Vampire week concludes with 1987's "The Lost Boys" starring Kiefer Sutherland and the Coreys.
I was looking forward to this one because when I was but a wee lad I took a "College For Kids" course about horror movies and monsters taught by a Professor R. Cane. It was pretty neutered by necessity, since you can't really show the full gamut of gore to a class of pre-pubescent boys; however, The Lost Boys was tame enough and apparently "classic" enough for a few scenes to make the cut. So based on my limited preview of it and the implication that it somehow inspired vampire movie lore, I was pretty excited to finally see it.
After having watched it, I do not find myself disappointed. It's not the groundbreaking film I may have thought it was when I was younger, if I had seen it then I probably would've been disappointed. I've since developed a more even perspective and had brought down my expectations, and at that level it was actually pretty good. I enjoyed watching it and thought the vampires were pretty imaginative. They actually looked like they may have played a large part in influencing the Buffy The Vampire Slayer vampires, more so the series than the movie. Also, considering that last night I watched Dracula 3000 which have vampires in coffins in space 1000 years in the future, I really enjoyed that the Lost Boys vampires didn't sleep in coffins. Actually, they had funky mutated bat feet that let them hang from the ceiling of their cave, which would've looked supremely creepy at first if it had not been for Bill S. Preston, Esquire's weird-ass mullet. The vampire action aspects were all very well done, although the kill scene at the end where blood shoots from all the plumbing in the house was beginning to remind me of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive.
The movie suffered, actually, because of its vampire hunters. The entire comic shop hunter plot was made of pure cheese but played so straight by Corey Feldman it almost hurt. The odd "Oh yeah, we probably ought to include a romance" aspects of it also brought things down. I did enjoy the fake-out twist at the end, despite living in a post-Shyamalan world. I would enjoy a version of the film with this stuff taken out and focusing purely on a divorced mother with 2 teenage sons moving to an unfamiliar town that just happens to be teeming with vampires to live with her father.
Tomorrow we begin Monster week with "Swamp Thing"
Showing posts with label vampires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vampires. Show all posts
Thursday, October 7, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 6
For vampire week day 6, we watched Dracula 3000 starring Casper Van Dien and ...wait for it... Coolio.
You know you're in for a great movie when Coolio's on the cast. I mean, let's look at this guy's filmography for just a second: Pterodactyl, Gang Warz, China Strike Force, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, The Convent (which is funny as all hell, by the way), ... OH DEAR GOD HE WAS IN BATMAN & ROBIN! Batman & Robin!!! BAT NIPPLES! BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!
Anyway, so you know if it's got Coolio, it'll be a hilariously amusing train wreck.
Moving on. The plot of Dracula 3000 is that Count Orlock somehow either escaped Earth and camped out in a planetary system that just so happened to be named the Carpathian System. That or all vampires are aliens. Anyway, planet Carpathia dies out so he hops a galactic transport ship that just so happened to be named the Demeter at Transylvania Station and books passage to Earth. Not too long into the voyage he gets hungry and starts taking out the crew, turning them all into vampires. The captain tries to blow the ship up but gets stopped by Orlock. Fast forward 50 years, the lesser vampires have turned to sand and Casper Van Dien's Abraham Van Helsing arrives on the scene to salvage the ship. I explained this so I could make the point that this is not a subtle film. Also, there is a crew member named Mina. About as subtle as a kick in the teeth.
Anyway, the movie has next to no budget and it shows. But the cinematography is decent enough that the cheap sets pull off a convincing backdrop. For what it is it's pretty well-written and well-produced, even the acting is decent enough. There's no real drama, so basic emoting is more than enough to carry the jokes. All in all, I can't think of a reason not to watch this. It's not scary, so if you're expecting a movie that's funny because it's bad this isn't it. But it is a well done spoof, not Mel Brooks caliber or anything, but obvious and funny. And compared to last night's unholy haul, a nice short breeze.
You know you're in for a great movie when Coolio's on the cast. I mean, let's look at this guy's filmography for just a second: Pterodactyl, Gang Warz, China Strike Force, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, The Convent (which is funny as all hell, by the way), ... OH DEAR GOD HE WAS IN BATMAN & ROBIN! Batman & Robin!!! BAT NIPPLES! BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!
Anyway, so you know if it's got Coolio, it'll be a hilariously amusing train wreck.
Moving on. The plot of Dracula 3000 is that Count Orlock somehow either escaped Earth and camped out in a planetary system that just so happened to be named the Carpathian System. That or all vampires are aliens. Anyway, planet Carpathia dies out so he hops a galactic transport ship that just so happened to be named the Demeter at Transylvania Station and books passage to Earth. Not too long into the voyage he gets hungry and starts taking out the crew, turning them all into vampires. The captain tries to blow the ship up but gets stopped by Orlock. Fast forward 50 years, the lesser vampires have turned to sand and Casper Van Dien's Abraham Van Helsing arrives on the scene to salvage the ship. I explained this so I could make the point that this is not a subtle film. Also, there is a crew member named Mina. About as subtle as a kick in the teeth.
Anyway, the movie has next to no budget and it shows. But the cinematography is decent enough that the cheap sets pull off a convincing backdrop. For what it is it's pretty well-written and well-produced, even the acting is decent enough. There's no real drama, so basic emoting is more than enough to carry the jokes. All in all, I can't think of a reason not to watch this. It's not scary, so if you're expecting a movie that's funny because it's bad this isn't it. But it is a well done spoof, not Mel Brooks caliber or anything, but obvious and funny. And compared to last night's unholy haul, a nice short breeze.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 5
Vampire week Day 5: 1979's 'Salem's Lot, apparently short for "Jerusalem's Lot"...which makes it lose a lot of its title appeal.
Even the trailer is really long...
Anyway, the main thing this movie has playing against it is that it's 3 freaking hours long. So is the 2004 remake. This has mostly to do with the fact that these weren't movies, but actually TV Mini series. Either way, way too long to watch in a single sitting.
Salem's Lot had a several very creepy scenes playing in its favor, it just was forced to space those out to a point where they became something wonderful and amazing when they showed up because it meant a break from the monotony of the late 70's drama. I know it has a reputation as a vampire classic but I don't see it. Usually a horror classic has something really good, but this couldn't save itself from its own pacing.
If someone were to make an "I've got shit to do with my day" fan-edit of the movie, distilling it to relevant plots and creepy vampire scenes, it would be a great 70's vampire flick. As it stands, Salem's Lot is an example of a slow burn done wrong. For reference, "Let The Right One In" is a slow burn done right.
Unfortunately I can't recommend this movie in its original form. It's worth watching if you have no problems fast-forwarding the slow bits, but to sit and view in its 3 hour entirety just doesn't pay off enough.
The next movie will be: Dracula 3000. This should be funny.
Even the trailer is really long...
Anyway, the main thing this movie has playing against it is that it's 3 freaking hours long. So is the 2004 remake. This has mostly to do with the fact that these weren't movies, but actually TV Mini series. Either way, way too long to watch in a single sitting.
Salem's Lot had a several very creepy scenes playing in its favor, it just was forced to space those out to a point where they became something wonderful and amazing when they showed up because it meant a break from the monotony of the late 70's drama. I know it has a reputation as a vampire classic but I don't see it. Usually a horror classic has something really good, but this couldn't save itself from its own pacing.
If someone were to make an "I've got shit to do with my day" fan-edit of the movie, distilling it to relevant plots and creepy vampire scenes, it would be a great 70's vampire flick. As it stands, Salem's Lot is an example of a slow burn done wrong. For reference, "Let The Right One In" is a slow burn done right.
Unfortunately I can't recommend this movie in its original form. It's worth watching if you have no problems fast-forwarding the slow bits, but to sit and view in its 3 hour entirety just doesn't pay off enough.
The next movie will be: Dracula 3000. This should be funny.
Monday, October 4, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 4
Tonight's film was Dracula: Dead and Loving it starring Leslie Nielsen, Mel Brooks, and Amy Yasbeck.
I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms.
In all seriousness though, the best thing about Mel Brooks movies is the style and humor still hold up even after over a decade. The man knows his craft.
Tomorrow we will be watching: Salem's Lot
I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms.
In all seriousness though, the best thing about Mel Brooks movies is the style and humor still hold up even after over a decade. The man knows his craft.
Tomorrow we will be watching: Salem's Lot
Sunday, October 3, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 3
Week 1, day 3's movie was Interview with the Vampire starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.
Also appearing were Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas, and Christian Slater. Needless to say this is a movie about Beautiful People, and pre-Twilight beautiful vampires can mean only one thing: Anne Rice.
The premise of the story is that Tom Cruise is Lestat and fucking LOVES being a vampire, so he makes Brad Pitt a vampire. Brad is less than thrilled with the idea of killing people to live and spends the rest of the movie whining. The whole story is actually told in flashbacks as Pitt is giving an interview to Christian Slater. Kirsten is turned by Tom after Brad feeds on her in an angsty stroll through an outbreak of the plague. She freaking loves being a vampire too, for about 30 years and then the fact she will never grow boobs gets to her and she tries to kill Tom. Angst, confusion, angst, plot twist, fire, angst, more fire, some fire, and then angst. And another plot twist.
The movie was far more entertaining the first time I saw it, since this time around I knew the major milestones and the detail they added just made it feel slow. The movie doesn't really do anything creative with vampire lore, and there isn't so much a story as a series of events. It's not really a horror movie, but look at who wrote it. It's a decently well presented drama that just happens to have vampires in it. Not really my kind of movie, but I enjoyed it well enough. The way the story is told is intriguing enough to pull you through the boring moments.
Tomorrow's movie will be: Dracula, Dead and Loving it.
This might not merit a review, since all I would be able to say is "I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms."
Also appearing were Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas, and Christian Slater. Needless to say this is a movie about Beautiful People, and pre-Twilight beautiful vampires can mean only one thing: Anne Rice.
The premise of the story is that Tom Cruise is Lestat and fucking LOVES being a vampire, so he makes Brad Pitt a vampire. Brad is less than thrilled with the idea of killing people to live and spends the rest of the movie whining. The whole story is actually told in flashbacks as Pitt is giving an interview to Christian Slater. Kirsten is turned by Tom after Brad feeds on her in an angsty stroll through an outbreak of the plague. She freaking loves being a vampire too, for about 30 years and then the fact she will never grow boobs gets to her and she tries to kill Tom. Angst, confusion, angst, plot twist, fire, angst, more fire, some fire, and then angst. And another plot twist.
The movie was far more entertaining the first time I saw it, since this time around I knew the major milestones and the detail they added just made it feel slow. The movie doesn't really do anything creative with vampire lore, and there isn't so much a story as a series of events. It's not really a horror movie, but look at who wrote it. It's a decently well presented drama that just happens to have vampires in it. Not really my kind of movie, but I enjoyed it well enough. The way the story is told is intriguing enough to pull you through the boring moments.
Tomorrow's movie will be: Dracula, Dead and Loving it.
This might not merit a review, since all I would be able to say is "I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms."
October Horror Season 2: Day 2
Month Day 2 and Vampire week Day 2's movie is Let Me In, directed by Matt Reeves of Cloverfield fame.
Let Me In is actually a remake of the 2008 Swedish film "Let the right one in", which was itself based on the 2004 book of the same name.
The premise of Let Me In is that Abby, a vampire in the form of a 12 year old girl moves in next door to Owen, an awkward boy who is bullied constantly. They become friends, and after leaving a trail of death and blood, run off together.
It's hard to discuss Let Me In without comparing it to Let the Right One In, but I'd like to avoid that. Let Me In I think suffers from the tenants of modern American film it adopts. Namely, teal/orange digital color shifting and lens flare. I noticed the lens flare early on but not as much towards the end. The fact that everyone was freaking orange bothered me the whole time. The movie didn't shy away from gore or blood, putting it front and center without apology whenever it could sensibly get away with, which was really only 3-4 times. I really liked it. Owen and Abby were pretty creepy, but not too much that you couldn't feel sorry for them.
Overall Let Me In is far more accessible than its Swedish original. Both movies are great in their own right, and seeing Let the Right One In before Let Me In is well worth it, since where Let Me In does vary from its source material it gives a nice tip of the hat. Watching both adds a bit of depth to what is the shallower of the two. Although even alone Let Me In is very well done and picks up the action just often enough and just long enough to keep you interested in what is effectively a slow horror-drama.
Tomorrow will be "Interview with the Vampire".
Let Me In is actually a remake of the 2008 Swedish film "Let the right one in", which was itself based on the 2004 book of the same name.
The premise of Let Me In is that Abby, a vampire in the form of a 12 year old girl moves in next door to Owen, an awkward boy who is bullied constantly. They become friends, and after leaving a trail of death and blood, run off together.
It's hard to discuss Let Me In without comparing it to Let the Right One In, but I'd like to avoid that. Let Me In I think suffers from the tenants of modern American film it adopts. Namely, teal/orange digital color shifting and lens flare. I noticed the lens flare early on but not as much towards the end. The fact that everyone was freaking orange bothered me the whole time. The movie didn't shy away from gore or blood, putting it front and center without apology whenever it could sensibly get away with, which was really only 3-4 times. I really liked it. Owen and Abby were pretty creepy, but not too much that you couldn't feel sorry for them.
Overall Let Me In is far more accessible than its Swedish original. Both movies are great in their own right, and seeing Let the Right One In before Let Me In is well worth it, since where Let Me In does vary from its source material it gives a nice tip of the hat. Watching both adds a bit of depth to what is the shallower of the two. Although even alone Let Me In is very well done and picks up the action just often enough and just long enough to keep you interested in what is effectively a slow horror-drama.
Tomorrow will be "Interview with the Vampire".
Friday, October 1, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 1
Once again October is upon us and it is my favorite holiday season. Just as last year myself and my other will be watching one movie each day of the month, broken into 4 week long categories. These are: Vampires, Monsters, Serious serial killers, and Ghosts. As an exercise in blogging discipline I will try to include a small review for each one.
Week 1 is Vampires and movie 1 is Fright Night, the 1985 classic vampire camp flick starring Roddy MacDowel as Peter Vincent.
At first glance the camp seemed almost overwhelming, but behind it was a movie that was just smart enough to rise above itself. The special effects, while ridiculous, were quite good for the age; especially Evil's wolf->human transformation sequence. MacDowel was pretty fun to watch, as well as his obviously powdered hair. If I thought about the movie too much, I'd find finer character points to be disappointed with. However, it's really one of those rare movies that knows exactly what it is and doesn't try to portray itself above that. Really fun, definitely recommend watching it to anyone. Also, if you keep in mind that the actor who plays "Evil", eventually went on to do a lot of gay porn throughout the 1990's, a lot of the jokes are a lot funnier.
Week 1 is Vampires and movie 1 is Fright Night, the 1985 classic vampire camp flick starring Roddy MacDowel as Peter Vincent.
At first glance the camp seemed almost overwhelming, but behind it was a movie that was just smart enough to rise above itself. The special effects, while ridiculous, were quite good for the age; especially Evil's wolf->human transformation sequence. MacDowel was pretty fun to watch, as well as his obviously powdered hair. If I thought about the movie too much, I'd find finer character points to be disappointed with. However, it's really one of those rare movies that knows exactly what it is and doesn't try to portray itself above that. Really fun, definitely recommend watching it to anyone. Also, if you keep in mind that the actor who plays "Evil", eventually went on to do a lot of gay porn throughout the 1990's, a lot of the jokes are a lot funnier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
