thanks to a new neighbor who is actually a male succubus, taking a new woman every night.

And then there is Miranda, the werewolf. Her problem is more simple – she’s not allowing herself to indulge in the pleasures that come with being a lycanthrope. As the film begins her husband, a nerd who obviously gets off on nailing a she-wolf, is sexually frustrated, and cheats on her. So she throws him out, and now has to make a new life for herself and hopefully rediscover her carnal instincts.

Finally the human one, Charlotte... well, she doesn’t really have a storyline, because she is not one of the undead. Like I said, she’s just there to sort of remind her friends that happiness is possible, though they never quite make clear if being human is essential. Later in the film she finally has something to do (she gets pregnant), but until then she’s merely just sort of hanging out with them. Ironically, she is the focus of the film’s sole gross out gag, a scene in which she contracts dysentery and shits her pants. It’s an odd moment, but mainly because it’s actually pretty funny, where the rest of the film is incredibly overdramatic and sour.

The little moments in which their monstrous sides are actually on display are among my favorites in the film. At one point, Miranda begins growing her werewolf hair all over her legs, and the succubus chastises her for it. She usually shaves it all in order to hide her lycanthropy from her coworkers (she’s a lawyer – another sly injoke to her true nature), but since her separation from her husband she is letting herself go. The three monster girls, particularly the vampire, also have an unnatural addiction to red wine (for contrast, the human only drinks water). I would have liked more of these type of scenes, but since the film is about the human side of monsters (and not the monstrous side of humans) it makes sense that they are kept to a minimum.

Still, it does have some scare moments. The succubus, who is the oldest of the group, strips nude and covers key parts of her anatomy with sushi (a nice reverse on the succubus way – she is inviting her lover to essentially eat HER), a ghastly sight. She also threatens on more than one occasion to devour two separate men’s manhood, which will give the male viewers a chill (the females in the crowd cheered at these lines).

In the end, it’s a decent attempt at doing something different. In the end, all of the monsters have accepted their true nature and found happiness, which is nice. I would have liked maybe one transformation or two, but the effects are pretty much limited to Dick Smith style old age makeup. It won’t be for everyone, but it’s certainly the most unique horror film of the year.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Supernatural, Vampire, Werewolf,

{[['']]}

Son Of Dracula (1943)

MAY 21, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I learned something today that changed my entire outlook on ridiculous plot twists. For years, I thought “Alucard” was something invented by the creators of Castlevania III, only to discover that Son Of Dracula had come up with this ‘genius’ concept some 45 years previous. Credit where credit is due! It’s not quite as idiotic as “Nilbog”, but it’s not as clever as “Dr. Acula”, either.

It would be one thing if this was implemented and quickly understood, but no – they actually try to make it some sort of mystery. The first time it is shown, the guy looks at the name, and begins to puzzle over it, only to shrug it off. WHAT COULD IT MEAN?!?!? (is what I assume we in the audience are supposed to be thinking).

Stupidity is actually the order of the day in this movie. Take, for example, this bewildering exchange from later on in the movie, after Drac’s enemy has escaped from jail:

Professor: “Did you hear him do any talking?”
The Dumbest Cop Alive: “Some kind of trick he pulls... he pretends to talk in his voice and then hers!”
Professor: “Did you listen in like we asked you to?”
TDCA: “Yeah but it was too crazy to bother about.”
Professor: “For instance?”
TDCA: “Well, the girl’s voice said something about getting him out of jail...”
Professor: “Well that wasn’t too crazy – he’s out!”
TDCA: “Yeah I never thought of that....”

It doesn’t seem to be played for laughs.

Also problematic is Lon Chaney as “Alucard”. He’s fine in the other monster roles, but he just doesn’t work as a vampire (not even a spinoff of one). He is lacking Lugosi’s charm, and big does not equal menace for vampires. And since none of the other cast members have stuck around by now, it makes the movie feel even more of a cheap knockoff than the real deal.

Still, it has some good moments, and of course, the effects are pretty impressive for back in the day (this was the first to show Drac transforming into a bat). I particularly liked the mist effects, such as when a real puff of smoke slowly becomes an animated one, which in turn becomes Dracula (this moment is a bit botched due to the fact that the other characters in the scene somehow don’t even notice it). Since they obviously weren’t spending any money on developing the script, it’s nice to see they went all out for the FX guys.

One nice touch – Universal has kept in the original ad for war bonds at the end of the film. The ad essentially says “Buy a war bond.” I wish modern advertisements were as direct, instead of the abstract bullshit we get nowadays. The other day I watched 3 commercials in a row that I had no real idea of what was being advertised until the announcer said so. Why would watching computer animation of a guy getting tortured make me want to drink a goddamn Sprite?

What say you?

Read more »

Vampire,

{[['']]}

Vampire Bat (1933)

MAY 7, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

There ARE 30s and 40s horror movies that don’t have Lionel Atwill and/or Dwight Frye, right? It seems one or both men turn up in every single old movie I watch, classy (Universal) or not (budget pack). Vampire Bat is one of the 598,569 examples, casting Atwill (looking very Udo Kier-y here) as the resident evil doctor and Dwight Frye as, shocker, a mumbling weirdo that scares everyone.

As these things go, it’s not too bad. Melvyn Douglas as Carl, the film’s “process of elimination” hero (he doesn’t DO anything, but everyone else has a defined role, so hero is all that’s left), is a particular delight, mainly because Carl is, quite frankly, a dick. He scoffs at just about everything anyone says, yet offers no theories of his own. The silly German accents also add to the enjoyment; I never tire of hearing someone discuss a victim’s “JOOG-you-lar vein”.

This also killed me:

So let’s break it down – the bad guy has a bottle of poison, which he has labeled “Sleeping tablets”. Now, either he needs to remind himself what he is telling people they are (or maybe he has different poisons that resemble different medicines), OR he is trying to fool someone who might find the bottle into thinking that they are indeed, actual sleeping pills, and that they ignore the painfully visible POISON label. Either way I laughed my ass off at the sight, hence the screengrab.

One bummer is that the vampire” turned out to be yet another crazy human. In the height of Dracula and such, I’m not sure why so many of these old movies turn out to have such non supernatural endings. This movie even goes the extra mile to throw you off track, as werewolves are also discussed at length, and yet never actually implemented into the storyline. Oh well.

IMdb lists the running time as 64-65 minutes, yet this copy ran a scant 59. Is the IMDb in error, or am I missing 5-6 minutes worth of Atwill talking about coffee and Douglas just being an insufferable cock? I would hate to think Mill Creek was half-assing their responsibilities and thus not providing its customers with the most complete, pristine version of these classics at a cost of 40 cents a piece.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror Classics, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

APRIL 18, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (STORE RENTAL)

Dear Len Wiseman,

I like you. I really do. You seem like a chill dude, and you stole Kate Beckinsale from that Lucian dude from the first movie (and then on top of that, didn't resurrect him for this one). That’s fucking awesome. Also, you use practical effects as much as possible, another thing I truly admire And while my anger with Live Free or Die Hard is legendary (to... me), none of my problems concerned your direction. But after watching Underworld and Underworld: Evolution, I have a simple suggestion to make: STOP FUCKING WRITING YOUR MOVIES.

You see sir, one of the few movies I ever gave up watching was the original Underworld. I put it in, and after like 40 minutes I was just like “I have better things to do.” I forget what I did instead, though. A few days later I “watched” the rest, merely putting it on while I read a Fango or something. It was certainly a visually interesting movie, but the plot was just incomprehensible and the werewolves and vampires just kept fucking shooting each other instead of using their goddamn fangs and claws. So needless to say, watching the sequel was not high on my list of priorities; even with this whole Horror Movie A Day thing, the only reason I decided to rent it was because I wanted to use my Blu-Ray player, and U:R was the only horror movie on Blu Ray (at Blockbuster) that qualified.

And to give you credit, you cut back on the gunplay. The first sequence is grand, as werewolves tear dudes up, vampires bite, etc. Of course, it’s set in like 1208 or something, so the automatic weapons had no choice but to sit the scene out, but it's still appreciated. And even in the modern day stuff, it seems there is much more monster action than “guys who happen to be monsters shooting each other in the dark” action. However, the story continues to be needlessly convoluted. At some points I felt I needed to diagram the relationships between all of the characters in order to keep them straight. This is essentially a monster movie, can’t things be a bit simplified? The whole concept is kind of stupid to begin with, so I can’t help but keep my brain mostly turned off. In short, I don’t want to think really hard about why exactly a giant bat guy is tearing off some other dude’s head in a “monastery-slash-opium den”.

And what is with your obsession with hockey puck shaped objects? The keys, the bombs, the family heirloom things... they all look the same. Try a triangle, or maybe a hexagon.

Also, and again, this isn’t really your fault, but when the MPAA rating description comes up before a Kate Beckinsale movie begins, and promises nudity... let’s just say you’re just setting the viewers of your movie up for massive disappointment. Because, as you know, the nudity stems from a scene with some Romanian no-name heroin chick while Kate has a PG-13 love scene with that Felicity dude. That's just cold-hearted, man.

Speaking of that scene, how do you film something like that?

Enclosed in this letter is a picture that includes the colors red, yellow, and orange. I have labeled each one so you know which one is which. If you’re feeling adventurous, try to use one or maybe even all of these colors in your next film and see what happens. If it doesn’t work, you can always reshoot the scene in your trademark blue, dark blue, black, and dark black.

I did not listen to your commentary track as of yet – it’s tough to get me to watch a commentary on Blu Ray, because I usually do commentaries at work. When I’m at home, there are so many other things begging for my attention (other movies, games, my wife who hates your wife) that it’s asking a lot for me to sit there and listen to a guy talk about a movie I didn’t really like all that much to begin with (though I did like it more than the original – it seemed better paced and the action was improved, plus, again: less guns). I did, however, watch the hour and 15 min of making of stuff, and see that quite a lot of work went into the film. Still, it tickled me to note that the documentary was broken up into 6 different areas of production, and not a single one concerned the story/writing. Also that you are half-lit in all of your shots - did you have a black eye or something?

Like I said, visually I think you’re great. If Live Free... wasn’t a completely misguided sequel to my favorite action franchise, and just a Bruce Willis action movie, I’d be singing your praises to high heaven. But you’re not a writer. Hopefully your next film will match your skills as a director with a well written script, and you can eventually put these baffling movies behind you.

And if not, well, you can always bang your wife, and I can’t, so you still win anyway.

What say you?

Read more »

Vampire, Werewolf,

{[['']]}

Let's Scare Jessica To Death (1971)

MARCH 13, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, VAMPIRE (?)
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

My biggest regret as a human being is that I wasn’t born in 1959 or so. I would have loved to have been a kid in the 70s, getting to experience pretty much all of my favorite horror films when they were first released, instead of 10-20 years later, after many of them had their impact blunted by ripoffs (and now remakes). Such is the case with Let’s Scare Jessica To Death, a film I probably would have loved had I hadn’t seen too many other “A woman is seeing things... or IS SHE?” movies (that were probably inspired by Jessica to boot).

It’s still a good flick though, definitely one to watch late at night with the lights off, instead of during the bright daylight like I did (this is due to the fact that at night I wanted to play Condemned 2, a game so dark I literally can’t see it when there’s the slightest bit of glare in the room). After April Fool’s Day, the title had me expecting that the movie was all just a prank (as in “Hey Guys, Let’s Scare...”), so the fact that it was indeed a legit supernatural horror film (albeit yet another slow burn of one – I REALLY need to watch a nonstop gorefest before this week is through) was a nice surprise, and not without some well-appreciated creepiness. There’s a scene late in the film where the heroine’s husband walks into a general store, and then 4 or 5 of the creepy townsfolk slowly follow him in and close the door – foreboding and creepy as hell!

Unfortunately I really couldn’t stand the lead actress, Zohra Lampert. She was supposed to be a former mental patient (which they never quite explain), so some of her awkwardness could be chalked up to that, but Lampert went above and beyond what is required for such a character, to the point where I wished she would stop speaking. Also, her character (and to be fair, her husband and his buddy) are slow as molasses – they see a century old picture with a woman who is CLEARLY the strange girl they allow to stay with them, and yet it takes almost the entire movie before anyone makes the connection.

However, the aforementioned strange girl (Gretchen Corbett) looks a lot like Ginny from the Harry Potter movies, so there’s something.

The film flies by as well. It’s only 88 minutes long, but it felt even shorter. And since there is very little “action” until the final 5 minutes or so, this is even more impressive. In fact, the film definitely could have used a few more minutes in the narrative to explain some of the under-developed plot threads (in addition to never explaining Lampert’s past mental problems, her husband seems to fall in love with Corbett without ever spending as much as a single scene alone with her).

As for the “Vampire” tag – I’m not sure. Corbett is alluded to being a vampire, and neck-biting seems to be the modus operandi for any of the film’s killings, but the finale, in which Lampert escapes the town, finds all of the pursuing townsfolk acting more like your standard zombies. In fact, the movie very much reminds me of the “sort of zombie” Messiah Of Evil (which came after Jessica), so any fan of that film will probably enjoy this one.

Strangely, the film has a PG-13 rating, despite being released some 13 years before that rating was invented. I am guessing it got a PG back in the day and has been re-rated due to some creepiness (and some all-too-brief lesbian undertones), but since Paramount couldn’t be bothered to include even a trailer for the damn thing on the DVD, answers to such questions won’t be found here (and the film’s Wiki/IMDb pages are no help either, though the Wiki does reveal that the film was originally written as a comedy!). They DID however change the box art, and thus now the movie’s title is in the Trajan font. Add it to the list, Kirby!

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Dead Men Walk (1943)

FEBRUARY 15, 2008

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

One thing I love about old movies, besides the length (I’m a busy man, I don’t have time for these two hour Argento opuses every day!), is how uncomplicated they are. Dead Men Walk is about a guy who kills his brother, but the brother was into black magic so he comes back as a vampire, and then seeks revenge. That’s it. Nowadays, there’d be a third brother, a real estate scam, some double crosses, a talking sandwich, a few dancing girls, a space shuttle...

This is actually one of the better old-school vampire movies. As expected, you don’t get a lot of violence, but the atmosphere makes up for it, and it also has what had to be one of the first “twin” effects (via a split screen). George Zucco doesn’t fight himself, Van Damme style, but the effect works beautifully and that’s all that matters. There’s also a great deal of fire in the movie; in addition to the standard fiery finale (which contains the longest “thing falls over that starts the fire” shot in cinematic history I think), there’s also 2-3 scenes of book burning in the first 15 minutes.

And also this guy, who resembles a redneck Robert Englund impersonating a chicken when he moves:

Dwight Frye also appears in the film as... the bad guy’s servant! Wow! But to be fair, his role of Zolarr is nothing at all like his Renfield or Igor roles, since this movie wasn’t based on a book. This was a wholly original character, one who just happens to do the same sort of shit that his other ones do. Poor guy. I looked him up on Wikipedia today and found that he died on a bus. A terrible way to go for anyone, but he was about to begin filming a role in a big budget drama about Woodrow Wilson, which must have been pretty exciting for him, since the role probably wouldn’t require him to yell out MASTER! or something to that effect.

Anyway, good stuff. The story might not be groundbreaking, but for 62 minutes you can’t really complain. You CAN complain about the transfer though - it's possibly the worst on this budget pack yet, with lots of that weird shifting effect (where small objects in slow moving shots seem to drift around). Apparently when Turner Classic aired the film a while back, their transfer sucked too. That's one really awesome thing about the digital format - treasures like The Attic will be preserved for hundreds of years to come.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror Classics, Vampire,

{[['']]}

I Am Legend (2007)

DECEMBER 14, 2007

GENRE: BASED ON NOVEL, POST-APOCALYPTIC, REMAKE, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (IMAX)

It’s sort of a lie to say I saw I Am Legend in IMAX, as it was pretty much a fake IMAX. The screen was about the right size, but the theater setup and sound system were identical to any stadium seated theater. The whole point of IMAX is to be engulfed in the film with a curved screen that you are close to and sound that comes at you from all sides. This was not the case. So if you are in the Hooksett, NH area, and are considering going to their IMAX screen for the experience, don’t. Make the extra drive down to Reading, MA.

It was sort of fitting for the film though. It had the right intent, but it was missing key ingredients. Like the book itself and Last Man On Earth, the first half hour or so is the best part. Watching Neville go about his regular routine in a sort of half survival, half fantasy scenario is always the highlight of this particular story. In this version, Neville is in New York, and the scenes of him navigating the empty city are truly effective (though the effect is a bit dulled after Devil’s Advocate and Vanilla Sky did the same thing to a degree). There are some great “future” sight gags in these scenes as well, and the idea of a guy literally watching every movie ever made (in alphabetical order no less) has obvious appeal to me.

But, like always, the 2nd half flounders. Why can’t anyone, even Richard Matheson himself, ever come up with a good way to wrap up this story? Deviating from the book (even moreso than Last Man) is fine, but only if they improve on things, which isn’t the case here. Surprisingly, the film contains far less action than you’d expect from the trailers and pedigree (Michael Bay himself was once attached to this film, and the first scene with Smith is probably leftover from his involvement), though that isn’t really the problem. And considering how awful the CG vampires look, the less of them we see, the better. No, the problem here is that the movie fails to give Neville a real antagonist like his neighbor Cortman in the book. Here, the “big bad” is simply a slightly better rendered CG zombie-vampire thing (“played” by Dash Mihok, who is a recognizable character actor I usually enjoy), and he is given very little to do. There is very little sense that the vampires fear him (making this film’s use of the book’s title, the first adaptation to do so, all the more puzzling), rendering (no pun intended!) them largely inconsequential. Neville’s own crumbling sanity seems a bigger threat than the vampires ever do, with the exception of one (terrific) sequence set in a pitch black building.

They also include some truly idiotic “spiritual” nonsense (spoiler alert!). Early on in the film, during one of the flashbacks (the movie scores a few points by splitting these flashbacks up, Lost-style, but loses a few of those points for focusing pretty much on one night/scene), Neville’s kid randomly says “Look at the butterfly!”. Later, Neville sees a butterfly tattoo on a fellow survivor, and realizes what he has to do to save humanity. So, yes, this film essentially rips off “Swing away, Merrill!” and manages to make it even dumber. Who knows which writer is to blame on this though, since the film has had so many false starts and different creative teams over the past 10 years. This results in what has to be a cinematic first (at least for a film based on a book), as we are given a “Based on a screenplay by” credit in addition to the story/screenplay credits (and, of course, Matheson for his novel). And that’s just the credited writers!!!

So while it was far from a bad film, it was really disheartening to watch as the film went from great to merely OK. Like 30 Days of Night, this has the potential to be one of the years’ best genre films (luckily, the PG-13 rating is of no real consequence in relation to the film’s flaws), but the lazy script prevented such a thing from happening. Still, I was entertained for the most part, thanks in part to the antics of my fellow moviegoers. Going to get a snack, I witnessed a man screaming and yelling about his pretzel, which resulted in a refund, and then the guy went back to his movie... which was Alvin and the Chipmunks. I didn’t think anything would top that, but then I saw a girl buy a soda and Sour Patch Kids, and then throw the soda into the trash without even as much as putting a straw into the lid. What the hell kind of person pays 4 dollars for a cup of colored water and then immediately throws it away?

My enjoyment was also aided by a 6 minute preview of The Dark Knight (aka Batman 2). We watch pretty much a whole scene, detailing a bank robbery orchestrated by the Joker, who is believed to be pulling the strings from an unknown location, and not the 5th robbery member whose face we never see. The scene also includes William Fichtner brandishing a shotgun and generally being awesome. Someone get this guy a starring role!!!

UPDATE – the movie made 80 million over the weekend, beating even Return of the King for a December opening. So who cares what I think?

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Post-Apocalyptic, Remake, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Last Man On Earth

DECEMBER 7, 2007

GENRE: BASED ON NOVEL, POST-APOCALYPTIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

What with I Am Legend hitting theaters next week, I thought I’d give a look at Last Man On Earth, the first adaptation of Richard Matheson’s novel. Also, like 90 readers suggested I watch it. I had always heard bad things about it, so I wasn’t exactly dying to see it, but as it turns out, it’s not all that bad.

However, it’s hard for me to buy Price as a hero. He just sounds too damn sinister. Later in the film, when he finds a fellow survivor, who can blame the poor broad for not wanting to trust him? He makes “I’m not going to hurt you!” sounds like the most threatening thing ever said. I wouldn’t trust him either. Maybe his grandson Jody, but not him.

The movie also offers a fake Peter Cushing.

Also, and it’s been a while since I’ve read the book so I can’t remember if it was the same, but I think it would work better if the flashbacks were separated and delivered in smaller chunks, Lost-style, rather than stopping the movie cold for a half an hour to explain away everything at once. This prevents any vampire action from occurring for far too long a time. Still, the flashback sequence does offer Price saying, quite matter of factly “Maybe it was because I was bitten by a bat...” (in response to his seeming immunity). Apparently, he was the only one ever bitten? But the way he says it is so hilarious (he might as well be saying “Maybe I should have roast for dinner.”), it buys the film another 10 minutes of momentum.

Also, the transfer is pretty ridic. Apparently it was taken from a TV airing. So the film’s 2.35:1 image is cropped, but the film is also windowboxed! And making things worse, the opening credits are either cropped out:

Or the image is stretched vertically so that they wouldn’t be cropped:

Christ. I might have to buy the regular DVD (there’s a new edition with a cover that ape the remake) just so I can watch the movie respectfully. They might as well have shot it with a camera during a screening.

I still haven’t seen Omega Man, though I understand it’s the least faithful of the three. Not that I really care. If you want the book, read the book.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Post-Apocalyptic, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Rise: Blood Hunter (2007)

NOVEMBER 17, 2007

GENRE: VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Have you seen Innocent Blood? Good, you’ve also seen Rise: Blood Hunter. The differences are barely worth mentioning, but since I already wrote a Blood review, I guess I gotta write something. Far be it from me to be lazy (despite the fact that the only reason I rented the movie at all was because it was right next to another movie that I was renting called Rise Of The Dead).

Yes, the film offers precious little new to the genre: a female vampire (Lucy Liu) who doesn’t WANT to be a vampire begrudgingly teams up with a cop who thinks she’s just a killer in order to take out a group of bad guys. Some flashbacks add a bit of brain work add muted interest to the proceedings, but it’s not enough to really make it stick out.

Two things DO stick out though. One is the film’s excessive length. 122 minutes for a movie with barely any plot other than what I described above? At first I was baffled by the claim that 25 minutes of never before seen footage was added to the film, since I thought it was direct to DVD, but apparently it played for a week or so last June (so, along with Fido, was I even fucking awake in June? Christ). By my math, that would make the theatrical version a much more manageable 97 minutes, though I couldn’t care less about what was removed/added. I’ll just say, if the 97 minute version IS available, I urge you to stick with that, the added stuff can’t possibly have made the film any better.

The other thing that caught my attention was the ridiculous amount of one scene turns in the film by people who are relatively well-known, but aren’t quite yet in the cameo stage of their careers. Marilyn Manson and Robert Forster are one thing (actually, two), but Elden Henson? Holt McCallany? Zach Gilford? Simon Fucking Rex? According to the IMDb, Nick Lachey also shows up, but I can’t place him. Not to mention how little Michael Chiklis, Carla Gugino, and Mako are in the film. No, this is almost all Liu, all the time, and since she’s really not that great of an actress, that’s kind of a bummer. At least offer more Gugino, you monsters!

Dammit Saracen, get out of this crap and back on the field!

I will point out that the film thankfully includes very few instances of Liu being all "grrrl"ish, nor does she seemingly hate every character with a penis for no reason (at least not as much compared to Tank Girl or whatever). I was talking the other day with a (female) friend about how much we wish that more action/horror films with females in the lead functioned more as actual movies of their genre and less as feminist fantasy. So in that department, for what it's worth, it does OK enough.

I dunno. Technically the film is fine, and there are nice set pieces here and there, but damned if I’ll remember a goddamn thing about it by the time I finish posting this review.

What say you?

Read more »

Vampire,

{[['']]}

30 Days Of Night

OCTOBER 16, 2007

GENRE: COMIC BOOK, SURVIVAL, VAMPIRE

SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE)

I still recall reading the original graphic novel for 30 Days of Night a few years back, waiting for my window to be replaced (someone stole my stereo). As it was nearing its conclusion (I read it all in one sitting – fucking window repair guys were slow as shit!), I remember thinking how relatively low-key Steve Niles’ story was; other than the basic idea of setting a vampire siege in a town that would be plunged in darkness for a month, there was nothing particularly complicated about it. Not a bad thing per se, but something that surprised me a bit. However, Ben Templesmith’s artwork was phenomenal; providing me more than enough to keep me turning the pages.

So in that regard, the film version is possibly the most faithful comic adaptation of all time. On a strictly visual level, this is one of the greatest horror movies ever made. There isn’t a shot in the film that you wouldn’t want to pause and admire. WETA’s effects are as amazing as always, and the darkness mixed with constant snow makes for a truly amazing setting. But the script doesn't live up to the visuals, in addition to making some weird changes, they condense the comics' play by play, causing some damage to the sense of dread and suspense that the source had.

The idea of time passing is definitely a problem. Granted the lack of having a sunset/rise to show a new day is a tricky obstacle, but over the course of 30 days, our characters barely grow facial hair or seem to get really tired/hungry, nor do they suffer from cabin fever (or whatever you call it when you wear the same clothes and not shower for a month). A few title cards show us that the film shows us about 5 different days during the month, but without them, you would probably just assume it all took place in one or two nights. At one point they skip 10 days’ time, and yet the characters are all pretty much in the same spot they were before. What did they do during this time? How can you read or talk or do anything to pass the time when you’re supposedly in danger? Those are vastly more interesting ideas than what we get to see instead. And their occasional “we got to find somewhere safer” decisions are almost entirely without any real urgency – it seems they are only moving for the sake of an audience wanting some action. They say they need food, but the film doesn’t bother showing anyone eating, or fighting over the last candy bar or whatever. For a film that relies so heavily on its visuals, you would think they could include things like this in order to sell the ideas. As it stands, it just makes the characters seem kind of stupid.

There are some great setpieces though – particularly an attack on the SUV that Josh Hartnett and Melissa George are driving through the snow (a scene not in the book). Another new, fun sequence finds Mark Boone Junior (playing a nice character for the first time I can ever recall) driving his tractor around the town, chopping up vampires with some sort of drill. And David Slade stages a fantastic image/scene, an overhead shot of the town showing vampires running amok, devouring Barrow’s residents. Again, the film never stops being a visual feast, but I just wish there was more urgency to the proceedings. Slade and the writers have called this part “survival horror” – but at no time do I feel that the characters are in any real danger of freezing to death, starvation, etc.

Back to the book, several changes were made to the story, and for the most part, not for the better. For example, Eben and Stella, lovey dovey in the book, are separated (for reasons never explained) here, yet so little is done with it, you gotta wonder why they bothered making the change at all, as it even blunts the emotional impact of the truly great ending (which it DOES retain from the source material). And maybe I just missed it, but one of the few unique ideas in the book was that vampires couldn’t smell in the cold, which is how the humans were able to evade them; a plot point not utilized here. Also, the vampires no longer speak English; instead they (well, HE, as only one of them speaks) converse in a made up, extremely silly sounding language, and their standard bad guy dialogue from the novel is replaced with even worse nonsense that sounds like bad gothic poetry (“God? NO GOD!” is a particular howler). Obviously, no book to film adaptation will retain everything, but some of these decisions just don’t really work for me.

One wise decision, however, was to eliminate the subplot of a New Orleans woman who was tracking the vampires down, for it really broke the pace of the book. Some of this material was actually folded into a short film called 30 Days Of Night: Blood Trails (directed by Haunted Hill 2’s Victor Garcia) that aired on Fearnet to promote the feature film, though it’s nothing particularly special (it feels very cheap and the chainsaw editing is atrocious at times). There’s also more characterization for the other survivors (though seemingly at the expense of characterizing the vampires themselves), which is good, as you’ll actually care about a few of them, unlike the novel which pretty much just focused on Eben and Stella.

So I guess it comes down to what’s more important to you – visuals or story. A few more drafts (or is that less?) of the script could have resulted in the year’s best horror movie by far. As it stands, it’s a fairly straight horror story elevated immensely by some truly remarkable cinematography and action. Hopefully, my somewhat disappointed opinion will be in the minority; a big hit could mean other filmmakers as gifted as Slade will come on board a horror project that has a script I could really get behind (such as a Cal McDonald movie – Steve Niles’ greatest creation by far).

What say you?

Read more »

Comic Book, Survival, Vampire,

{[['']]}

The Brides Of Dracula

OCTOBER 5, 2007

GENRE: BRITISH, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

You gotta love a movie called The Brides of Dracula that features as many references to Dracula in the film as it does in the title (for you math wizards, that’s ONE). Now I know where Soisson and Lussier got the nerve for their idiotic, almost entirely Dracula-less Dracula 2000 sequels.

Not a bad flick though. I haven’t seen too many Hammer films (not even their Christopher Lee-starring Dracula, which this film is technically a sequel to), but the ones I have are all pretty similarly paced: not a lot happens for 80 minutes, then there’s a big finale with a fire or explosion, and then the film ends immediately once the villain is dead, without a single word uttered from the heroes to wrap things up. I love that. If I am watching a horror movie, I want to see horror. Once the vampire is dead, there won’t be any more horror, so why drag on? Ever see the show Smallville? The villain of the story always dies/is captured with like 15 minutes to spare, and then the rest of the episode continues in Return of the King-style fashion, with ending upon ending delivered without any of the excitement we tuned in for. Plus the show sucks.

One thing I liked about this movie is that there were a lot of female roles. Even in the standard scene of someone ending up at a spooky castle, there is no Count, only a Countess (who delivers the unintentional howler “We had gay times... balls...”) and some female servants, one of whom looks like what I suspect Sandra Bullock will look like when she’s like 60 or so:

Would still smash.

Peter Cushing, as Helsing, is his usual dry self, but since he’s a lot younger here than most of the movies I am familiar with him from (such as Star Wars), it’s nice to see him actually doing some physical action. The finale has him jumping off ledges and such, and it’s totally him most of the time. Also, gotta give the movie props for two ideas I haven’t seen before: One, Van Helsing being bitten and cauterizing the wound himself with a hot poker and holy water (more physicality on display from Cushing here), and also using a windmill’s blades to make a giant cross that kills the vampire guy. Sweet!

Like many of the Hammer movies, the film is quite colorful, and the lavish sets are still impressive. It’s nice to know that there was a time when the people who made horror movies actually took the time to make their film look GOOD. This year’s Dead Silence was one of an increasingly rare number of modern horror films that were actually worth watching again simply to marvel at the aesthetics (all the more impressive when you consider Dead Silence was from the same guy who made Saw, a film that one may be tempted to take into the shower with them).

This movie is on a set with seven other Hammer films, though none of the big titles are on it. Anchor Bay has (or at least had) the rights to several others, but as far as I know there is no collection available. Still, 20 bucks for eight films (all of which have widescreen transfers – take THAT, Mill Creek!) is a hell of a deal, especially if the others turn out to be as well done as this.

What say you?

Read more »

British, Hammer, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Bloodrayne: Deliverance

SEPTEMBER 30, 2007

GENRE: HORROR?, VAMPIRE, VIDEO GAME
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I’ve said before, I got no problem with Dr. Uwe Boll. In fact I admire the guy. And it all began at the premiere of the first Bloodrayne, which was the first “Hollywood” thing I did after moving to LA. While HotD and AitD were pretty bad (though in an insanely ridiculous way), I found Bloodrayne to be a much more competent film. The acting was all over the place, but the script and production value were certainly a vast improvement over his last two, resulting in one of the better video game movies. And Boll did a Q&A that revealed to me how much the guy simply loved what he was doing, and had an amazing sense of humor about himself. And then Postal was just hilarious (intentionally) and felt nothing like his other films. Essentially, he kept improving as a filmmaker with each film, so I was pretty excited for Bloodrayne: Deliverance, but for the first time, I don't see the continued improvement from Boll.

To be fair, the film only had like 1/3 the budget the original did, not to mention none of the same actors (except for Michael Paré, who plays a different character). And as revealed on the commentary, the film had a miserable shoot in Canada (due to snow and rain). Unfortunately, that joyless experience translated to the screen for the most part. Much of the film is just, well, DAMP. It’s the vampire movie equivalent of those Sunday morning fishing shows.

Plus, it’s not even really a vampire movie. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if the film was written originally as a standard western and then quickly reworked into a Bloodrayne sequel. Evidence of this abounds in the fighting scenes, in which vampire noises are randomly dubbed in over standard fights with anonymous goons in western attire. Rayne only uses her powers once or twice throughout the film, and most of the deaths are caused via shooting.

However, it’s not a total loss. The 2nd half of the film improves over the first, as Rayne puts together a random team of vampire hunters (including a Hart Bochner-y priest, whose insane sermon that provides his introduction is the film’s highlight) to take down Billy the Kid (Postal’s Zack Ward). Also, Ward’s evil vampire bites (and thus kills) a couple kids onscreen, so at least Boll has got balls. There’s even a pretty nifty trap he sets that threatens to hang like 6 of them at once (and one of them DOES die! Yes!). And from a technical standpoint, the film is fine. Not sure if I agree with the directing style Boll adapted here (handheld, sort of like Battlestar Galactica at times), but it’s never incoherent, as some of his earlier video game films were. And the western-y score is pretty rousing. Also, there’s an AMAZING bit of meta humor during the opening credits, as the “An Uwe Boll Film” credit appears over not only a shot of the Statue of Liberty, but a crowd cheering can be heard as well.

Unfortunately, Chris Coppola is in this film. And, like Postal, he’s the worst thing in it. I don’t know what it is about the guy, but he just irks me, and whereas in Postal he was simply annoying, here he seems completely out of place as a nerdy and whiny reporter doing a story on “The Wild West!”. I know Boll likes to reuse the same folks (speaking of, where the hell is Will Sanderson?!?!?) but he needs to ditch this guy from his troupe.

In the end, it won’t exactly win over anyone who dislikes Boll, but the good news is that it won’t add any fuel to their fire. The commentary is more enjoyable than the film, especially once the DP leaves Boll to himself, and the good doctor begins talking about whatever comes to his mind, including cleaning his dogs, the cable ratings for Alone in the Dark, and of course, German finance/distribution information. He also takes a phone call and then informs us that it was his mother telling him about a sale on mountain bikes. Sadly, he checks out with like 10 minutes of the film left, and the audio just goes mute. There’s also a set of interviews that not only uses the Alien music that you hear in like every movie trailer, but also crops the top and bottom of the film out for some goddamn reason.

Say what you want about his other ones, but this is the first time one might actually call a Boll film boring (even Boll himself seems a bit uninterested; in addition to leaving the commentary early, he is heard yawning several times and has quite a few gaps in his discussion, which is unheard of for him). Taking the budgetary and shooting limitations into account, it’s not as bad as it could be, but it just seems like everyone was just going through the motions.

But hey, at least there’s no footage from the game.

What say you?

Read more »

Horror?, Vampire, Video Game,

{[['']]}

Dracula III: Legacy

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Back in April, I watched Dracula II and commented that I might watch Dracula III: Legacy “next week”. Well it’s almost 6 months later, and “next week” is finally here! I also commented that Dracula II faltered in the villain department by having Dracula play 2nd fiddle to a human baddie. Well Christ, in III, Dracula doesn’t even fucking APPEAR until the final 20 minutes or so, and is killed with another 10 to go. The real villain this time is the film itself, which is insufferably boring and honestly manages to make II look good (which in turn made the terrible first one, Dracula 2000, look good). Jesus. I am almost curious for part IV; I want to see if THAT one is so bad that it can continue this hilariously sad tradition.

The odd thing is, the movie LOOKS like they had a decent budget, as the production value is fairly high in terms of sets, background extras, etc. So you gotta wonder why they would keep Dracula to the sidelines in favor of random soldiers and newscasters. Dimension does the same thing with the Hellraiser sequels, but those movies aren’t called “Pinhead”. Plus, Pinhead barely appears in the first film, a fact everyone seems to forget. But here, there is no excuse. Hell, even the subtitle barely applies, as his “legacy” is the subject of ONE scene. Which is akin to subtitling the 3rd Indiana Jones film “Indiana Jones And The Guy Without A Train Ticket.”

So while Dracula does whatever he’s doing for most of the running time, our “heroes” from the last film are driving mostly aimlessly around war-torn Budapest, saving rebel peasants and reporters, fucking with soldiers... it’s like Three Kings except awful in every possible way. Every now and then a vampire comes out of nowhere and attacks them, but these scenes are quick, bloodless, and not the least bit exciting.

Speaking of the blood, or lack of it: the least a direct to video movie can do is offer up some ridiculous gore. There’s no need for a rating or anything, go nuts! But instead, they do everything half-assed in this department. If Lee swipes with a sword, we see no blood (we HEAR it sometimes though). If he cuts a head off, we see it in silhouette. If someone is bitten, we see the guy screaming rather than the teeth go in. Christ, even Dracula dies offscreen. What the fuck is that???

It doesn’t help that Jason (or Jeremy, I can’t tell them apart and I don’t care to) London is constantly mugging and making jokes that aren’t funny. And Scott Lee is no help, since he can’t act worth a shit either. In fact, every performance in the film is pretty bad, even Rutger Hauer as Dracula III (that’s his actual name folks) seems equal parts bored and high in his 5 minutes of screentime.

Two lines of the film stick out though. In one, the kidnapped reporter character is said to be one of the “most beloved and respected journalists in the world”, yet when we see her do a report she is as bland and uninteresting as a public access weatherman. And if she’s so world renowned, why does her crew consist entirely of one guy with a regular DV camera any of us can buy at Best Buy? So, that was pretty funny, since the line came out of nowhere, and at a point where the chick was basically dead anyway. And then, early on, in the one scene with Roy Scheider (who is still horrible at pretending to be blind), he offers Lee’s character the opportunity to just be a regular priest instead of the vampire killing variety. Lee replies, in total badass mode: “I don’t bless BABIES!” and walks away. It’s delightfully stupid in every way possible, and therefore I loved it so.

But dismissing newborn children is not enough to save yet another pile of crap from the Soisson/Lussier/Rona factory.

What say you?

Read more »

Crap, Vampire,

{[['']]}

Dracula's Daughter

AUGUST 31, 2007

GENRE: CLASSIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

One of the Scotts recommended Dracula’s Daughter after I pointed out how much I loved the part in Herzog’s Nosferatu where Van Helsing gets arrested for murder. I wish he had pointed out that the rest of the movie wasn’t as interesting, or that Van Helsing was needlessly renamed VON Helsing in the film. I like to be prepared.

Instead, DD, as its known to me, is otherwise pretty goddamn slow. There’s some interesting ideas thrown in here and there (not to mention some always welcome lesbian undertones), but there’s too many things copied from the original. There’s still a girl in peril, an aversion to “drinking… wine”, and a town full of folks who don’t seem to mind living in an area with an abnormally high fatality rate.

It’s also pretty lazy. It’s supposed to take place directly after the original, but technology is of the era the film was produced instead of from the period setting of the first film.

Not that it’s a bad film; it’s just there are only so many Dracula movies a man can take in one year. This makes I think 6. Enough I say!

What say you?

Read more »

Classic, Vampire,

{[['']]}