Showing posts with label Vampires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vampires. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Near Dark (1987)


Genre:  Vampires
Director:  Kathryn Bigelow
Country:  United States
Availability:  Amazon Instant Video

It seems like every time I watch Near Dark I have a completely different opinion about it. The first time I saw it, some 7 or so years ago, I actually turned it off about an hour in - I was bored and the movie was terrible. I gave it a second chance last year and I think my expectations were so incredibly low that I actually found myself enjoying the movie and walked away giving it four stars. Having recently purchased Near Dark I was looking forward to rewatching what I remembered to be a gritty, gory vampire movie that lacked all of the cheesy romantic melodrama that most vampire flicks drown themselves in. Before I go any further let it be said, here and now, that I have a terrible, terrible memory when it comes to movies. It's one of the reasons why I tend to rewatch them so many times because I genuinely don't remember much about them.

So imagine my surprise when my expectations were yet again thwarted and I found myself, mouth agape, at the absolute horrific dialog and over-the-top acting and ridiculous plot. Once again, like in so many movies that want to fit a romance into the story but don't want to dedicate the time to make it realistic, a boy and a girl meet and fall in love in a matter of hours. She turns him into a vampire and he doesn't want to be one. Then her crazy friends come into the picture and things go from bad to worse. And by worse I mean Bill Paxton. I don't doubt than sometime in the 90's Bill Paxton hired an acting coach and became somewhat competent at his craft, but in the 80's he had the power to single-handedly ruin an entire film just by being in it (see Aliens). Then add that dorky strange kid from Teen Witch, Joshua Miller, and you have downright unwatchable scenes throughout much of the movie.

Vampire movies tend to run in trends. Right now the trend seems to be smart, sleek, dangerous and gory. The trend in the 90's was sex, lust and partying. The 60's and 70's seemed to be gothic, mysterious, frightening and ... lesbianism. But the trend in the 80's? Awful. We had vampire comedies and rebellious, rowdy vampires. But what The Lost Boys got right with their rowdy vampires, Near Dark got all wrong. These vampires are not only rowdy, they're obnoxious. They're the loud frat boys at the party that you're constantly muttering "douchebag" to behind their backs. They aren't funny or sexy or charming. In fact most of them don't seem to shower. They're like a pack of wild dogs eating and humping their way across the land. And what's with them constantly losing track of time and then having to race against time to beat the impending sun rise? Seriously, after being alive for hundreds of years you'd think these guys would get their priorities straight and invest in some serious timepieces. And the ludicrous ending was just the icing on the roadkill.

One of the fun things to come from Near Dark (aside from my constant heckling) was that during the bar scene I noticed what eerie similarities there are between The Vampire Diaries vamps Damon and Stefan and the Near Dark vamps Severen and Caleb.


2.5 out of 5stars

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Subspecies (1991)


Genre: Vampires
Director:  Ted Nicolaou
Country:  United States
Availability:  DVD

Subspecies is one of those horror movies that is beloved by all who saw it as a kid, and bemoaned by those who see it for the first time as adults. Unfortunately I am of the latter camp and therefore this review will be decorated with words like ridiculous and silly.

I am actually quite the fan of ridiculous and silly and my tastes walk a fine line of the qualities that those words often times possess: sword fight between ugly vampire dude and hot vampire dude in a dank castle with babes in nightgowns fighting each other with fire - awesome ridiculous; girl gets a cut on her arm and is henceforth thrust into a constant fevered sleep which allows ugly vampire dude to feed on her undetected - dumb ridiculous.  The movie is rife with examples like those - there are awesome tiny claymation demons that are created by the severed fingertips of the ugly vamp dude, a bloodstone that looks like a bleeding teet that all the vampires suckle from, the aforementioned sword fight, a captive chick with her boobs hanging out of torn clothing, and the burgeoning love between a beautiful woman and a hot vampire guy who share not only passionate kisses, but also the same hair cut.

Subspecies could have been gold if not for the mundane scenes that take up most of the movie. Too much screen time is devoted to the three, rather uninteresting women who serve as the movie's vampire fodder. Still, the lovely scenery and atmospheric castles add a lot of weight to the authentic feel of the movie. The evil vampire serves his creepy role well (though admittedly a bit too silly to be taken completely seriously - he kind of looks like Robert Smith from The Cure) but for a movie called Subspecies (named for the demonic claymation creatures) there was a woeful lack of them.

Surprisingly, there are a total of five Subspecies movies - all which continue to revolve around the main female character and the dorky bloodstone - I may just be convinced to give the second one a try...

2.5 out of 5 stars

Friday, February 17, 2012

Salem's Lot (1979)


Genre:  Vampires, Stephen King
Director:  Tobe Hooper
Country:  USA
Availability:  Amazon Instant Video

For a vampire movie that runs an arduous three hours in length, Salem's Lot tells little of the monsters that are supposedly "taking over the town" and instead embarks on an exhaustive journey of exposition between the characters. The elements of the book that made the story rich and interesting are completely lacking here, instead of a wide cast of flawed & unique characters we are stuck with silhouettes of people so generic they are practically puppets. Instead of a town full of people dropping like flies we see a handful of victims and only hear verbal accounts of more. The creepiness and horror of our heroes having to hunt down friends and neighbors-turned-vampires for slaughter is completely missing in the movie adaptation and as a result the movie lacks tension, menace and devastation. I wasn't the biggest fan of the book but it did have a lot going for it and unfortunately the movie plays like a hollowed-out version of King's story. I don't know how this Salem's Lot movie became such a horror classic but being a fan of King, Hooper and 70's horror, and also being a sinfully forgiving viewer, I feel confident believing that nostalgia probably plays a big part of this film's continued praise. As a new viewer who is not 12 years old, I was bored and disappointed, finding no redeeming qualities in the longest three hours I have recently spent.

2 out of 5 stars