Vampires

Darke Reviews | Let The Right One In (2008)/Let Me In (2010)

Posted by

4

As one of the more interesting vampire movies in the recent years I wanted to talk about the Swedish film Let the Right One in, and it’s Americanized remake Let Me In. I watched both movies simultaneously tonight, writing this review as I watched.

This falls into a recent trend of films to be made in another country and then be remade within the States. The Japanese have taken the brunt of this foreign film exploitation; and lets be honest folks that’s what it is, the Norwegians are now experiencing it as well (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Troll Hunter). We, as in Hollywood, are letting other countries create new ideas, new takes on old ideas and rather than try to distribute THAT film here, the producers hire a team of monkeys, er writers and directors to remake and re-imagine the film within a few years of its release. A vast majority of the ghost stories we’ve had, starting with the Ring, were originally Japanese. Why not actually let us watch that one in a theatre? Sadly the answer my friends is us. The audience doesn’t want subtitles, they want faces they recognize even if the foreign actors are remarkable, I am sure there are other reasons that are just as BS.

So how do these two films compare? American vs Swedish? Interestingly. I warn you now to avoid spoilers (contrary to my norm) skip to the TL;DR.

The story focuses on a young boy (Oskar/Owen) living in a run down apartment complex, who sees a girl (Eli/Abby) his age moving in . He is bullied at school, being raised by his mother alone. He spends his time not in school alone outside in the snow in the complex courtyard playing with a rubix cube or stabbing trees imagining the tree is a bully. The boy and girl quickly become friends and he uncovers her secret, that she is a vampire. As their relationship grows, the girls relationship with her caretaker begins to wane. Things at school escalate with the bullies and the boy, while things further deteriorate around the girl and the body count rises.

The story is the same, though the names change. The US version is nearly a shot for shot remake of the Swedish. There are, however, some interesting choices between the two.

As expected, or should be, the Swedish version plays out more dramatically beat for beat. The american one starts out far more dramatically with an ambulance racing through the highlands of New Mexico dealing with an acid burn victim, while the Swedish version begin focused on Oskar alone and establishing his awkwardness. I suppose Matt Reeves (Cloverfield), director and writer – see what I mean from yesterday? – felt that a more romantic/dramatic start would disengage his audience and he needed to create an artificial bit of excitement to start. The US version also does not stay 100% practical and that is a massive failing of the film, where the CGI attack by Abby is no where near as intense or visceral as Eli’s practical one. It’s proof once again that CG is not better than a good make up or skill in shooting.

Lets talk about the actors and characters a bit, but I want to this in reverse order starting with the bit parts.

The Bullies. I hate Bullies, I laugh when they are mutilated, eviscerated and otherwise punished brutally in film. It brings me no end of joy. So while the nature of the bullies in the US version are more deserving of their fate, they are also two dimensional entities that you can have absolutely no sympathy for. The Swedish version, while they are still inhuman in their own right and have earned their Karma and pay it, have some depth. They pause, they have moments where the three of them are not all “complete” villains.

The Caretaker. Still a better love story than twilight. No seriously, it’s a love story between him and his vampire. In all the years and vampire films I’ve watched I have never seen one handle this so interestingly and creatively. While the man is clearly in his late forties in both films, if not mid fifties, there he is the caretaker to a twelve year old. To an outsider he would be the parent, but to a careful observer and viewer you see that they are more than that. He hunts for her nightly, killing people and bringing their blood for her to feed on. He is getting old however and making mistakes. In some of his final moments you get a true grasp of his relationship with the girl. Tenders touches from her, eyes closed and a sense of peace from him. His final acts, after a final failure is sacrifice. His love for her is that complete that he would not only pour acid on his face, but
then to let her feed from him because she had been unable to. It almost makes my black heart melt.

Lets talk about the boy. Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) and Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Hedebrants Oskar comes across more damaged. There’s a pleasure in his eyes when he finally stands up to the bullies. An eagerness as he stabs the trees mimicking the taunts of the bullies. There’s also a certain eagerness to which he embraces Eli, even as he tries to deny their relationship. The broken nature even shows as he torments her briefly to find out what happens if she isn’t invited in, though that scene is tempered by his care for her. Smit-McPhee comes across more of a victim throughout, eternally vulnerable and even as he stands up to the bullies there’s no real strength there and no hidden sadism. Though for cinematic reasons he puts Abby through the same lack of invite, there is no sense that it was even for a moment malicious. In fact he looks as if he’s about to jack rabbit the entire time until the very last minute. Even during a moment where the theoretical worm turns, Hedebrant plays the stronger boy willing to draw a blade to defend and simply turn his back on a murder. Smit-McPhee plays the same scene weaker, pleading and even trembling. Both boys play the vulnerable, weak love interest to their girl rather well and the inexorable slide into her grasp is entertaining to watch; which makes their final decision complete and logical from the way the story has been executed.

On to the girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson) and Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz – yes my favourite young actress). For the purposes of the story and relationship (that gets it’s own section this time), Chloë acts as well as ever but the nature of her looks weaken one of the plot points in the relationship. Lina’s performance is actually a bit darker due to her androgynous features. She looks twelve and neither pure girl nor pure boy and is a bit more haunting as she carries out several of the kills. Both girls deliver a remarkable performance as a vampire, but Lina is given the option to use her body language and a minimal amount of effects to achieve monsterousness, while Chloë is not afforded the same. Though she, much like in Carrie, has the body language down and performs fully has some of her performance masked by too much blood and too much CG overlay on her make up.

The romance needs to be talked about here as much as anything. It was controversial for several reasons when the original Swedish version came out. I was worried when I saw the US release if they would do the same. There’s an entire series of dialogue half way through the film, where she joins the boy in his bed in the middle of the night. She had already asked him if he would like her if she was not a girl; now he asks her to go steady to an interesting reply.

“I’m not a girl.”
“You’re not?”
“Does that bother you?”
“No.”

Now as she is prepubescent there’s debate as to what she means. Is it that she isn’t actually a girl, is it that she is but doesn’t consider herself one as she never even reached her teens, or the fact that she is a vampire makes her gender-less in her own mind? The conversation alone and it’s implications, much less his response, make it an interesting film. The options are also questions that are never answered which is a nice change of pace. It’s also fascinating to wonder as you look at the movie and understand the Caretaker that while the boy cares for her; you must ask yourself if she cares for him. Is she manipulating him to get her needs or are her emotions in such flux because of being eternally twelve? Again questions never answered and best left to interpretation. Even through the end of the film where the Caretaker cycle begins anew you just don’t know. Ultimately the viewer must decide, is it love or is it a monster – perhaps both.

TL;DR
\/uuuu\/

While your tastes may vary and I do like both films, the Swedish version is superior in many elements. It shows a better finesse and love for the story than the US version. The US version is sufficient and still good, but they missed the memo on show don’t tell – especially in the final pool sequence. The children all act well, with Chloë 12 at the time of filming.

I can comfortably recommend both and think vampire fans will enjoy (if you haven’t already seen).

No hints for tomorrow, since its a film I haven’t seen – it will be the Conjuring.

Darke Reviews | Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)

Posted by

0

This is one of the more recent films I am reviewing this month and was unfortunately only a direct to DVD release. Even with that it wasn’t advertised and hard to hear about if you don’t peruse movie insider sites. I happened to come across this one back in 2007 when Superman Returns was still in the popular conciousness and Brandon Routh was cast as the title character. It as also based on an Italian comic series which makes it one of the rare Horror comic adaptations.

There’s not much to say about director Kevin Munroe, who has mostly done video game work and the 2007 CGI Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie; which will still likely be better than what Bay makes. For a rank amateur in the scheme of things he shows a surprising sense and appreciation of 1930’s and 40’s Noir films. He captured that pulp feel that came with the Private Dick character type and executed it better than most directors who have tried it. Rian Johnson’s “Brick” being one of the few exceptions.

The writing deserves some credit as well, a two writing team who tend to work together on other projects as well. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer, also responsible for A Sound of Thunder and the new Conan movie; with rumored work on Doctor Strange coming. While the dialogue and scenes aligned in the script are not particularly inventive, they don’t have to be to be entertaining. They found a way to blend humor, pulp and horror into a single film and do it well. The abomination that was RIPD this summer needed to use Dylan Dog as a basis. It may not have been an abyssmally horrific film had they even watched DD.

The story moves around a Private Investigator named Dylan Dog (Routh), a human who was once a mediator and policeman for the supernatural creatures of New Orleans. He gave up the game and became a normal P.I. His time away could not last as his assistant Marcus (Sam Huntington – Fanboys, Being Human (U.S.)) gets him into a case trying to solve the murder of the father of beautiful Elizabeth (Anita Briem – The Tudors). He finds himself thrust into the world once more and is forced to confront the monsters of his past, both literal and figurative. The vampires of New Orleans are lead by Vargas (Taye Diggs – Chicago, Private Practice) while the Werewolves are lead by Gabriel (Peter Stormare – a lot!). Can he uncover the mystery of the killer and solve the case and maybe save the world of monsters & men.

Routh is an absolute natural in the film who comes across as a man who truly was part of the supernatural world for many years. He handles every situation with a kind of Laissez-faire or Blase attitude while those around him, especially Huntington, react the way normal people do. Even the delivery of his voice over lines that add to the pulpy detective feel show a keen attention to the nature of the role. He almost seems to channel Bogarts style of “I’ve seen it all” as he goes through the investigation. Even his questioning of Digg’s Vargas, may read as flat to others, but is spot on for the character he is playing. I really think he deserves more work than he gets and that he has a fine sense of timing that is under rated. I also can’t deny seeing him topless a few times isn’t bad on the eyes.

The rest of the cast is fine as well with Huntington providing a humorous counter balance to the dry wit of Routh. Stormare as always is just damn entertaining to watch, his Lucifer in COnstantine is amazing, but he sadly does not get enough screen time. Diggs is a beautiful man and just seems to relish in every aspect of the role he is given. Briem perhaps is one of the flatest performances in the film, but they can’t all be perfect.

As far as the effects and other technicals such as Make up the film does the subjects justice. The weakest effect is the final creature where they depended on CG for a transformation. The rest of the film has some pretty solid Make up work and practical effects. Once again this proves practical is greater than digital when possible.

For the TL;DR crew….

I highly recommend this noir story. It is suitable for people who are squeamish about their horror and has just enough monsters and mystery for everyone else. The movie is not nearly well known enough and I found it rather entertaining.

Thats the key here, it is entertaining. So check out Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, I think you might be a fan.
Tomorrow’s review will warn you to stay off the moors (this is an easy hint!)

Darke Reviews | The Lost Boys (1987)

Posted by

1

This is a movie that opens with the perfect musical beats of The Sisters of Mercy’s Cry Little Sister and then leads into the Doors being covered by Echo & the Bunnymen “People are strange”. Few other films both capture their era so elegantly, so perfectly and tell you everything you need to know about the film you are going to watch. This movie came out in 1987 and every single aspect of it shows it from hair, to fashion, to music, to dialogue, to effects.

Welcome to Santa Carla, welcome to the Lost Boys. This review will absolutely focus on the first of the three movies; yes there are three. I have watched all three and as a warning to the generations yet to come I will not review them (this month). This is probably one of the last of the vampire genre of the 80’s and mainstream horror vampires we get for years to come. I want to make it clear, this is not the last vampire movie of the 80s and not the last mainstream vamp, but it is one of the last that is both Mainstream and actually HORROR. Is it particularly scary by modern sensibilities? No, but this isn’t a dramatic piece and it’s certainly not a romance. While it only grossed $32 million in 1987, that puts it higher than most horror movies in todays market with an adjusted gross of about $65 million. Despite what we consider low numbers, this is also a box office success when you consider it was made for about $8.5 million.

Now as I move to talk about the director, I usually indicate that friends don’t let friends watch Joel Schumacher movies. This is the man who gave us Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. When you’re done vomitting I will be here. While he does have a good decision here or there in his career; for the most part he is a train wreck. Lost Boys is one of his good decisions, in which he looked at a script that called for Goonies aged vampires and the Frog Brothers to be chubby scouts and went – “nah, lets make them teens and sexier.” Best decision ever as it’s created one of the most iconic and influential vampire films of the modern era. I’d talk more about the writers Janice Fischer and James Jermias, but they quite literally did nothing after or before it. The movie does have a third writer which by normal rules is a death knell , but somehow in this film it’s an improvement. If I had to guess he was brought in by Richard Donner (the producer who almost directed) to brush up and mature the script. The third writer is Jeffrey Boam, who is credited for Lethal Weapons 2 and 3, Indiana JOnes and the Last Crusade, Innerspace and as the creator of Brisco County Jr. Fascinating individual and one I would bet brought most of the sarcasm and charm to the script created by the other two.

The movie centers around Michael (Jason Patric), his brother Sam (Corey Haim) and mother Lucy (Dianne Weist) recently imported from Phoenix to Santa Carla California. An improvement I’d say. Michael in his quest to get laid (it’s not stated but watch, its what happened) encounters Starr (Jami Gertz) a hot young brunette who has a penchant for tank tops. She is also part of a local gang of toughs lead by David (Keifer Sutherland). As the gang brings Michael into the fold he finds out they are vampires. His little brother Sam, encounters the mysterious and strange Frog Brothers Edgar (Corey Feldman) and Alan (Jamison Newlander), who work in their parents comic shop and believe they hunt the supernatural. A third plot line is surprisingly successfully interwoven with Lucy meeting a charming man, and employer, by the name of Max (Edward Hermann). As the movie counts down to its gruesome conclusion the plot threads collide in like a head on collision. Along the way we are treated to some of the lovely music of the 80’s and the introduction to one of the most gothic songs to be released, Cry Little Sister.

When it comes to acting, the movie is generally lacking. It borders on camp at times from the levels of bad some of the characters hit. I blame part of that on the script. 20 year old Gertz is fresh from the bomb Solar Babies, yes that’s an actual title and still is very rough around the edges. This is the first movie with the two Coreys together but it’s clear they actually have a natural charisma together; even though the characters are young, stupid and insane – much like the Coreys themselves I suppose. Sutherland and his vampire crew which includes future Bill S Preston Esquire (Alex Winter) are mostly there to look ridiculous in that 80s biker goth way and chew scenery; which they do with wild abandon.

The effects are all practical, and I thank whatever dark god decided that, through the movie and surprisingly most of them hold up. I think that lays solely on the talents of an Oscar winning make up team including Face/Off judge Ve Neill.

As it pertains to the vampire mythos, it doesn’t add a whole heck of a lot other than character and flavor. It shows a new younger, edgier breed of vampire that we really had not gotten to see before. Gone were the cloaks and bad accents; in were trench coats and bad haircuts. It does hold a few element true from common myths, such as sunlight, staking, garlic, invitations etc. It also gave us the Buffy Brow that became the standard for vampires everywhere after.

TL;DR

The Lost Boys is a must see for any fan of the genre. If you are young enough to have never seen it – do so. While I was sad to never see its true continuation the Lost Girls, this one stands apart in the vampire genre and holds it’s own even now.

Tomorrow’s review wants to let you know if you lose the race you lose your car!

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 | 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 | 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 | 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.