Month: October 2013

Darke Reviews | The Craft (1996)

Posted by

2

Once again we go to the way back machine, moving to 17 lovely years ago. This movie made my own belief system mainstream as I had been practicing for years. Granted I had never seen anything like what they pulled off, nor is it possible but hey a girl can dream about changing her hair colour by will alone. Would save so much on product!! I do remember convincing most of my drama club a few years before to try Light as a Feather Stiff as a board and alas we did not have the same success – go figure. The movie of course is The Craft, with one of the more successful mainstream witch movies ever released – that has actual witches in it. I find an interesting challenge to get into the details of this film as many of the cast and technicals have long since vanished into obscurity, but here we go.

The director is Andrew Fleming, who has had only a handful of directorial projects since; such as Hamlet 2 and a handful of TV show episodes. I will say that there are some performances he coaxes out of his actors in the film that are fascinating if not somewhat disturbing.

Fleming of course is given a script, that he has a credit on, by Peter Filardi, who has also vanished from the film making world. He did however provide us the Brat Pack hit Flatliners and the woefully underrated (and more faithful) remake of Salems Lot. He has a clear love of the horror genre which makes some of his decisions in this films writing curious at best. While much of the dialogue and scenes work there are more than a few moments that if you stop and think about for even a moment give you significant pause and questioning of motivation and character understanding.

The story focuses on Sarah (Robin Tunney – Empire Records, The Mentalist) a girl moving to LA with her father and step mother to start a new life for reasons we never have, or need, explained. She finds and quickly befriends three outcasts at the school who are rumored to be witches – Nancy (Fairuza Balk – The Waterboy, Return to Oz), Bonnie (Neve Campbell – Scream series, Party of 5), and Rochelle (Rachel True). It turns out the rumors are true and with the very presence of Sarah they are finally able to work “real magic”. As they explore their new found powers some of the girls lose their way while Sarah just begins to lose herself. The end result is a fascinating climax as the meek Sarah becomes something new by facing her own fears and demons.

While watching the film tonight, there was interesting conversation about how Skeet Ulrich’s Chris is actually scarier than the finale’s half crazed Nancy. I am inclined to agree. While Nancy herself has clearly lost it, there’s something naturally predatory about Chris that was always there. He’s a real monster that exists beyond the silver screen and to me and my friend that makes him truly scary. Balk’s Nancy has an interesting arc, possibly the most complete one in the film, as she goes from an angry lost soul to a girl who finds something to cling to and people to cling to that in the end simply becomes lost in her own rage. For those familiar with Mage the Ascension, this is a perfect Nephandi arc. You can actually watch her change from someone who clearly is pained by what happens to her friends and whom’s very life is pain to a broken killer. It’s safe to say Balk’s performance is the most memorable in its broken insanity and transition.

Sarah’s arc is a little less obvious where the only thing she finds is her own confidence. Honestly, with a few exceptions of emotions and scenes Tunney’s performance is about as flat as any of Kristen Stewarts. She delivers her lines with a lack of passion that’s disappointing most of the time, but unlike Stewart emotes enough to show she understands the implications of the scene. As a bit of trivia, the entire movie she wears as a wig as she had just completed Empire Records where she shaved her head.

Bonnie and Rochelle are a problem for me. While aspects of their performances are very solid; Campbell’s pulling in on herself prior to the magic and then new confidence after and True’s regret at the pain she causes another, they are also missing something. During one scene Sarah calls them out on behaviors that are changing and when the girls turn on Sarah its very sudden. There was not enough build up or interaction shown to help me understand why they changed so much so quickly. Nancy (Balk) sure, but the other two seem completely off in how their behaviors change towards Sarah. Even through to the very end they are off and make no sense. Each performance is good and believable but they just are so wildly juxtaposed to what you see on screen it is difficult to put together.

The technical aspects of this movie are well done for 1996. Only one or two are particularly weak (hair color) while others are so nicely done you almost done notice them (Mirror effect w/ Rochelle). It’s worth mentioning the beach sequence during the ritual is lacking in some of the effects as nature decided to provide her own. That area of beach is known for being paranaturally active and it from a superstition standpoint seemed to be aware of the nature of the film. The tide you see coming in around the circle was real and concerning for the cast and crew; as was the wind and sudden storms that kept happening. As another technical aspect, the character of Lirio is played by real life witch Assumpta Serna who was the consultant for the movie that kept it at least somewhat respectful of elements to the craft.

I feel the need to point out that this movie came out in 1996 – with an uncredited appearance by Holly Marie Combs. Don’t know her? 2 years later she starred in an 8 season long show called Charmed. Why do I bring this up? Because when Charmed came out it featured an introduction that is the same as the Craft with a flying through clouds, blue skies, the same font AND a song from the movie The Craft as it’s theme song (Morriseys How Soon is Now performed by Love Spit Love). Now I’m not saying the makers of Charmed entirely ripped off the Craft, but…

TL;DR time?

The Craft 17 years later is still an entertaining movie. While closer to the horror genre than other witch movies of late, it is still firmly in the Young Adult realm. It’s quite watchable and a proud part of my collection.

I do have to recommend this movie for anyone who needs a witch fix.
Tomorrow’s review wonders how the maggots are.

Darke Reviews | Interview with a Vampire (1994)

Posted by

1

As I write this review I reflect on the imagery and dialogue choices within the film, how they talk about the two lives – one before and one after. This is of particular note to me as the year I was born was the year the original novel by Anne Rice was released. As with most children the year they graduate high school is the year their new, second life begins; and that is the year that the film was released the oh so lovely 1994. This movie changed the face of modern vampire films as much as Dracula did back in 1931. It goes in waves, we are delivered the monstrous vampire (Nosferatu) then the romantic bloodsucker as Lugosi did. The 80s and early nineties vampire films were a turn from the 70s sexploitation and had become the rebellious monster (Lost Boys). We once again as a lover of the things with fangs, yearned to be seduced again, yearned to be romanced.

Along comes Interview with a Vampire.

The screenplay for the film was written by Anne Rice herself, so any changes to the story she had written eighteen years before can be forgiven as she had evolved as a writer over those years and had fallen in love with her personal demon Lestat. This is the story of Louis, a southern plantation owner begging for death. Death comes in the form of Lestate deLioncourt, who gleefully offers him death or…something more. The film centers around Louis coming to terms with his own existence and what it means to be a vampire. The introduction of a vampiric daughter, Claudia, the betrayal of his own dark father, his journey to find more of his kind are highlights of a rather large scale story told in a personal way. Louis pain reaches new heights as he finally comes to term with his own vampirism but that awareness has such sweet suffering. All of it based around the concept that he is giving the story to a small time journalist and this is the biography he has wanted to get off of his chest.

The director Neil Jordan, best known for The Crying Game, could probably call this his masterpiece. Nearly every decision made and performance reached is on him. The movie is staggering in the amount of sheer gothic visual imagery it contains. Even the musical cues are powerful throughout. The key performances are nuanced and executed well, which falls on a director as much as any actor. It also proves that yes, with the right director a child actor can perform to the caliber of her adult co stars. Please take note M. Night Shamalama-ding-dong.

Lets talk about the actors a bit. When first announced, as a fan of the books, I was incensed at the casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat. Anne Rice herself was less than pleased. When I saw the movie however, he did play one facet of the magnificent bastard that Lestat is. He played it well. I think Townsends’ Lestat is better, but Cruise did a remarkable job. The role of Lestat was a huge departure from his usual A list roles and mainstream films. Others still pan him to this day, but the reality is he did a really good job at playing the Lestat as written in the novel on screen.

Brat Pitt (no I am not going to list his credits, if you dont know who he is, check your pulse), plays our main character Louis. Lets be fair, I don’t like Louis as a vampire or a human. I suppose thats what makes Pitts performance so outstanding is that he at least can make you put up with him for two hours. He covers the range of emotions well, but more importantly understands the changes happening to Louis as the decades become centuries. There is a subtle, but noticable shift in the character that Pitt executes on perfectly.

Both Pitt and Cruise however are upstaged by fledgling actress and twelve year old Kristen Dunst. She played the aforementioned dark daughter Claudia. She is a very naughty girl. she actually seems to force both actors to elevate their own performance. She handles the lines she is given and the physical cues she must perform like someone twice her age, if not three times her age. while if you look at her actual age to the age of the actors she plays against some of those dialogues and motions are far more uncomfortable. When you examine the fact that she is playing a fourty year old in the body of a twelve year old it really shows the ability of the actress and makes the scenes that much more powerful.

From a technical standpoint the film is again nearly flawless. The CGI minimal and what there is of it is difficult to notice in all but a handful of shots. The make up work is amazing and holds up twenty years later. The sets, costuming and lighting were spot on through out the film.

This isnt to say its a perfect film. There are some casting choices that bother me to this day even more than Cruise did at the time. Such as the casting of Antonio Banderas as a cherub faced red head with curls named Armand. I will leave you with that character to actor description for a bit. The technicalities of Claudia’s fate defy astronomy as they could only occur a few days a year.

For the TL;DR crowd

It is one of the best vampire films ever made; while it leans more to the dramatic than the horrific it is an honest vampire movie. It isn’t flawless but it is close. It’s drama however does tend to limit it’s rewatch value to a once a year kinda deal. The performances are amazing and that alone is a reason to watch. Again any changes from the source are tacitly approved by the author, which while not always a good thing, needs to be kept in mind for those who would compare novel to screen.

Interview with a Vampire is a must see for anyone at least once.

Tomorrow’s review doesn’t want to end up like Nancy

Darke Reviews | Carrie – Old (1976) vs New (2013)

Posted by

0

 

I had been waiting to watch this movie for a little over a year from the time I heard Chloe Grace Moretz would be playing the title role. Now since I began an old vs new review schtick recently I thought it just to do an OvN for Carrie – 1976 vs 2013. For fairly obvious reasons I had not seen the original when it came out, I was four days old; however I have watched it several times since and watched it again tonight so I could accurately compare it to the one I saw late last night. How do they compare? How does the new stand up to the classic Oscar nominated film? Lets break it down and much like last time I will use years to specify. This review WILL contain spoilers due to the fact its a remake!

Directing –

Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry, Stop-Loss) brings a certain modernization to the new film, that was needed to tell the story for a modern audience. The performances she coaxes out of her cast and decisions made reflect a profound respect for Brian DePalma’s(Untouchables, Scarface) 1976 adaptation of Kings novel. She brings to 2013 a vast majority of the scenes and shots that dePalma did way back when. She is also wise enough to change it when needed and make her own choices that elevate the movie in many areas but hurt it in others. It’s hard to criticize dePalma’s work because of the classic nature of it, however there are a few things that he cut that Pierce didn’t. Other decisions that he made, such as using a full-powered hose and busting out PJ Soles eardrums during prom – not good. In a true match up 2013 uses more of the original script than 1976, but the overall performances and shots these directors chose are indicitive of their times and experience.

Lets talk script.

This is of course based on the Steven King novel of the same name released in 1974. It was the first of his stories to be adapted to film, the 1976 was adapted for the screen by Lawrence D Cohen. Cohen also adapted other works by King, such as It, Tommy Knockers, Nightmares and Dreamscapes and has a credit on the new film as well. 2013 has a writing credit also given to Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who has Glee to his credit. That’s it. I can’t really say what Roberto added as most of the 2013 movie is nearly line for line from the 1976. Obviously a few things have changed to bring it current, a beat here or there is altered but based on the overall story presented the 2013 IS the 1976 as it was intended to be.

The story

For the few of you who don’t know it, it’s that of Carrie White a homely teenage girl who is picked on and abused from all sides without sanctum or sanity. Most of the students and even a few teachers bully and torment her there, only for her to return home to a mother who is in short – an insane Christian fundamentalist. The poor girl has her first period in the showers in the school gym, surrounded by unforgiving classmates who throw feminine products at her chanting cruel things. Saved only by a teacher Ms Dejardin. During her outburst her telekinetic powers begin to manifest. The rest of the film is an exploration of her growth into her own identity while those around her would destroy her. She has few allies through it all, none who are actually saying anything to her directly. The story culminates with a Prom, Pigs Blood and Pain.
Acting/Performances

Sissy Spacek in 1976 achieved what almost no horror movie actress has in their role, an Academy award nomination. She had a look to the character which fits her nature. She is unassuming, forgettable, the classic wall flower. She never makes eye contact, she looks shrunken in on her own sense of self. She begins to find herself and sense of self as she studies her powers and is invited to prom. The transition for her is interesting and perhaps more subtle than Chloe’s in the 2013. Chloe is hands down the best thing of the new film, but also the worst. Spacek wasn’t pretty (by my standards) so when she performed Carrie it worked on a very specific level. Chloe cannot help but be pretty even when she tries not to be. I suppose though that it adds to the level of her performance as she expertly pulls off every other aspect of what it means to be Carrie. Her transition from girl, to woman, to monster is fascinating to behold. You are with her when she feels joy for the first time in her life. As she stands up to her mother and then when it finally comes burning down.

Before we talk about the other characters we need to discuss the differences between the breakdowns. Spacek goes to bye bye land. She is no longer home and no longer connected to reality when her eyes bulge and vengeance reigns. She is indiscriminate ending her foes and even her friends who she unable to comprehend anymore. Her walk home is that of a lost creature finding its natural habitat. Our 2013 Carrie is different. She’s decided to stop being prey and become a predator. She may have lost touch with reality on a different scale, but more importantly she lost touch with her morality as she deliberately targets her enemies and saves her one friend in the room. It’s important to note she actively does save a life. The rest, the rest just burn as she stalks her way home inflicting righteous suffering. There is actual bliss on her face as some of her enemies die. I think both performances are perfect in this aspect as both show the genie in the bottle being let out in different ways. I think, as a victim of bullying for 7 years of school, I prefer 2013 but that’s taste.

Supporting Cast

Margaret White, played by Piper Laurie in 1976 was a force of nature. She was down right insane and uncomfortable to be around and played perfectly by Laurie, which I believe also got her an Academy nod. Julianne Moore, in 2013, on the other hand is a different force of nature. She’s just as insane, but screams less and has a different level of uncomfortableness to her. You watch her self mutilate and have no touch with reality. Her speech to Carrie before the end of her conception is different in the 2013 and I think better for it’s lack of filth.

The Aggressors

I don’t need to go into too much detail here. They are vile in both films and deserve all that comes with it. The modern twist of filming the shower sequence and posting it online brings it home for the recent cases of cyberbullying and the effects of it. The 1976 cast included more names that had small careers in the 70s and early 80s and some grew into bigger ones. Some guy named John Travolta for example. I don’t think the new cast has such luck as none of them save Sue (below) had any real screen presence

The supporters

Sue Snell, Tommy Ross and Ms Dejardin. Much like I have said with others these characters are iconic to their times. They reflect it perfectly and also much like the aggressors the 1976 cast went on to bigger and better (William Katt and Amy Irving) and the 2013 cast will likely not with the exception of Sue, she might have something. She has a beauty that the camera loves and a bit of charisma that with the right directors could grow into actual acting. I found that the 2013 Dejardin was a little more empathetic to Carrie and showed her frustration with the school a little better.
Effects & Technical

While the fire sequences, lighting, film quality and camera work is better in the 2013 film I think much of that is a product of Hollywood evolution. The crucifixion in 2013 however took me right out of it as the CG was so painfully evident and when compared to the more practical looking flying knives from 76 just didn’t work. I will however defend the end of the film for its choice in the destruction of the house. It was in the original 76 to be done the same way and they couldn’t make it work and by 2013 they did. The same with the death sequences during the retribution, some of them just look better now, but again this is evolution not intent.
TL;DR (I know this was long)

This one is a flat out tie. Because the film plays so faithfully to the original, even going so far as to include several scenes the original cut I can’t say they are different films. They are the same movie filmed 37 years apart. If anything it’s a study in film making now and then.

What I can say is watching the new one, which I do recommend for those so inclined, I felt anticipation growing in my chest as the prom arrived and I was waiting for the bucket. That’s something few movies have done and its something to give credit for. I may add some comments below that are more about elements to the 2013 than a true comparison.

Overall – Both movies are incredibly successful in the translation of Kings story and are faithful to each other. I have to recommend the new one if you love the old. Appreciate all that they did in the making of when we live in an age where we wince at bad decisions in remakes.
Tomorrows review never stops with the whining, but will give you a choice it never had.

Darke Reviews | Monster Squad (1987)

Posted by

2

In the year I turned 11 I do not think there was a movie I watched more or that helped shape some of what was to come for me later in my love of monsters. A film that was a child of the 80s introduction to the wonders that were the great Universal Monsters in all their beautiful campy glory in a way only that the celluloid of the 80s can. It also taught me about the holocaust at a young age. The movie is ostensibly for children and young teens though watching it with the eyes of someone who is supposed to be an adult I both wonder what people were thinking and thank them for thinking it.

The movie of course is the underground and somewhat cultish hit The Monster Squad. Directed by Fred Dekker and written by Dekker and Shane Black. Yes, that Shane Black – I am surprised the movie isn’t based around christmas somehow. While it lacks the action, for obvious reasons, that the Lethal Weapons, Long Kiss Goodnight and Tony Stark 3 had; you can see that Blacks writing hasn’t really changed much in twenty six years. Dekker himself is also responsible for Robocop 3 and the Richard Greico film “If Looks Could Kill.” With what I know now of what was to come for these two in the years after, as this is Blacks Second film and Dekkers third, I wonder even as I watched it tonight – why the hell is it so damn entertaining?

I think the answer to that is a combination of things: Nostalgia, the magic of the 80’s and a love for the classic Monsters that are surprisngly treated as well as you can expect.

The story centers around Dracula (Duncan Regehr) who is hunting for a mystic gemstone that when destroyed will allow the creatures of the night to make their beautiful music all over the earth. Between him and success is an unlikely group of kids (none of whom you know now) who have a club called the Monster Squad. They have a wicked rad tree house I would have killed for and a love for horror films. No I assure you I was not in this film. Along the way they encounter and befriend Frankensteins Monster and face off with The Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Mummy and the Brides of Dracula.

As I get into the technical aspects of the film, let me be clear next to nothing of it holds up. There are a handful of Make-Ups and prosthetics that are still nice looking but they also are perfectly suited for the 80s. The CG is incredibly horrible and you can even see the wires on the sickeningly fake bats.

You leave the movie knowing a few things though, Silver Bullets are the only way to kill a werewolf, Frankenstein saying “Bogus” is awesome, and that wolfmans got nards.

TL;DR?

Ok I have an absolute love for this movie. It is raw nostalgia and I know it. I burned out a VHS tape of it as a kid. It has a tone and feel to it that bring me back to a happier time; but even as I watched it tonight I know it’s not a good movie. Yes, there were even tears at the end for one of the scenes that get me today. Despite what they say, some children can act.

This one is to be watched for Nostalgia or curiosity alone.
Tomorrow’s review will be an old vs new, but wants to take you to prom.

Darke Reviews | Trick R Treat (2009)

Posted by

4

Many of us were first introduced to this film through its musically powerful and highly visual trailer. You say, thats how most people find out about movies, trailers, Duh. That’s true, but this one appeared in front of the DVD release for the movie 300. It had fans of horror movies positively salivating in anticipation. Then, never came to be. Finally a DVD was released in 2009; two full years after the trailer was given to us.

The trailer itself was timeless in it’s own way with a near perfect execution of imagery and sound. It promised us a tale of vampires, classic halloween costumes not seen since the early 80s, ghosts, ghouls and jack o lanterns. Most of you will read this review two weeks prior to the day, this is intentional on my part. This gives you time to watch it and get in the halloween spirit.

Is it a Trick or Treat though?

As normal first we examine sole writer and director, Michael Dougherty. Prior to 2007 he had given us Bryan Singers screenplays for X2 and Superman Returns. In both cases he was one of several involved. Fault cannot be laid soley at his feet and it appears as he worked both films he is friends with Bryan Singer. On his solo outing, he finds a voice all his own. He comes at the movie in a way I haven’t seen since the Creepshow movies or perhaps even Heavy Metal. He interweaves the stories and connects them through touches of subtlety that can be overlooked. What he also shows is a true passion and love for the holiday (my favorite of course) and crafts a tale bringing superstition, horror, and tradition together.

We have the story of a modern woman (Leslie Bibb – the reporter from Ironman 1 and 2) who scoffs at tradition and her husband (Tahmoh Penikett – Battlestar Galactica)who respects it. This is the shortest of them, but has some meaning as it lays the ground work for what is to come. There is also the tail of poor, sweet, virginal Laurie (Anna Paquin – True Blood), with her big sister and friends off to a party hunting for dates as storybook characters. One cannot forget the lessons by principal Steven Wilkins (Dylan Baker – Law and Order) and his son Billy; reminding us of all the warnings we grew up with and some of the modern traditions of Halloween. We cannot have a movie like this without a ghost story filled with tricks, treats, myths, and even revenge. A story of children on a bus left to die long ago and children today who were lost to the darkness inside all people. Of course there is also the final story – the obligatory haunted house. The old man who scares everyone and yet has dark secrets of his own that bring the darkness to him in ways he can only imagine in nightmares.

Now for the month of October many of my reviews, contrary to the norm, have been spoilerific. This one will not be, unless you’ve figured out things from how I said them. If so more power to you.

From a technical standpoint, this movie is everything Halloween should be. Had Carpenter gotten what he wanted in 1978, this film would have fit into his goals for what the Halloween series was meant to be. The effects done by Patrick Tatopulos (Underworld) while not perfect are some of the best I’ve seen for transformations and certainly original. The movie stays practical nearly 100% of the time on all the effects and those that aren’t I can’t tell. It also does something I have not seen much of when it puts actual children in the roles of the very children who are in peril – which is unusual for Hollywood. It also wisely knows when to leave well enough alone and let your imagination and a creative foley artist do far more than any gore effect. A lesson to be learned by many so called horror directors.

TL;DR

The movie has frights, but not too much to handle. It has chills and thrills, twists and turns. This to me, is an absolute must see in the horror and halloween genres. It’s barely flawed and almost perfect in every execution.

It is THE movie to have for a Halloween completist.
Tomorrows review let us know that Mummy came to his house

Darke Reviews | Near Dark (1987)

Posted by

0

No, this is not the film hinted at yesterday. That film requires and deserves more effort and attention than I can provide tonight. Instead I review a slightly lighter fare that resides within the same vein. As I go into this review I need to make it clear that not once in this film is the word Vampire used. Also much like a movie I reviewed the other day it falls into the Vampire Western genre; of which there are more films than you would think.

The year is 1987, it has been one year since James Cameron released Aliens with surprising success as he turned the gothic / sci-fi / horror of Alien into a shoot-em up actioner with only the barest moments of horror. He recommends some of the stars of his cast to friend and eventual wife (and even more eventual ex-wife) Kathryn Bigelow for her new Western/Horror movie. She’s a rookie director with only one film under her belt and a far cry from the woman who would give us Point Break, Strange Days, The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty. Yes that Kathryn Bigelow, the only female director to win a Best Director Academy award.

Not only did she direct the film, she wrote this one with Eric Red another novice but who had written The Hitcher, a rather creepy cautionary tale. They had a solid idea on the story they wanted to tell – Sex, Blood and Cowboys. They picked great locations and used music that had the right western beats and the edgier tone of 80s synth music. I should mention on the “Great locations” much of it was filmed not too far from me in Coolidge and Casa Grande – and it shows for those who have driven through there. You’ll recognize some of the landmarks.

The story is that of Caleb (Adrian Pasdar) a young farm hand who encounters the mysterious Mae (Jenny Wright). His attempts to woo the western beauty land him square with fangs in his neck and sunlight rising. Mae’s family Jesse (Lance Henrikson), Diamondback (Jenette Goldstein), Severen (Bill Paxton), and Homer (Joshua Miller) kidnap Caleb before the helpless eyes of his father and sister. The movie centers around Caleb trying to fight what he is, his romance with Mae and despite it all Mae’s family trying to adopt the unfortunate Caleb as one of their own.

The movie is deeply atmospheric using natural shadows and elements of the desert night to enhance the mood. There is a barren lonely quality that one can really only experience in the middle of nowhere that comes cross in how the movie is shot. Bigelow, even this early knew how to shoot and bring you in. Even though, ostensibly, the vampires are the antagonists, the “hunt” draws you in with its ingenuity and you find yourself cheering for them. When the climax comes you are torn between the needs of the stories final resolution and wanting the Vampires to win. It’s light on the gore and the FX are simple but effective through out.

While it was not successful in the box office due the bankruptcy of the studio that produced it the movie remains a cult hit amongst vampire aficionados. The original box art stood out for years as original and memorable to those who came across it. Sadly the current rights holders decided to “Twilightize” the cover art and so much of what made it interesting was lost.
TL;DR

For vampire and horror fans this is a must see film. It is an iconic movie in the vampire genre not to be missed for all of its elements which at the time were relatively new and original. It is a bit dated, so watch the eye rolls.
———

Tomorrows review knows that it’s tradition.

Darke Reviews | Blood and Chocolate

Posted by

2

Those that know me also know that I love Roleplaying Games, no not those kind, the table top RPG. My particular fancy and general expertise is those of White Wolf. Vampire the Masquerade is of course the top of the collection with quite literally every book. The same publisher also had a game line called Werewolf the Apocalypse. The point to this is that Blood and Chocolate is probably the closest Werewolf movie I have seen to date that conveys much of the right feel to a werewolf game. It is also up there on my list of top werewolf movies ever. Don’t worry American Werewolf in London, The Howling and Dog Soldiers are still above it when it comes to werewolf horror. We aren’t talking about those movies (today anyway), we are talking today about the movie adapation of Annette Curtis Klause Young Adult book.

As expected what do the book and movie have in common? How close of an adaptation is it? Well, having not read the story but reviewed it on Wiki – they have the title and a few characters in common. That said, writers Ehren Kruger (Transformers 2 & 3, Brothers Grimm, The Ring) and Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity 2, 3, 4) somehow translated and transformed the tale (tail?) of werewolves, humans and love completely from novel to screen. I think based on the summary it is an improvement. Perhaps that is German director Katja vonGarnier’s work with the material, the actors involved and of course a massive change in venue.

Moving from a story set in Maryland to one now set in the heart of Bucharest. It helps to have a city so rich in architecture, sculpture and enviornment that it is a character unto itself. All of the shots have a historic weight to them that brings depth no American locale could. They allow you believe that Werewolves have been among us since before the time of Magyar princes and have gone into hiding as men came to fear these creatures who could shift between wolf and man.

The film tells the story of Vivian (Agnes Bruckner) an american werewolf in Romania. Forced to live there after the death of her entire family she finds herself trapped in a life that she tries to escape through daily runs through the city. The local pack leader, who runs the city like a mob boss, Gabriel (Olivier Martinez) has his eyes on her for the position of his new mate despite a massive age difference and the fact that she has no interest in him. In one of her nights trying to escape her life and find solace in the city she comes across a young american starving artist by the name of Aiden (the yummy Hugh Dancy), who is in Romania studying the stories of the Loup Garou (Werewolves) for a comic book, er graphic novel he is writing. Much in the way of Romeo and Juliet these star crossed lovers do fall for each other and a Mercutio like character named Rafe (Bryan Dick) is sacrificed for the cause. Thankfully thats where the R&J similarities end. The two do find each other and are put through trials that test their love and their survivability.

The portrayl of werewolves in the movie is one of the few that brings the wolf dynamic into it as much as the human. There are many subtle and not so subtle mannerisms, movements, and behaviors that show the wolf as much a part of these people as the human is. It was a real pleasure to watch. While they do not have a hybrid form the transformation from human to wolf is made to be a beautiful, spiritual thing rather than a gory painful one. They loup garou do feel like a pack and it was quite refreshing to see.

The romance told over an indeterminate amount of time (a few days-weeks) but builds and is believable. The werewolves believe humans no longer know of their kind yet Aiden is able to research and find enough that he appears to have been told by poor Vivian. When finally faced with her, and her families, true nature he reacts as I believe a normal person would. He freaks the heck out. He actually tries to run away but is stopped not by her, but by the antagonists. When her harms her in the course of saving himself he finds he does love her and works to save her life as well. He also gets one of the most romantic lines ever in a supernatural romance film – “I’ve spent my entire life dreaming about you, what right do I have to wish you away now.” – Melt –
Effects and make up are ok and what fights there are look good. The music is rather catching and I have already gone on for a bit about the sets. The actors are solid with Hugh Dancy really showing many of them how its done. The story does have a few holes in it that you can drive a yugo through but holds together fairly well.

All in all for the TL;DR crowd?

Blood and Chocolate is an easily watchable and enjoyable supernatural romance. It isn’t horror, but is a good take on the werewolf mythos.

I can recommend this for anyone who likes a good romance, YA fan or supernatural fan. It does not have a lot of violence and next to no blood. The title is ridiculous but the end result is worth it.

Tomorrow’s review knows that the blood is the life.

Darke Reviews | Fright Night – Old (1985) vs New (2013)

Posted by

3

This is going to be a new style for me with my reviews, but some movies beg for it others deserve it. With Carrie coming up later this week there will be an old vs new for that one focusing on the original Spacek movie and the current Moretz remake, that will not cover the fifteen bajillion remakes of Carrier since the original.

Today I am going to be reviewing Fright Night 1985 vs 2011. Both are clear entries into the campy horror film and both are highly entertaining. As usual I will go into what history I know and some information about directors, writers, cast and effects. By default this will be a kinda massive review since it’s two movies in one, but the TL;DR will be there at the end. For the sake of understanding I will address the movie by year rather than Original or Remake.

Let’s talk story for those unfamiliar with it; as between the films it lies largely unchanged. Charley Brewster is a normal sixteen year old kid with a hot girlfriend, a nerdy best friend, a single mom and a big problem when a vampire named Jerry moves in next door. Charley alone seems to be aware of the problem and when no one believes him and he doesn’t know what else to do he enlists the aid of TV star Peter Vincent “Vampire Slayer”. Vincent is as much a coward as he is a fraud, but together they find their courage and go to war with the undead.

1985 has writer and director Tom Holland who also gave us the original Childs Play, Thinner and the Langoliers. Hmm two out of four isn’t all that bad. While 2011 brought Holland along for inspiration and blessing, which he gave, it is directed by newly minted director Craig Gillespie who has brought nothing prior that anyone I know has seen. Marti Noxon as the writer brought the modernization and changes to the story using the expertise she learned with her years on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. The world of vampires, irony and humor are not lost on her nor were they on the execution of the film. It probably helps she was also a producer on Buffy/Angel as well so knew some other tricks of the trade to make sure she delivered the right work for the director.

While the overall arc and plot remain unchanged there are some significant changes in the actual story and characters. 1985 seems to be set in some sleepy California suburb where Jerry feels he can feed in peace, until a nosy neighbor interferes with his plans. He really does just want to be left alone. 2011 moves us to the outskirts of Las Vegas as the housing boom collapses like a flan in a cupboard. Jerry here is a clear predator and while he tries to blend in to cover, he also makes no bones about hunting and killing anything in his way. Other changes go more into the characters, so without further aduei lets talk about…

Charley Brewster

Our hero, sixteen, awkward, identifiable and generally speaking a blank slate for our audience to put themselves in. 1985 has William Ragsdale (largely because I *think* Zach Galligan of Gremlins was looking too old). He is frustrated with his girlfriend Amy not wanting to put out and is obsessed with the late night horror movies that we once had in the 80s. He is both awkward and obsessive once he comes to believe his neighbor is a vampire. The character has a Bedroom Window type vibe to him for the first half while he tries to convince everyone of what he saw and the dangers grow. He believes absolutely in what Jerry is and by the time others do it’s too late. He is the hero the entire time – unrequited or no.

2011 gives us Anton Yelchin (Star Trek) who while 22 at the time of release still looks 15. Yelchin gives us a completely different spin on Brewster and perhaps a more realistic one. His high school life has changed as he finds himself dating Amy the hottest girl in school and has chosen to abandon his nerdy past and his friends for her. Interestingly he is the one who is more nervous about sex than she is but she surprisingly respects him for it. When things begin to advance in the plot he like a normal kid doesn’t believe it until faced with the complete and utter horror of it all and the loss of people he cares for. Yelchin’s performance here is actually what I believe gives him one up on Ragsdale as he shows the shock so well and his approach to Vincent has a different kind of desperation to it. He isn’t the hero the entire time but by the end of the movie has earned his stripes and then some, but he needs the help of…

Peter Vincent – Vampire Slayer

If Charleys differences between movies are different by a mile, Vincent is different by a hemisphere. 1985 has such an amazing star as the role, with Roddy McDowall lending his broad depth of talent and experience to the film. His portrayal is that of a Hammer films style actor and late night TV host of horror movies. The character is an actor that when finally convinced to meet Jerry finds his entire world crumble and his life threatened. He is a coward but in the end finds his faith and faces the Vampire. His performance is honest, true and you feel for him and the transition from vampire hunter actor to vampire hunter for real is as painful as it should be. It also lends some of the true heart and humor in the movie that the other actors fail at miserably.

2011 has a Criss Angel like, Vegas showman with a hit occult performance and pure over the top modern goth look to him. Pulling it off in style is David Tennant (If you don’t know who he is. You Fail at geek life). Everything about the showman is ridiculous and perfect. Some people compared his character to Jack Sparrow and to that I say “he’s a brit, playing a drunk brit. At least he was an actual brit to begin with.” Unlike 1985 this Vincent is a collector of all things arcane and vampiric to the point scholars go to him, though if they get something coherent from him I am surprised. This one dismisses Charley not because he thinks the boy is insane, but because he KNOWS he isn’t and is afraid to face his own demons. When his own life is threatened he wants to run but mans up and joins Charley, at some cost, in the 11th hour against…

Jerry Dandridge

Chris (Humperdink) Sarandon vs. Colin Farrell. Hmm, here it gets interesting as we have two different takes on the same predator. 1985 has the Yuppie, scarf and sweater wearing, apple munching monster who wants to be left alone and would have gotten away with it had it not been for those nosy kids. While in 2011 we have a more blue collar contractor who blends with his environment only to the point where you pay attention. 1985 hides the vampire beneath the veneer of civility and politeness and has a hidden menace with each line and smile. Everything he says comes across like a gentleman who as Charley or a Viewer know is a veiled threat. 2011 is more direct. He acts like a predator and anyone paying the least bit attention can see it, including the other characters. He wastes no time playing cat and mouse with Charley and taking what he wants knowing he is the superior species.

On that point. There’s two different takes on Vampires between the two. While the original just says Vampire, the new one feels the inexplicable need to explain them as something. A decision I don’t agree with but somewhat explains the odd look to my favorite fanged beasts in both films. On the actors though, while Farrell is a predator, Sarandon is a monster and wins just for the line “Welcome to Fright Night. For Real.”

Supporting characters?

The girlfriend, I won’t spend much time on as she performance in 1985 by Amanda Bearse (Married with Children) is outshined and far less annoying in the 2011 played by Imogen Poots (yes thats a real name). 2011 is a far stronger and just far more likeable character.

The mom. 85 is a nearly non-existent, stereotypical 80’s mother. 2011 is a stronger, more supportive and modern woman and carries the events better.

The best friend. “Evil” Ed. I am torn here as Evil was a nickname I had through middle and high school because of this film and character. 1985 is played by Stephen Geoffreys with his manic presence and high pitched voice. The movie fails to give him much to do but it’s clear he has a back story I find far more interesting than Charleys then. The pain on his face when Jerry meets him in the cold, dark alley is just one of the reasons to love him; if you can get beyond the voice. 2011 however has Christopher Mintz-Plasse (most known for Superbad or Kick Ass) playing a slightly different Ed. Only slightly. Both really are the same character and have the same depth but 2011 gives the actor more to run with and you ache for him when he meets Jerry VERY early in the film.

Effects?

1985. Hands down. While the sets, dressings, costuming and general make up are superior in the 2011 it relies to heavily on CGI to keep you invested. There are a handful of practical make up effects but they look to be touched up by a clumsy hand on the post production. 1985 has all practical all the time, save for some rather bad post production flames. While the effects don’t necessarily hold up perfectly nearly thirty years later, they are still superior when you realize they are all make up and prosthetic work and keep you invested when they are used. Sometimes ridiculous looking, the fangs/face morphs in both are weird, but 1985’s just work better.
Where does that leave us?

TL;DR of course, thought we’d never get here eh?

My count:
Wins:
2011 Charlie
1985 Gerry
2011 Mom
2011 Amy
1985 Effects

Ties
Peter Vincent
Evil

Too close to call
Story – Both are perfect for when they came out and will be frozen in the time they did.
At the end of the night, the two movies are both very enjoyable and completely watchable on different levels. I think the 2011 version is just slightly better overall in execution and can, despite the bad effects, deliver a more long lasting entertainment value.

I recommend watching both and letting me know what you think in the comments below.

——————————–

Hint for tomorrows review wants to know if these knives are real silver

Darke Reviews | Practical Magic (1998)

Posted by

1

Yesterday I mentioned how the fall of 98 was one of my most favorite ever. It was the perfect fall in Florida for me, where it cooled off quickly by late October. Every night on my way home from the late shift at work I was driving through moonlit bogs with low mist rolling across them and the moon reflecting in the water. Type-O Negative or Alucarda blaring through my car speakers. The trees were bare where I was in Fernandina Beach and had I not been in Florida and rather some north eastern small town it would have been a picture perfect October. Nearly every night for a week I was at the local four screen movie theatre watching this movie which struck nearly every chord in me. It had romance, the supernatural, great acting, a good story, and a fantastic soundtrack.

Practical Magic, was helmed by Actor/Director Griffin Dunne (American Werewolf in London) which is an adaptation of the novel by Alice Hoffman. Per the usual, I have not read the book but have also been advised against it. In an unusual twist a movie with three writing credits is done well. We have Adam Brooks, Robin Swicord and Akiva Goldsman on the screenplay credits. Swicord was also responsible for the eminately watchable Memoirs of a Geisha and the acclaimed Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Goldsman is more of a producer (Fringe) these days and has been hit and miss in the writing department (Batman & Robin and Batman Forever, now you know who to send hate mail to). Surprisingly the three individuals pulled together a cohesive story that reads and plays out well with very few holes that I can poke in its execution.

Some of that may come down to an amazing cast who are some of the best in their craft (pun intended). Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman, Stockard Channing, and Dianne Wiest are the absolute stars; with Aidan Quinn and Goran Visnjic filling in for the romantic interests. All of the players in this do a remarkable job of selling all the emotions needed to draw you in.

The story moved around two sisters Sally (Bullock) and Gillian (Kidman) who are born to a long line of witches. Sally after a bad run in with magic wants nothing more than to be normal and to raise her daughters to be normal in a life without magic. Gillian on the other hand loves her life and lives it with a wild abandon that leads her into the life of Jimmy Angelov (Visnjic) who had this been a different film could have also been a vampire. Normalcy and Wildness clash when Gillian gets into trouble and Sally comes to the rescue. The two sisters are guided by the aunts that raised them Jet (Weist) and Frances (Channing) as they face the consequences of their actions, their sisterhood and their family’s past.

There are a handful of effects in the film and they are executed well enough but what really stands out as an aid to the story telling is an amazing soundtrack. Stevie Nicks contributes several songs that you can’t help but be drawn into the movie because of. There is something intangible about this film that does just that, draws you into their fantastic world and for me personally I would have loved to be part of that family or live on their island.

TL;DR

If you want a little magic in your life or romance, if you want to believe in the power of love or have a sister or someone that you would move heaven and earth for, this may be a movie for you.

Obviously this one isn’t horrorific so if thats what you want, give it a pass. This is a romantic movie with a supernatural bent that other movies in this genre could take a page from. Including many of the YA stories.

——————————-

Tomorrows movie is a double feature review that wants to give you a hickey before it turns into a Vampire.

 

Darke Reviews | John Carpenters Vampires (1998)

Posted by

0

A few reviews back I said the summer of 92 was one of my favorite of any. The fall of 98 may hold that title for my favorite season of the year. I was gifted with two films I love for vastly different reasons. One tells the tale of a family of witches in a small town on some indeterminate coast. The other creates a genre unto itself, the Vampiric Spaghetti Western. A cowboy movie where the white (ish) hats are the hunters and the vampires are the outlaws. While not literally a western in the John Wayne, Eastwood or Leone it has all the vibes and beats of one, including musical queues. The movie of course is John Carpenters Vampires.

Arguably one of the great masters of modern horror, with 38 writing credits and 28 directing credits to his name John Carpenter (Halloween, The Thing, The Fog) decided to take on the Vampire genre since he had hit everything else over a 40 year career. He decided to direct whilst letting a writer by the name of Don Jakoby (possibly an Alias for someone else) adapt John Steakleys novel Vampire$. In typical studio fashion they interfered with production by cutting the budget by 2/3 just before filming, nice eh?

What ends up on screen however is one of the more pure, entertaining and utterly ridiculous vampire films of the past twenty years. James Woods plays Jack Crow, a vampire hunter on the churches payroll. It’s like Boondock Saints with fangs. That should give you an interesting visual. He and his partner Anthony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin – the one not on 30 rock or Serenity), are tracking down an ancient vampire looking for a relic that will enable him to walk in the sun.

The plot itself, which has nothing to do with the books, isn’t particularly inventive or creative. It does however have some dialogue choices and banter in it unlike anything I’ve heard in a mainstream film then or really since. Woods carries the movie like some sort of Vampire himself, with scenery as his diet. I think he was specifically told to ham it up and just find the top and go a few miles over it. It works. It shouldn’t but because it is Woods it does.

The bad guy has a total of 14 lines of dialogue in the movie. I counted. Its a breath of undead air for a villain to not truly monologue or just talk so much as to lose their menace. A scene with him versus a few hunters is beautifully one sided and executed to a Tarantino/Rodriguez like perfection.

Make up and gore were brought to you in this film by the masters of such work at KNB studios with Berger, Kurtzman and Nicotero being directly involved with the film. You may not know them like I do, but their work is some of the best practical effects in the industry.

There IS a sequel to this one which stars Jon Bon Jovi.

Ok now that you’ve stopped laughing; I have to say while not nearly as ridiculously over the top it is entertaining. JBJ himself is one of the best things in it and they maintain the bad guy of the piece having minimal dialogue (4 lines, just above SAG minimum).

TL;DR

I saw this one three times in the theatres that fall and at least a dozen times since. It is pure unadulterated vampiric fluff and I love them for it. Some movies are bad because they had no love, others are bad on a level that makes you love them. This is the second. It looks and feels like Segio Leone was ghost directing with Carpenter and quite honestly it’s better for it.

My vote, if you have a couple of hours to kill and are in the mood for a non scary vampire film, put this one in. You can pass on the second unless you are really bored.
Tomorrow’s review knows how to make flapjacks in the shape of a saguaro cactus.