Horror

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 | 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 | 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.

Darke Reviews | Dracula 2000 (2000)

Posted by

0

In the late 90’s and early part of the new millennium there was a movement that began slowly and swelled that continues to this day. The re-imagining , the remake. No genre was immune, no character protected, and no plot spared. Deep Blue Sea, for example is the beginning of a tide of shark movies (pun intended, deal with it) that at the end of the day try to capitalize on that which was the Jaws franchise. Two masters of horror, Wes Craven and John Carpenter were not to be left behind. In 1998 Carpenter released Vampires (review later this month), which added his own unique spin to the vampire mythos. Two years later the much esteemed Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, Last House on the Left, and more) decided it was his turn and produced Dracula 2000.

He trusted his name to Writers Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier, as well as letting an untested Lussier direct the film. The two men have gone on to work on the sequels to the film (yes it has sequels more on that later) and other low budget, mediocre concept, adequately executed horror movies for Dimension films.

They put together an interesting cast of actors no one at the time had heard of but have gone on in the past thirteen years to some interesting careers. Some of you may have heard of the stories hero actor, Johnny Lee Miller (Elementary) who had really only done Hackers with his long since ex-wife Angelina Jolie. There’s a man named Omar Epps who did a little show called House for a few years. Another actor in one of his earliest films and if you are a friend of mine you know him – Nathan Fillion, has a bit part. Then of course there is Dracula himself, this Scottish actors career has only had a few movies you’ve heard of since this, which was his second American, film. I understand that some of you may have seen Gerry Butler in a movie called 300, Phantom of the Opera, Gamer,and How to Train your Dragon. The movie also includes Vitamin C (yes the singer), Jeri Ryan, and the great Christopher Plummer. The great actors in it sell their parts well and the ok actors do their best to keep up making even the worst written moments watchable.

This is the story of an immortal Dracula (Butler) held captive rather than killed by Van Helsing (Plummer) after his reign of terror in London in the late 1800s. He escapes in the modern day due to a group of thieves who are in over their jugulars and free the monster during a misguided robbery. As he explores modern New Orleans – because where else do vampires go? – he tracks down a descendant of his bloodline named Mary (Justine Waddell) who is being protected by Van Helsing’s protege, Simon (Miller).

Now as a vampire lover, I must acknowledge the effects are Ok and that the story as a whole is terribly convenient. What it does do is add something new to the mythos of vampires that I had not seen done prior. As the spoiler statute of limitations has long since expired I will go into it contrary to my more current spoiler free movie reviews. Dracula in this film is Judas Iscariot. What?! I know, it sounds odd, but it made for an interesting story which allowed them to explain why he is vulnerable to silver (if I have to explain the connection, please go read a book 🙂 ), Sunlight, is nominally immortal and despises holy relics. On paper it doesn’t look like it should work ; yet in execution I find that it does. It brings an interesting and new element to the mythologies of the vampire that I truly do appreciate.

The writers, despite some lack of subtlety, also clearly love the original stoker story; even so much as to recognize a single throw away line in the novel. They incorporated many elements of the original novelization into the movie and how they might appear in their modern incarnations for better or worse. Mary Westenra, Dr. Seward, the Demeter and other classic elements all make their presence known. Its even apparent they studied multiple vampire stories from any number of cultures to come to the final resolution of the film. They explore more of this in the next two films, neither of which are particularly good and are only moderately watchable as expected from Dimension films sequel work.

Fight choreography wise..OK lets move on to the TL;DR

Dracula 2000 is in my top 10 vampire movies. It is a truly solid vampire film and adds to the universe in an innovative not derivative way. I do recommend it for those who enjoy vampire films, but if you want scares give it a pass there are only a few to be found.

——————————————————————
Tomorrows film never thought werewolves would save them.

Darke Reviews | Queen of the Damned (2002)

Posted by

0

Few times in all the movies have I watched has there ever been a film that is so blatantly a quick, sloppy studio money grab than the adaptation of Anne Rice’s Queen of the Damned. That being said there are even fewer times that such a blatant grab is actually enjoyable for me. Let me explain for those who haven’t seen it.

The year I was born the world was given another gift, Interview with the Vampire. Ten years later Anne Rice followed it with The Vampire Lestat, two after that Queen of the Damned. Somewhere along the way Ms. Rice sold the rights to her books to Warner Bros, who in a rare moment of beautiful handling gave the first of the books to Neil Jordan and he gave us Interview with the Vampire in 1994 (Review to come on that one). The years passed after the critically acclaimed film and the studio found its rights to produce the next movie waning rapidly. With DAYS to spare before expiration they quickly put into production the Queen of the Damned. What happened to the second book? Oh lets get to that…

WB, in its more typical case of mismanaging franchises and scripts, gave the writing to two men who I won’t name since they haven’t apparently worked since who feverishly read the cliff notes versions of the two books and then used trained goldfish to write a script. The source material itself was thrown into a blender and the two books merged to become one. While I have spoken about adapted material before, sometimes at length, the raw amount of ignorance that was shown in this adaptation is nearly criminal. Easily 600 pages of the just over 1,000 were expunged for the film. The sheer number of characters, plots, history and mythology that were lost is too much to mention.

By now, it sounds like I despise the movie doesn’t it? I should. Yet I don’t. It deserves it as many other reviewers out there, fans and critics will attest, but I don’t. Why? Because it got some things perfect, for all its many many flaws. Casting about half right but the half that was spot on. Music, while tonally appropriate, beautiful, haunting and again spot on, was dated by the time it came out. Costumes, sets, general look and feel – I love.

Lets talk casting. Stuart Townsend plays our main character of Lestat. Let me be clear, while the earlier incarnation was good it wasn’t quite Lestat. Townsend IS the Lestat I wanted. He was arrogant, he was magnificently beautiful, he was rebellious, and so cock sure he could “I am the vampire Lestat”. Then there is the casting of the titular character, Akasha, played in a way by the taken too soon Aaliyah. When I first heard this casting, there was nerd rage, then I saw the film and I loved her and missed her. I was unsure how “she” could play a force of malevolence and yet she did it. She was sexy, she was dangerous, she was truly the Queen of the Vampires. Vincent Perez and Paul McGann play the slash fic couple, no not really, but they are cast correctly in their roles as Marius the ancient roman vampire and David Talbot of the Talamasca watchers of the supernatural world. Now I did say half right…

Lena Olin, while always solid as an actress is clearly not Maharet the sixteen year old red headed beauty with no eyes. Marguerite Moreau as Jesse performs only slightly less wooden than Kristen Stewart, with a few moments of emotion in an otherwise bland performance.

Musically, I owned the soundtrack before the film even came out. David Draimans music was perfect for the fim and quite honestly in 2002 I don’t think better could have been achieved. Was it the music of the God of Rock and Roll that Lestat became? Eh..not really, but in this day and age vs. 1985 I don’t know that we have true gods of rock anymore.

Director Michael Rymer (later known for Battlestar Galactica) did what he could with the script, budget and time he had. That this movie isn’t SyFy quality is only a testament to him. The shot angles were lovely, sets and costuming everything I want in a vampire film of this nature.

Story, oh let me get back to the story. It’s bad. It’s bad in ways that I didn’t think it could be. They have David Draiman write all these songs to be used for the movie, QUOTE the usage of the song and then say it has lyrics that aren’t actually in it. It falls under the weight of trying too much in too little time and rarely if ever handles a single scene perfect. Much less just right. Townsends, Perez and Aaliyah’s natural charisma are all that make it work. Beautiful moments are saved thanks to the actors (Hello David), and we are taught to appreciate our prey.

So where are we? TL;DR

Queen of the Damned is one of the most flawed vampire movies out there yet is still quite enjoyable. I consider it a guilty pleasure movie that I can actually watch over and over. Unlike another vampire series, this one had good original writing, bad scripting but was saved by good acting.

I do think it’s worth checking out for the vampire aficionado, but most everyone else give it a pass. Audiophiles may dig the sound track so that alone is worth getting for them.

——————–
Hint for tomorrow: You’re not afraid of the dark, are you?

Darke Reviews | Kiss of the Damned (2013)

Posted by

0

If you know me – at all – you know Vampires are what I live, breathe and bleed. So when I hear of two indy vampire films being made and released in the early part of this year that take the subject matter seriously I get interested. Neil Jordan’s Byzantium and Xan Cassavetes Kiss of the Damned, two films barely released within the US market. Why? They weren’t marketable to what american audiences are asking for. While I have not gotten my hands on a copy of Byzantium; I was lucky enough to find Kiss of the Damned on Netflix.

Writer/Director Xan (Alexandra) Cassavetes, clearly has a similar passion to mine on the subject of vampires. While I am loathe to admit it, I can see some inspiration in her work from the Twilight films; however where the vampires there were fangless, bloodless and nearly sexless, Xan’s vampires are the complete opposite. They are erotic in a way we have not seen since the late sixties and early seventies vampire films now plied with modern sensibilities. Though I did say she may have taken some inspiration from Twilight, as there appears to be a nod or two in the direction of Forks in some of the dialogue, it is also evident she loves the pulpy, sexy, Vampire films that all but ended after The Hunger.

Kiss of the Damned brings those 70’s erotic horror styles and melds them with strong european (mostly french) film styles of the current era. The Vampires here are sexy, they are vulnerable and they do love their blood. These stylistic choices are definitely not for all audiences, which can and do often slow the pacing to a crawl and bring imagery that goes too heavily into the abstract art than clear visual film presentations.

The story you ask? It’s a love story (of course) in which succesful screen writer Paolo (Heroes Milo Ventigmilia) encounters the enigmatic beauty Djuna (Joséphine de La Baume – you’ve never seen her in anything, I promise). It’s love at first sight, followed by first bite as the movie waste little time in having the lovely Djuna turn her paramour. The rest of the film deals with his entry into the world of vampires and the appearance of Mimi, Djuna’s gothic lolita sister. Mimi’s presence seeks to turn Djuna and Paolo’s, much less the local vampire communities world upside down.

The acting was everything I expected from a foreign film, subdued, nuanced and elegant. Stylistically it’s a world I think I would like to escape to given the opportunity and I rank it up there with the great gothic vampire films mentioned earlier. There are also some interesting sound choices for the music that some audiophiles will be intrigued by. Cinematically, however, as I mentioned the film veers into art more than story telling a few times and while sometimes appropriate it can be distracting. It does not skip on the gore and the make up work is above par for what we get these days.

So for the TL;DR crowd, the part you’ve been waiting for.

If you are a vampire phile like me , this one is not to be missed.
If you like erotic and or romantic horror, check it out.

Otherwise, sadly, the studios were right, this one is not for the mass market. A shame that as I truly did enjoy the first real vampire film I’ve seen in quite some time.
—–
Hint for tomorrows review – Is that gasoline I smell?