MovieReview

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.

Darke Reviews | The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Posted by

3

This is the last of my late reviews. Yes, thats right aside from Riddick I saw nothing in September or October so far. As of the writing of this review I have watched this movie three times; so I believe I have a solid grasp on it. It does need to be said, per usual, I have not read the books on which this film is based, I can only judge it on it’s cinematic merits or lack there of. So what do we have here hmm?

A director, Howard Zwart (The Karate Kid 2010), with only one film that is considered remotely successful has been given the keys to what the studio prays can be another Twilight for them. For those less familiar with the studios, what they look for is Franchises and Tent-pole pictures with which to base their year around. Many of their existing franchises are drying up as the books and films have run their course (Potter, Twilight), while others move into risky territory (Marvel Phase 2) and yet others need a reboot after only a few years (Batman). Tent-pole pictures this year have largely collapsed under the weight of their own expectations (Lone Ranger, Man of Steel). That being said the powers that be are looking for the next big thing. Rarely a week goes by where I don’t read about a new young adult novel that hasn’t even been fully published and released being optioned for a movie. That’s right studios are gambling on the whims of young adults on things they don’t even know if they will be popular. I think I’ve got better odds in a Vegas Casino of beating the house.

While they gamble on everything else, Constantin Films also felt the need to bet on an untested writer. Jessica Postigo, a former journalist was tasked with the unenviable job of translating Cassandra Clares works to be ready for screen. How is the source material? I really can’t say personally, however, I admit a soft spot for the writer. Much like me she is an indy writer, specializing in fan fiction, who made it good. I have a vested interest in supporting her as it gives hope to me and lots of other amateur writers like me that we can one day make it big, get published for real and even maybe if you are really lucky have a movie made.

About the movie, how is that final product? Well – actually not bad at all. We have the story of Clary (Clare?), played by Lily Collins (Mirror Mirror) a young New Yorker who enjoys hanging with her friends at local clubs and coffee shops. She also has begun seeing things, symbols hidden in signs and in her dreams. On a night out she sees more than symbols as someone is killed in front of her and no one else can see it. She’s forced to confront her own past and face her own future as part of a world she didn’t know existed. The movie deals with all that comes with it rather well. Collins brings all the right emotions at the right times. She feels genuine in her reactions and for me was easy to identify with and want to be despite it all.

Supporting Clary on her Buffy like journey is the rather adorable Jace – the obvious love interest – (Jamie Campbell Bower), Alec (Kevin Zegers)- Jace’s…something -,and Simon (Robert Sheehan) – Best human friend she has. Filling out the cast is Lena Headey as her mother, Jared Harris as Hodge the mysterious mentor, and our soon to be Dracula, Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Valentine. A twist of beautiful irony has Aiden Turner the vampire from Being Human playing a werewolf. I must pause for a moment to talk about new actor Godfrey Gao who absolutely steals every scene he is in as Magus Bane.

So the acting is “alright” – this won’t win an Oscar any time soon – and the story is good, what about the effects and other technicals? Honestly, they aren’t horrific. It’s the best I can manage here. With a mere 60 million dollar budget and quite a lot of effects needed for this by comparison to other YA films, the effects work. They don’t blow my mind and some of them I’ve seen before in other films. Sets, music and atmosphere however make me ignore all that and truly help bring the audience into the film. where there are plenty of films that feel “wrong” when I look at their atmosphere and dressing this one is actually “right” in every possible way for me.

The movie is not without flaws however, much of which come from the original source material. I said I support Clare, I didn’t say she was the next Shakespeare. Her influences from other genres and works is clear on many pages of the movie. You will see Constantine, Star Wars, Stargate, and yes, even a bit of Twilight as you go through the movie and for the most part it’s not too rough. The music during the upbeat of the romance feels like an episode of anything on the CW. The acting at times, mostly when love triangles come into play is so ham-fisted I kept wondering why I was tasting bacon. Then in other moments it reads perfect and natural, that in itself is a flaw when it cannot keep a consistent tone. The movie does fail on that one pretty spectacularly where in the condensing of so much material from the book it lacks quite a bit of polish.

TL;DR?

At the end of the day, I actually really love this movie. I think I explained why before, but the movie resonates with me on a level not a lot do. So in all honesty I cannot recommend it for everyone.

If you are a fan of the books, it’s an absolute must. (Confirmed by people who have TATTOOS based on the books that were in one of my showings)

If you are a fan of YA books or films, then give it a try. I think you’ll enjoy.

Not a fan of supernatural romance, young adult level fiction, or the CW consider this a wave off ghost rider, the pattern is full.
Tomorrows film doesn’t ever shut up.

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 | The World’s End (2013)

Posted by

0

Another of my late reviews (and I gave the wrong hint yesterday), I bring you the conclusion to the trilogy put together by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg. You may have heard of the films they did together before, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. If you haven’t seen them stop reading this now and go see them.

No really stop. Go see them.

Alright welcome back. If you know me, you know as a general rule I loathe anything resembling modern comedy films. There is something about these three movies that I find satisfying on a comedic level and even though many of the characters are obnoxious to the point of unlikeability the films work. I lay full blame on that for the natural chemistry and unending charm of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Pegg alone is ever watchable and entertaining; lifting the caliber of whatever he is in. When together with Frost they are a force of comedy to truly be reckoned with.
Pegg and his other co-hort in comedy Edgar Wright, wrote the film together which tells the story of Gary King (Pegg), a man eager to relive the triumph (or near triumph) of his youth. He wants to drink himself down the golden mile in his home town, a pint per pub. To do this he gathers his band of brothers from high school whom have all gone their separate ways and are reluctant to return to their brash ways. Somehow King manages to convince all of them to return with him to Newton Haven to try to finish what they started twenty years before. When they arrive something is wrong in their sleepy little town. King and company find themselves in over their heads and their alcohol tolerances as they try to finish their pub crawl and save the world.

The movie is slow to start but once it gets to the meat of things doesn’t really let you catch your breath. The writing of all the characters and the performances are top notch in the genre and special props need to go to Pegg. The character of King is borderline detestable and the type of friend that we all have and never quite know what to do with in their obnoxiousness. Yet Pegg is able to bring a vulnerability to him in a few quiet moments that endear you to this broken shell of a man.

The cinematic aspects of the movie – the lighting, camera work, fx and fight choreography bring the movie together in a cacophony of laughs and entertainment. You know watching this movie that Frost, Pegg and Wright knew what they were trying to make and knew full well what movies they were paying homage to. They succeed on all counts.

for the TL;DR crowd

If you liked the other two movies this is an absolute must see. If you enjoy more European humor again an absolute must see.

Otherwise I can’t absolutely recommend it, but strongly would.

——————————-

Tomorrow’s hint learned never to mess with an Antique dealer.

Darke Reviews | Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992)

Posted by

0

 

Ah 1992 how I look back on you as one of, if not the favorite summer of my life. Lifeguarding at a pool surrounded by cuties, A League of Their Own, Bram Stokers Dracula, and a movie with a ridiculous title but that I was required to see by an unwritten law of the undead – Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Written by a man whom at the time no one knew, some guy called Joss Whedon (heard of him since then?) who had this concept of mixing horror with a level of self aware ridiculousness and a storyline at the time we had never seen before. He sold his idea to the studio 20th Century Fox, who bared their teeth and showed him just what kind of damage they are willing to do to his ideas in the years to come.

Fran Rubel Kuzui (director and producer), who still has film rights to the name, concept and characters treated the introductory work the way Vlad Tepes treated his dinner guests. Turned this intresting concept into raw camp and borderline schlock with no love for the writers intent, vampires, movies, or actors.

Let us add to the butchering a well known actor who refused to concede on anything and to this day Whedon dislikes by the name of Donald Sutherland. We will fill our movie out with Paul “Pee Wee Herman” Rubens, Rutger “I’m here for a paycheck” Hauer, Luke “90210” Perry, Hilary Swank in her first movie role, David “Scream” Arquette, and Kristy “I’ve done nothing you know since” Swanson. Let me also include Thomas “Punisher” Jane (in his first movie), an uncredited Ben Affleck, Ricki Lake, and Seth Green Stir it together in celluloid for 92 minutes and you have a beautiful mess that somehow ended up being as entertaining as it was horrible.

The effects are sufficient for the time especially when you consider the ridiculousness the studio went for over the semi-serious tone that was intended. Make up wise it is oddly better than average with some small attention to detail that might be overlooked. The look of the vampires were comical but at least they had fangs and drank blood.

While the final product was utterly ridiculous, it does have some beautiful gems of dialogue and moments where you can’t help but laugh as you’re rolling your eyes at it. Swanson actually despite everything shows more growth during the film than many movies can claim for their heroine. She has moments where her acting shines showing the vulnerability of a teenage girl faced with a completely strange world and how she deals with it. She captures a bit of the fear and incredulousness at her new situation along with her transition from vapid and shallow to the savior of the school and Slayer. There are plenty of subtle nuances in her performance and a delicate fatigue she brings as the movie progresses to it’s climax.

Thankfully, for vampire fans everywhere, five years later Joss Whedon once again gave the concept to Warner Bros who let him hold to his vision and gave us the Buffy TV series we all know and love.

So 21 years after release where does that leave us for TL;DR?

Buffy the Vampire Slayer the movie needs to be watched at least once. Embrace the ridiculousness and praise the Whedon that he was able to salvage the characters to become an amazing seven season show.

Buffy is and always will remain a guilty pleasure movie of mine, while not good, still highly entertaining with one liners I quote to this day.

—————————————————————–

Tomorrow’s review realized if it wasn’t fun – whats the point.

Darke Reviews | Riddick (2013)

Posted by

0

Thirteen years ago the world was introduced to Richard B. Riddick and a new actor whose star was on the rise in Hollywood by the name of Vin Diesel in the film Pitch Black. The Sci-Fi Horror genre had not really seen a film like this in years, arguably since 1979’s Alien. Low budget, high concept alien horror, with a cast of mostly no name or character actors. It did poorly in theatres as most films of this nature do, but found a life out of them to become a cult phenomenon. Four years later on the success of Vin and the cult movement success of Pitch Black the studio revisited the character of Riddick in The Chronicles of Riddick. Much like Alien became Aliens and moved from Sci-Fi Horror to Sci Fi Action Riddick took the same path. It unfortunately was largely unsuccessful and the stuios (105 million dollar) gamble that now world wide action star Diesel would bring the crowd in for this actioner fell short by about half.

Writer Director David Twohy and Diesel went too far and lost all of the horror for mediocre action. They wanted to make Riddick some form of Super-(anti)-hero, with actual powers and a back story of a world we wanted to learn more of. A complex mythology was created and ultimately never delivered on.

Race forward eight years and Vin whom’s star does not burn nearly as brightly has gotten over his ego and returned to the franchises and types of movies that made him in the first place and are once again doing well. He and Twohy wanted to return to Riddick and pitched it to the studios who balked and balked; UNTIL Vin Diesel took the lowest allowed salary for a star just to get the movie made! That means he really believed in it and so did Twohy. Did they deliver on their original promise and premise?

Well…no. Point in fact they seem to want to ignore all the interviews and concepts that they discussed after the second film. Now they claim they saw that they went too far and wanted to bring Riddick back to being the animal; and they don’t quite deliver on that either. What do they deliver? A movie in three acts that are only tenuously connected to each other by geography and character.

In act one we see Riddick betrayed and left for dead on a desolate alien planet. He spends the majority of this act coming to understand the planet and learning how to survive its environment, flora and most especially fauna. What is well done in this is the handling of the passage of time by the usage of a make up effect showing him healing from grievous wounds obtained during the betrayal. It’s rather well done and easy to miss if you don’t notice.

Act Two is a boy and his dog. Why is there a dog with this serial killer and animal? Because I think they want to show “he’s in touch with his animal side” – I kid you not. It’s not done poorly it just feels weird. Diesels natural charisma allows him to carry this first half of the movie well enough that it’s not completely painful to watch. Of course this Robinson Crusoe in space story is of course interrupted by the threat of a particularly nasty local life form showing up and Riddick uses an escape beacon to draw down mercs who will bring their ships for him to escape on.

Act three, the mercs and the local wildlife. This just about fails on all levels. It feels like a complete rehash of Pitch Black with the addition of the mercs from the second film. It’s totally paint by numbers with twists you can see a mile away. Even Katie Sackhoff (Starbuck from Battlestar Galactica) can’t help Diesel elevate this section. It’s just short of comedic as people begin getting knocked off and you just can’t bring yourself to care.

I will say the final moments of the film had me leaning forward wondering if they had the balls to do what they threatened.

The effects were ok, the sets were clearly sets and were cheap reminding me so much of the 1960s sci-fi at times. That wouldn’t be bad if it were intentional but I don’t think it was. I will give Patrick Tatopolous creature design an “A” for giving me something I’ve never seen before and will see plenty of rip offs on SyFy soon enough.

So for the TL;DR crowd

The movie is a mediocre mess. It’s not completely horrific and at moments is kind of fun. Overall if you wanted to see it it’s a rental at best. If you want to get the feel of the movie and see it done better, watch Pitch Black, you’ll feel better off for it.
————————————————-

Tomorrows review will have keen fashion sense.

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 | The Crow (1994)

Posted by

0

The year is 1994 and your faithful vampire mistress is in her senior year of high school nearing graduation. The world is still mourning the loss of a young action actor who was following in his legendary fathers footsteps and it has them curious about one of the first non mainstream comic/graphic novel adaptations. The director is an unknown, the accident on set is infamous, and the music is from the bleeding edge of the day.

The movie is The crow.

Based on the James O’Barr comic book series from 1989 it is the tragic tale of lost love and vengeance from beyond the grave. I should say loosely based on the comic series, which I read again last night after watching the film. As with any film adaptation of a written work there are changes; many of which are significant. The difference here is that the changes take away little from the overall narrative of the subject. Some characters are combined, others don’t exist and the overall antagonist arc is dramatically different. Some scenes are nearly lifted panel for panel from the comic others do not exist at all – and couldn’t.

What makes it to screen however is a near perfect gothic film that captures the true heart of the Crow and delivers on the rage that JOBarr felt as he wrote it. Flashbacks sufficiently show the love between Eric Draven (Lee) and his fiancee Shelly (Sofia Shinas). Their lives brutally taken and filmed even at a PG 13 rating still bring the right amount of violence and pain to know that some crimes need to be avenged.

Watching the film it’s clear director Alex Proyas (Dark City, I Robot) had an eye for the sensibilities of shooting a comic film. Many of the images from the movie look as if they were lifted from the comic panels and more than a few seem to be inspiration for Christopher Nolan’s imagery of the Narrows in Batman Begins. The lighting, the musical queues and choices, the atmosphere are nearly perfect in every shot. I wish more films came out that truly “got it” the way Proyas does and understood the subtlety of light and shadow as he executes it.

The acting, well I have said that the film is nearly perfect this is the weakest moment. The run away performance is Michael Wincotts “Top Dollar” and boy he sure put a smile on my face. Brandon Lee’s performance is simply ‘above average’ to me. Don’t get me wrong; it’s solid and hits moments of perfect pain, insanity, quietness and rage but there’s just something a little off or missing that keeps it from being bloody amazing. Everyone else is largely forgettable, even the remarkable Ernie Hudson. Some of the characterizations are just that rather than being characters. Even the presence of Tony Todd comes across slightly hollow.

Action? The movie is filled with it. It’s all shot remarkably well and without the use of a single shaking camera. Please Hollywood, try again, try harder! Mix these well performed action sequences with the energizing and pulse pounding music and you have a movie that moves from quiet moments of introspection and suffering to violence and pain.

TL;DR?

If for some reason the past 20 years have gone by and you haven’t see this – do I know you? This is an absolute must see film for the genre.

——————————-

Tomorrows review believed in nothing so is nothing.