The Thompsons (2012)

I've been waiting for this movie ever since I heard a rumour about it on the net -  and then promptly forgot about it, because my memory is shitty when it comes to things that don't exist yet which I have to remember for a (somewhat remote) future. Now it's here, now I was able to watch it, and now I can safely say that I am not disappointed at all.

First things first: If you haven't watched The Hamiltons, this movie will bring you much less joy than it does if you have watched it. The protagonists / main characters aren't explained or given a lot of characterisation - in fact, there's pretty much none of that. Besides for a quick "this is me, these are the twins, this is my oldest brother, and this is my little brother" via voice-over, don't expect anything on the protagonists. Then again, this is perfectly acceptable - characterisation happened in the first movie, and if you want to know who the people are that you're watching, go and watch The Hamiltons. It's fucking worth it.

We start out with Francis (Cory Knauf) in a box... looks like he's been buried.

The narrative is being told in a pretty interesting way - it practically starts over three times, which may make it appear a bit confused in the beginning. However, this style of storytelling actually serves to heighten the suspense and makes it much more interesting than if it had been told straight from the beginning of the story. Very well done, Butcher Brothers. I already liked your previous movies, but this takes the cake. It's not just serving us a simple story from the beginning to the end - it's starting right somewhere in the middle, runs with it, then turns around and starts again earlier, runs with that, and then turns its back on us in order to start once again. And for some reason it works. It works really well. Kudos to the guy(s) who came up with that idea - in this day and age, we're all too used to straight storytelling. Something more complex like this is very much welcome: The story becomes much more interesting this way, and the viewer is sucked into the narrative straight on. The voice-overs (all of them by the main protagonist, Francis, played again by Cory Knauf) also help to intensify the experience.

The narrative told in this movie is that of our beloved monstrous family trying to find others of their kind in "thee olde worlde", which is USA-speak for Europe. It's not directly picking up where The Hamiltons left us - at least 6 years have passed. Francis has grown up admirably, Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) gained some weight, Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) has a new haircolour (and did she lose weight?!), David (Samuel Child)  is less stuck up in his ass, and Lenny (Ryan Hartwig) actually became a member of the family that's not locked up in a cage.

Other things haven't changed that much, though: The twins (Wendell and Darlene) are still slightly psychotic (enjoyably so!), Francis still broods, and David still has some kind of idea about American family values to be held up. Together with their Need for human blood, the family values they all share are the reason why the Hamiltons / Thompsons are not in their native USA anymore but instead chose to haunt good ol' Europe.

Why? Well, after an incident on the road (people were eaten and killed, not really sure in what order, as we're talking about my beloved family of vampiric miscreants here) during which their youngest brother was severely injured, which resulted in them having been forced to leave the US. I just say "vampire killings"*... these resulted in the family ending up in Europe - separated, searching for others of their kind with their little brother Lenny hovering on the brink of death.
The twins went to France, David (+ Lenny) and Francis went to the UK, all of them (supposedly, in the case of the twins) trying to find ...well, others like them who can help them with keeping Lenny alive. After all, being (living) vampires and all that, they can't just march up to a hospital and ask for help. I guess(?).

Lots of people seemed to think that The Hamiltons wasn't a proper or even good vampire movie due to the lack of fangs and neck-biting (or so I gathered from discussions and reading reviews). The Thompsons does definitely not suffer from this. It's overdoing the whole vampire-angle at some times in my opinion (RRRAAAAAH! FANGS! RRRAAAAAH! RED EYES!! RRRAAAAH! JAWS!!!), but hey - I'm a fan of subtlety when it comes to certain genres of horror. Nonetheless, it's a great fucking movie. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of The Hamiltons**, and this is a GREAT sequel.

It brings up the question of the monstrosity of our protagonists again - "we need blood to survive. Our disease makes us kill to live. We're that kind of monster."

The topic is brought up in a different way than in the first movie, though. We are still watching the narrative mainly through the interpretative lens of Francis - but unlike in The Hamiltons, he has grown up, and this is reflected in the narrative.

It is also reflected in the acting; Cory Knauf - although I still think he mostly plays himself - has definitely gained weight as an actor (not in the physical sense!). His portrayal of Francis is much more nuanced than in The Hamiltons. 

Here, we have acceptance of the monstrosity that defines our protagonists. It's not Francis whining on about why his family sucks, why his family and life is horrible or why he feels horrible anymore. He grew up and learned to accept that he will never be a normal human being, will never have (normal) human friends and a normal human life. It is the acceptance of the inevitable, the acceptance of how horrible life can be whilst still making something out of it. Whilst still creating a positive narrative for himself, against all odds, against all of the fucked up terror that is their blood-dependend existence.

Back to the plot:

Francis is told to travel to a small English town called Ludlow*** in order to find someone ('Masterson' -- heheh, nomen est omen, eh?) who could know how to keep Lenny alive - and how to live as a monster in this all too human world of, well, non-monstrous humans. Because let's face it: If you're not human and never were taught the human rules of the game of life, the rules of how to act around humans, you'll have difficulties fitting in without being noticed as being different. And being noticed as being different is bad.

Take eating food. At about minute 34 we're treated to a vampire family feast that is in no way what you'd imagine. The following dialogue takes place between the British vampire patriarch (a good but not outstanding performance by Daniel O'Meara) and Francis:

- "Haven't you trained your body to eat?"
- "I get sick. Don't you?"
- "Part of living among other in this world is presenting the idea that you're no different."
- "We put up our fair share of charades, but... There's nobody here..."
- "That's the lack of discipline that landed you here."

---- Agreed. But if no one ever tells you that not eating is weird and makes you suspicious in human eyes, you simply can't really know that, much less understand it. On that note: Yes, training your body to eat 'normal' food indeed makes people less wary of you. It's weird, I know.

Anyways - Francis is, after initial (weird!) problems that at times masquerade as rites of initiation, accepted into the vampire family he finds in Ludlow... and then everything foes horribly, horribly wrong. The family of others he thought he had found turns out to be... well. Quite elitist, to say the least, and not at all as friendly as he initially thought them to be. Vampire fights, woooot!
I'm not going to spoil this one, as the twist(s) are actually not foreseeable in their entirety and add to the enjoyment of the movie A LOT.

The Thompsons is not a gory movie, but it has its moments. It adds the topic of hunting for food, monster-on-human violence, human-on-human violence (aka 'serving dinner'), monster-on-monster violence, and rape. Could be considered tough shit for someone not as desensitised to violence as myself.

AND it deals with the whole family-thing we already know from The Hamiltons. This time, though, it's from two different points of view - that of the Hamiltons, and that of the British vampire clan. One wonders - would everything be so much different if the situation was reversed...?

Also, the interesting issue of being an outsider is raised again, just as they did in The Hamiltons. Francis and his family are outsiders to humanity; Francis is an outsider to his own family (or at least he was in the first movie)... and here, we see how it is to be an outsider within a family of monsters. A very good idea that not just implies but brutally shows the subjective nature of the concepts of 'normality' and 'outsider' - it all depends on what you define as 'normal' after all...

Sociologically sound, with a depth of social issues clad in the garb of vampire-horror that is hardly ever seen in vampire flicks or horror flicks in general. The Thompsons opens up the can of worms of multiple layers of social stratification within the realm of the monstrous, and that these layers interact with one another. It also touches upon the need for trust in (non-)human beings and how we all deal with betrayal - and it also deals with the nigh inevitable fact of betrayal as part of a stratified society when not knowing the rules that other people made up and you should, ideally, live by, without having any idea about the why and how. 

Something that definitely differentiates The Thompsons from The Hamiltons is that the story they create is actually a story worthy of a full-length movie. I did comment on the issue of how the original story of The Hamiltons isn't really material for a full movie in my review of that flick - and this time, they managed to actually come up with a story that fills this movie instead of milking one single assumption ('teenage-vampire-initiation-story') to the death in 80+ minutes. Kudos for that. 

Honestly, I expected this movie to be shit - and yes, I can look forward to a movie and still expect it to be shit. Gladly, the Butcher Brothers managed to thwart all of my fears, creating a well-crafted flick that deserves to be watched by more people than just hardcore (indie-) horror fans. Good script, good story, nice pictures, solid camerawork.

I would totally give this movie a *really* high score, if it wasn't for the CGI. It sucked. Seriously. It's most obvious with the fangs and jaws of the evil British vampires****. It truly doesn't look enticing. Maybe this is because I am not a big fan of CGI in general, however. The red eyes were irritating as well, to say the least.
Camera and cutting are consistently good, though. The one other point of criticism I'd have would be that I'd have enjoyed more of the twins, but then again, this movie is mainly about Francis (again!) and his interaction with the 'other' family of monsters. 

The ancient distinction between 'Us' and 'Them' is shown here once again - but, which makes it much more interesting than the normal Us vs. Them stories, this narrative takes place within the realm of 'Them'. I would be hard pressed to define blood drinking living vampires as 'Us', and I guess so would be everyone else watching this movie; out protagonist is, however, clearly one of 'Them' - and at the same time, by virtue of being our protagonist, one of 'Us'. I would so draw a diagram to illustrate the intricacies of differentiation between the concepts of the Inside and the Outside in this movie, but I shall spare you that. Yes, I am a wonderful person, I know.

7.95 / 10 torn-off faces in a French apartment

* Best. Comment. Ever. from voice-over Francis on the topic - "They called it the 'vampire killings', as if we were some stupid cult or passionate Twilight lovers...". I had to laugh out loud so freakin' hard. *winks at the target audience*

** And there will be a review of The Violent Kind!

*** Am I really the only one who sees a horror reference in that name?
**** One wonders whether this should be interpreted as a reference to the incestuous inbreeding-habits of the royal families of Europe and their at times monstrous regimes over the non-royals aka every-fuckin'-one else...

The Hamiltons (2006)

What does it mean to be happy? To be content in the world around you?

*...I don't know why I continue to see the Butcher Brothers' feature The Hamiltons as a short - I have watched it often enough to be familiar with and aware of the 86:35 playing length, so it can't be that. I am not usually stoned and/or drunk when watching it, and have not experienced intoxicant-induced blackouts recently, so it can't be that either. I know the story, the structure, the characters. But it still remains a short in my mind - short movie as well as short story.

It is a good story, though - perfect material for a short story. A novella if you really want to dig into the material, but being one of the creatures with a penchant for stringing words together so that they may look pretty, shiny and appetising, I'd spontaneously go with the short story-format.

Take care: A teenager is rebelling against his family whilst slipping into puberty. Twist: He's from a family of (...) monsters (?).

Essentially, this is the plot. And I can see how you can work a solid story around this, how to use the particularities of a teenager trying to figure out where he fits into the world in the case of a family without parents trying to figure out their place in the world. The isolation, the problems. Seriously - I would like to write something like this if I would be more inclined to A) take up the pen again, B) had any sort of connection to that concept - besides for having been a teenager once myself, as I suppose most of us have. But the thing I would not be able to do is wring more than is in the story out of it. And I think that this is what The Hamiltons is attempting. It does not fail - it works commendably considering what it has to work with. However: Do not make full-length movies (or stories!) out of short-story-material.

That said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for anthropomorphic non-traditional monster portrayals in which the monsters can also be, you know, 'normal' and stuff like that. Considering that, I really should appreciate the new millennium, as the fad of using outsiders and monster-like creatures as protagonists doesn't seem to stop anytime soon, but I am admittedly not the biggest fan of those ...thing-ies. Do remember, however, that Cannibal Flesh Riot! is the best movie in the whole world evar.

So... monstrous humanoid family. I guess it's not a big secret that the actual kind of monstrous humanoid being under consideration here are vampires (and yes, I dread vampire flicks these days...).

I imagine that people who perceive human blood on a superficial level (smell through skin, aroma on sweat, see the subcutan veins and capillaries, are aware of the pulse and/or heartbeat, can see the minute movements of skin spread out over the pathways of blood...) all.the.effing.time appear to be spaced out a bit when they are caught up in someone's blood's perception. An I imagine near-perfect portrayal by young actor Cory Knauf - so yeah, in order to check the acting we'd need to observe a starved blood-drinker in its natural surroundings, and I somehow doubt that this will happen anytime soon. As long as monsters are not being revealed to mankind as real, we have to take this performance as the best we can get at the moment (not counting TV-appearances by self-proclaimed 'real vampires' - more power to those of my awesome readers who happen to be of that persuasion, but: srsly?).

Staying with that topic for a moment, I shall rant: Amazingly, this movie is not on the hot-list of real vampires all over the world, or at least so I gather from the occasional mention of 'real vampires' disapproving of this movie on the various online media which cater to movie-lovers and other creatures of the horror movie world, under which I freely subsume those who need to proclaim that they are licking other irresponsible people's blood off the tiny wounds they inflicted with diabetics' tools. *shakes head* Srsly. People who want to be taken seriously should attempt to stay away from clichés like having a fake European accent, being all pale and clad in black, wallowing in self-pity - in general: Try not to be V:tM. Even if it goes against even your most uninhibited animalistic instincts to throw yourself at the mercy of the media and rational people waiting to point their fingers at you mockingly.

So.

Enough of subtly insulting minorities, on with the review in question.

How would you feel if you knew you were suffering from a rare disease of unknown origin - one that made you need human blood, one that made you need to drink it (-- fresh --) regularly? In large doses? A disease for which there was no cure, which wasn't even acknowledged by the medical sciences or even within the emerging fields of new medical research? Something apparently genetic, which has already changed you, made you different from other people - and you know that you'll need to drink at some point, else your health and sanity fail.

What would you do?

The Hamiltons tries to tell this story from the POV of a teenager (Francis, played by aforementioned Cory Knauf) born into a family of blood-drinkers. 'real vampires', if you will. They're apparently not immortal, nor immune to diseases, aging, wounds etc. - or the effects from lack of food. They love, hate; they feel passion (mostly for one another, but who would blame then - if you'd be part of a family of monsters that eats humans, you wouldn't exactly want to be with a human being unless you truly enjoy making yourself suffer mental and psychological agonies like straight from the abyss, or at least that's my guess). They try to live a normal life in a world that doesn't really offer up a place for them, stuck in a society in which they're not really able to 'be normal' at all; and the need to take in human blood as per survival makes normalcy within a human society very, very complicated... especially for teenagers of a rebellious age. And a family this volatile.

So... the family:

- David (odd but good performance by Samuel Child), the oldest of the siblings: Working as a butcher, he remains the one attempting to make their lives as normal as possible. Under 'normal', David understands 'banal', 'trifling' and 'American', judging from the things he enacts in order to introduce normalcy to their lives. He is also a quiet homosexual and raging with suppressed anger, which comes out pretty clearly in how Child chooses to depict the 'nice elder brother[-thing-from-the-beyond]'. 

- The twins, Wendell and Darlene (Joseph McKelheer and Mackenzie Firgens respectively). They are the ones who don't care for normalcy or 'fitting in' with the crowd - after all, the crowd consists of food. Point. The incestuous couple seems to follow a hedonistic life principle, where enjoying yourself and feeding, using, abusing and playing with people is one of the more fun things to do. Add sex and slight bi-polar tendencies in both, and you got yourself an explosive mix.

- Francis - teenager. 'nuff said.

Teenager Francis' plight is actually understandable in hindsight: Watching the movie for the first time, statements like "But I really don't fit in there!" in regards to school, just to state one example, just seemed eternally, abysmally bad. After the ending, re-watching the flick to see how I responded to the movie after knowing the story, I found the stereotyped scenes to be amusing and a kind of an inside nod to the viewers in the know rather than a mistake of the script / movie's conceptualisation. It's things like this that make up for the lack of the story's potential outside a short. It would be my guess that the Butcher Brothers are quite intentionally portraying ironically heightened stereotypes of certain rôles within society these days - a pointed and realistic portrayal of people in need of portraying people due to not-really-being-people. Gods, this is complicated at times like this...!

Talking to an acquaintance about this movie, I realised that the plot's elements actually correspond quite perfectly to van Gennep's theory of rites de passage - in this particular case, the class of initiation rites. What Francis is going through symbolises the classical transition from child to adult, the coming-of-age as it is more commonly known - within the universe and mythology the Butcher Brothers established in this movie. The focus of the movie on transitions is palpable throughout, as well as a focus on boundaries and the transgression of them. I don't want to accuse the movie of having been structured after ritual theory and/or other anthropological/sociological/psychological etc. concepts, but if you're taking those into consideration, it helps to enrich an otherwise pretty (low-)standard flick. And make me wax philosophically about fucking ritual theory... I really should get a grip on myself.

Speaking of people not-really-being-people: Why, do these vampiric types always decide to dutifully eat food that they know they cannot stomach properly, leading to the inevitable throwing up after eating? Why? I mean... WHY?! What could it possibly be that makes people eat things that make them throw up violently? A kind of weird, pseudo-humanistic insistence on being like everybody else, only not in the sense that solid food makes you vomit (...then again, I am the last person that should talk when it comes to throwing up 'normal food' and living with an unusual diet...)? What kind of twisted world view is this?
...I am baffled. Simply baffled.

Besides for this complex topic: David actually is merely keeping up a rational and sane persona all the time - which breaks at around the hour mark, when he starts exsanguinating a blonde twat and rants to her about random things - I would be more specific here, but alas, I don't want to watch the movie again for merely this quote. 

Admittedly, this is exactly the point where I would suspect someone who has kept a mask of sanity all the time around others and who gets triggered by the scent and/or sight of blood to break out of the persona and fall right into the pit of self.

As for being a stickler for details:
During the exsanguination, David uses some sort of... I don't know, a mix between a dialysis-machine, those things used for washing plasma and simple bags and tubes.
I cannot see the pumping equipment; also, as far as I am aware of, you need thicker plastic tubes to transfer blood effectively from the human body to some receptable (like a blood bag, as used in this movie). However, I shall believe the pwetty pictures, so I'll let these things slide. For nao.



6.2 / 10 memories slipping away in blood. And family.

 

"We live with a disease.
[...]
And everything you thought you knew about us is wrong.
We live in the houses next to you; we work in the stores you shop at; our kids play with your kids. We're just trying to be an ordinary family trying to figure out where we fit in in the world.
But we do need blood. And we need a lot of it.
Preferrably fresh, and not frozen."

* No screenshots for the time being; the laptop I am using is not able to handle that much stress. 

Fright Night (1985)

Tom Holland! I simply love the guy - we share a thing for historical stuff.

So... fond memories are washing over me. Verily.

It's actually been ages since I watched this movie for the last time - I don't even remember how long it was. I have to admit that I am much more fond of the second movie in the franchise (amongst other things because of that one having been one of the first non-Hammer vampire flicks I watched and actually enjoyed - yes, I saw Fright Night after Fright Night II, blame the TV stations back then), I still like this movie a lot. There's something fundamentally different between old-fashioned, awesome, cool and fun horror flicks and those that come out these days. Compare Fright Night with, I don't know, some random nameless vampire flick of the last decade. Nah, make that two decades and exclude Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula and... uhm... okay, let's count Interview With the Vampire as a horror movie for a second (*cries inside*). Also, it speaks to us children of the 80s' night and horror afficionados.

I mean, seriously: Who can not emphasize with this movie's plot? 'Random men carrying a coffin at night' understandably intrigues Charlie Brewster (as portrayed by William Ragsdale), young male of the movie - I would be intrigued as well. Coffins. Night. Possibly vampires or other fiendish creatures dwelling in darkness or something similar.

And damn, it's - of course! - 80s' flair all around: The clothes (by all Gods and Monsters, how on earth could people have actually worn these things?!) - terrifying as ever. The cars - full of win and awesome. Heck, even maths for school looks more interesting and fun than the one I had to do in these modern nights. I mean, yes: Who expected something different from a movie from '85? It's awesome, in an 80s kind of way. However, it also holds its share of "IT'S THE 80s!!!"-terror - you will doubtlessly see what I mean when (if) you should decide to watch this flick. Which you should. Especially because that is an excuse to watch David Tennant shirtless in the remake. But I digress.

So: Plot.

Charlie Brewster is something akin to what we'd term a geek these days. He has a very... 80s looking girlfriend with whom he doesn't have teh_sexxx, he watches 'Fright Night' religiously. So much for characterisation. Oh, yes: Fright Night. It's a TV-show with a presenter who presents horror movies. Like Elvira, only different. His name is Peter Vincent, by the way. I hope to hear at least some Hammer-horror fans howl with laughter now, otherwise I am seriously disappointed. I mean, especially if you look at the getup the character employs to play the character of Peter Vincent you should be shaken with recognition.

*raises her right eyebrow expectantly*

Anyways.

Charlie notices during one nice evening he spends with his girlfriend Amy, watching 'Fright Night', that the new neighbour moving in next door has a fucking coffin being moved into the house ...remember the beginning of this review? Here you are). His attention is instantly captured, and he focuses onto that - one may guess it also is caused by a bit of nervous behaviour, as Amy offered him the possibility to have a go at sexuality in the proper sense with her. Under the sheets. And OMG, the guy actually starts spying on the coffin-carrying people moving into the neighbour's house instead of ravaging her. Dude. I can so understand that... and at the same time not. Call me torn. I'm like Jekyll and Hyde in that regard.

Anyways, he comes to the conclusion that the neighbour is a vampire. A fucking vampire. So naturally, he feels threatened and tries to kill the abomination - to which said abomination, a quite cultured, suave and stereotypically gay-looking guy, in those 80s aesthetics with their focus on men, takes a bit of an exception. With Charlie trying to kill the vampire, enlisting the help of his girl, his best friend Evil Ed, and even 'Fright Night''s Peter Vincent, Fearless Vampire Killer (heh), and the vampire in turn trying to wreak havoc upon the life of the Brewster, we're in for a very 80s-like ride. From the 80s. With 80s vampires. w00t!

So much for the plot.

So it really is no wonder that teh_sex is not coming along as we would expect in the exalted year of 2012 with non-kinkster-kitten Amy running around in human form, and it really is no wonder either that our horror-fan is busy with avidly spying on the new neighbour when not watching 'Fright Night' on TV (I am sure most of us can emphasise. About the TV-show, I mean... *coughs and hides goggles and selection of air-borne poisons*).

It's not that he's bi-curious or anything: It's that the Brewster suspects him (the neighbour) to be some kind of night-creature - and alas, he is completely right. The vampire next door may look incredibly gay to viewers from this day and age, but A) he is apparently not gay (although I suspect that living through centuries, millennia even, would lead to a person appreciating the sexual fun one can have with all kinds of people, not limited in one's choice to one gender), B) vampires are usually a bit sexually ambiguous in the mind's eye of the public. Well, vampires of the Twilight-persuasion aside - I cannot for the life of me imagine these... 'characters' to be sexually adventurous. Matrimony, for fuck's sake. Anyways: Nearly forgot C): He's Chris Sarandon.

Anyways.

Charlie's ideas about his neighbour being a vampire don't go over too well - neither with the local police officer, who starts to think that the Brewster is an unhinged teen (an assessment with which he is not entirely off the mark), nor with his girl (who thinks he is kind of weird), or the vampire (who definitely notices that ...incident).

A commendable appearance that annoys the ever living shit out of me every time I watch this movie is the one by Stephen Geoffreys who plays the Brewster's friend Evil Ed (or 'Evil' for short). He advises Charlie on the details of vampire lore - crosses, garlic, sunlight, not being able to enter unless asked to do so by the owner; all the basics that we know and cherish.

However, things advance with the speed we're used to from the Bloodsucking Evils of Darkness: Before Charlie can come up with a plan what to do about the vampire infesting his neighbourhood, the suave guy has already established a firm footing in the area (geographically as well as interpersonally).

The movie is very strong when it comes to establishing a creepy atmosphere - then again, the terrible sound (80s. what else...) that cues in whenever the vampire appears is... messing with my joy a little bit; however, things like these have to be accepted when watching a movie from 1985. Being pissed off at the movie because it actually works as a historical document would be stupid - especially when identifying as a horror movie addict and a historian. So I'll just stand by my assessment that modern viewers might possibly be turned off if they are not open minded in that regard... and do not have a particular tolerance for the different kinds of societal stratification throughout the past decades... *whistles*

Things do not go well when it comes to Charlie's plans concerning the vampire. He learns that the vampire learned about his interest in him; the vampire's attempt to kill Charlie fails - being forestalled by the mother, and as most of us know, mothers are indeed a terrible, unpredictable force of nature that should be banished by all means -, but the young man is scared of the supernatural invading his life and the potential threat of being killed by a vampire. He decides on the most natural course of action: He tries to attempt contacting The Great Vampire Killer, Peter Vincent played convincingly by Roddy McDowall.

This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him, thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's situation. 

The reactions of the people remaining 'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his (Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded (?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the primordial night.

It is hilarious (and, interesting enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's Dracula.

Effectively, we have two conceptions of reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree u

This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him, thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's situation. 

The reactions of the people remaining 'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his (Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded (?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the primordial night.

It is hilarious (and, interesting enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's Dracula.

Effectively, we have two conceptions of reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree upon that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of clashes. In an interesting way.

The deception to cure Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a

pon that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of clashes. In an interesting way.

The deception to cure Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a setup that establishes itself before they start to delve into the ...'actual' movie. This may sound as if I was complaining, and I want to clarify that I'm not. I thoroughly enjoy this kind of stuff.

Note to self: Maybe it's my dislike for whining guitars singing their way through unnecessary solos that makes the vampire scenes in this movie so 'meh' for me; I am nearly 100% sure that it is the music associated with the appearance of a bloodsucker doing vampiric things that causes my not-really-there-appreciation for Sarandon as the vampire. Or possibly the 80s look.

Who the hell knows.

As for the vampires - this is not a movie that will make females swoon for the undead: Our main vampire looks... well, gay (I mean this as an insult, but not against homosexual people. thank you for your understanding) when in human form and like a mishappen werewolf when in vampire form; Evil as a vampire has the most ridiculous teeth ever (they look cool, though); Amy looks okay (until she goes into full-blown vampire-mode, as noted before), but then again: Females undergoing vampirisation always seem to become better looking, more elegant and filled with grace; unless their teeth are out, though - that makes for awesome horrifying, a bit ridiculous but still exceptional vampire-monster depictions. But yeah, there's no 'Edward'-type here who may enchant and ensnare the hormonally challenged twats so happy with and about vampires ever since the tragedy that is Twilight struck - although there is indeed vampiric seduction in this movie. Granted, it's not really possible to have a traditional vampire movie and concept without the erotic intruding onto the horror, as vampires have come to be associated with sexuality and eroticism ever since Bram Stoker insisted on writing his seminal Dracula.; and ever since Bela Lugosi donned the black cape as the public vampire #1, eros and thanatos have been closely intertwined when it comes to vampires on screen.  Cue in terrible 80s music with a howling/whining guitar, an erotic scene involving what I can only assume to be a minor, biting-made-for-screen, and lo and behold - voilá!, we got us a veritable Dracula-moment here (as there seem to be quite a few nods to that seminal work in general).

Speaking of Evil as a vampire - he becomes even more annoying after his transformation. However, this movie shines when it comes to animatronics. I am not the biggest fan of CGI, to be honest - maybe that is something unnatural these days, but still: Good old-fashioned animatronics are waaaaay better and cooler and more awesome than CGI. The scene during which Evil switches to wolf-form followed by the drawn-out transformation back is amazing and really manages to perk up my interest every time I see it. I have this fondness for wolf-man-transformations, I admit it freely.

Oh, something to remember: In this movie, some creatures melt when staked. Melt. It's like, I don't know, watching something in which Brian Yuzna has been involved: Green, vile liquid, melting flesh - I stand in awe. Couldn't even remember that scene.Reminds me of Re-Animator.

Okay.

Ends on a happy note - which of course means that the monster is being killed and no one who has been infected with monstrousness remains a monster. Yay. Woohoo.

Nonetheless: Solid flick.

On to the remake.

7/10 lithe creatures of the night transformed into grinning, ridiculously funny vampire-monsters

Rabid (1977)

Good to know. Thank you, movie.

We start out with a woman and a man riding a motorcycle - rather fast - through some nice scenery of wood and fields.

Cut to a medical corporation - a bunch of high-ups are discussing a new kind of plastic surgery.

Cut back to the couple on the motorcycle - and there's a big car trying to turn around their SUV, stuck on the road.

This

+

This


=

This


turning into

This (Yes, there's a person inside)

Luckily, someone sees the accident happen, and the ambulance is called quickly. The guy only has a broken hand and some other minor injuries, but the woman... she burned, and needs to have major surgery. She's rushed to a hospital where the medical corporation guys were discussing earlier - about a new kind of plastic surgery...

As the woman is badly injured, they use the new, radical plastical surgery technique. Taking skin from her upper leg, they created grafts from that skin, going back to something akin to stem-cell-research.

2 Months later... the woman is still not conscious.

One night thought, she wakes up screaming and flailing around. A guy comes to check for her, and she insists he stays as he wants to call the doctor... and complains that she is so cold and he is so warm. She hugs him... and he starts to scream, and blood starts to flow from under his arm. And she... she seems... excited.




Our female protagonist escapes from the hospital one night and chances upon a stable with lifestock in it. She hugs one of the animals, and ...something appears to happen. She seems to receive ...something, but it makes her sick and she throws up. Blood.

The story rolls on from that point - a typical Cronenberg movie. His visual style is arresting, as usual, the changes of focus, the simple, crisp pictures, the lingering shots... everything we know to expect from the Master. Yes, I adore Cronenberg far too much, just like Stuart Gordon and a few other directors.

Basically, Rabid is a movie about blood, changes in blood and changes in people. Physical and mental changes. Rose (our protagonist) is undergoing changes of a definitely weird nature - the skin graft on her arm grew into a penis-like feeding spike. It basically works like a vampiric feeding-device, like fangs or a sort of short tentacle to tear into people and suck their blood.
In turn, people who get... uhm... fed off by Rose turn into bloodthirsty, living vampire-beings. As the incidents spread, the media and police suspect rabies infecting the people involved. They have no idea that what they are facing is people changing into blood-feeding creatures, and that the cause is nothing but a young woman... that has changed in a grotesque, vampiric way (but without all the modern, 21st century vampire-"coolness" attached to it). Rose is a rather plain woman, has no special powers.




The "infected", on the other hand, degenerate more and more the longer they live, especially without nourishment. Some look like zombies.




Rose continues her spree through the US, feeding and infecting people with whatever it is that changed her into what she is now.

The pain of our protagonist is palpable in several scenes, as Need consumes her and she can't/doesn't feed on the human blood she needs.




Soon, the epidemic of infected people is getting out of hand. Martial Law is established, as it has turned out that the victims of the "rabies" are immune to medical intervention. Shooting them is as good as capturing them, because they will fall into a coma shortly after arrest (and being kept from feeding) and die soon. Surely it's more humane to shoot them before they reach this state?




It's amazingly brutal for a Cronenberg movie - compared to his other movies, there are lots of kills, some just for the sake of shedding more artificial blood (which looks remarkably realistic at times, and at times like pink goo). Kudos for that.

Te camera is outstanding, as is the editing. The use of body language and lighting and shadow are also professional - Cronenberg shows what he can do once again.

An atmospheric movie I can only recommend. Earns my stamp of approval.



8/10 ways of suffering because of something one doesn't understand

Vampire Diary (2007)

Lead Us Into Temptation

...and deliver us from the goths.

You see the characters and you hate them. That makes it hard for me to objectively review this movie adequately. But then again, every review of mine turns into me ranting subjectively on something, so there we go.

Meet the gang! Yippiiee!

Vampire Diary starts out in a special subset of the goth-scene: The vampire lifestyle scene, in this special case that of London. For some reason I cannot fathom, these people call themselves "weekend vampires" - a bunch of young adults who like to "play vampire" in their free time. They dress up as vampires, put fake fangs in their mouth (I guess that makes it hard to talk without a slight lisp, as can be heard throughout the movie, which is quite amusing) and dance to loud music and frantic, epilepsy-inducing lights when they are not cutting each other's arms in something they call "the exchange" in order to suck on the small cuts.

Within this freaky scene we find Holly, a quite normal young filmmaker who decided to shoot a documentary about this group of young people, associating with them and filming all the while.

Plothole: The "documentary" focuses around a core of 4 or 5 people (+/- some) - I can't for the life of me imagine that they'd just let themselves be filmed all the time and somehow taking it for granted. Especially not given the wider circle of friends and acquaintances and the entire subculture itself.
And especially not given the set of circumstances - I don't exactly know if cutting other people for blood at parties is the most legal or even sane thing to do. Is there a group of people like that in London? Scary thought. I find it doubtful that such a scene would accept to be filmed just like that all the time by someone who isn't a trusted friend. Yet Holly somehow seems to exist in a vacuum - it is useful for the viewer, because her view of this scene of people is as distant as ours, but it makes a few aspects of the documentary-approach just not believable.

Preparations for "The Exchange"...

Her character is constructed as an outsider to the weekend vampires, partly as a plot device, partly for the viewer and style of the "documentary" - but there's no way people like that would let an outsider film all of their secret ...indulgences (no insults intended for any of my readers who happen to be of this persuasion. More power to you, really.).

Scary fact:
Somewhere, someone is masturbating to the thought of blonde vampire nurses in short uniforms.

This approach worked in Man Bites Dog, a French movie (correct me if I'm wrong, it has been years since I've seen it on a VHS) - but the approach of the filmmakers in that mockumentary was different, and the relationship(s) between the filmer and the filmed more closely cut defined. Plus, for Raptor Jesus' sake, they filmed a serial killer. Holly (Morven Macbeth) is filming a fringe group of goths who think vampires are really cool. Not a serial killer. It just doesn't really work out the way it should.

Anyways, on with the plot. Holly films the weekend vampires, and one day, a woman named Vicky appears in London's underground scene of those living the vampire lifestyle. She is beautiful, she is mysterious, and she captures the attention of Holly's camera quickly. Especially since Vicky is also holding a camera - filming her.

Vicky soon seduces the (straight) Holly, and the two women fall in love with one another - and in the vampire scene, people start to disappear. And Vicky never eats anything, and questions quickly pile up. It turns out that she is a "real vampire" - she has to drink blood in order to survive - human blood. As the relationship between the two women spirals down the rabbit hole because of Vicky being a vampire, it takes a turn for the worse when it turns out that the vampire vixen is pregnant after she had been raped by a male "real vampire". The fetus grows quickly, and Vicky grows ever more hungry and careless in acquiring victims. The situation grows (there we go, I really hoped not to use it a third time, but apparently I can't help it) ever more desperate as the weekend vampires begin to wonder about some things.

Plothole: It is highly unlikely that a "real vampire" would film all it does. Who in their right mind would want to capture on camera how one kills people and drinks their blood? For what purpose? The Saturday Night Romantic Movie Evening With Blankets? "Oh, look honey, that was when I killed that bum. Doesn't the blood look stunning on my face?"*

It's not so much a real horror film than a relationship drama that centers around the problems of the age-old adage how the love between a vampire and a human can unfold (as witnessed by the Twilight craze)... and where to get new victims.

The movie really isn't bad. If you take it as a "vampire-love-story"-kind of movie, it certainly works good. As a horror movie... not so much. However, the vampire lore is something a little more unusual here; as you might have gathered from me mentioning Vicky's pregnancy, "real vampires" can procreate - but only with others of their kind, which would make them another species entirely. "Real vampires are born with two sets of fangs and really really need to drink blood - and only human blood will do. I honestly don't remember whether they mention that "real vampires" are immortal or whether they age normally, or slower, or whatever, but it makes for some nicely played situations.

And the goths are so freaking annoying.

The camera is as could be expected from a fake documentary, but it sometimes offers really pretty shots. And the subtle use of very, very, very slow zoom can be applauded. I liked the zoom.

Another thing... once again, it's Rippy the Razor time;

We get some erotic scenes (as evidenced below), some vaguely gory scenes... they're more tools than anything else. The main character of the story is doubtlessly Vicky, with a great performance from ex-model Anna Walton. She puts in a very strong performance as the "real vampire", and frankly, without her, the movie would be crap. I haven't seen Hellboy II, and I can remember Mutant Chronicles only dimly (too boring), so I can't really comment on her overall acting skills in different roles, but she really carried the movie.

Yes, this is an accidentally shot view of a woman's body. No, no naughty parts.

Useless Trivia of the Day: The song you hear at 0:44:40 is "Lesbian Vampires from Outer Space" by the Scary Bitches.

You really have to accept and like that sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised... if only more goths had been killed. On the other hand, the movie as a whole concept, taking aside Walton's performance for a moment, it's... not that great. *sighs*

I'm being generous. To encourage a bit more violence and less goths.
7/10 difficulties getting coagulated blood out from between the teeth.


*Yes. Yes it does.

Dracula (1931)

Dracula... Bela Lugosi.

A legend, both of them - the 1931 movie as well as the guy who so convincingly played the Transsylvanian undead aristocrat. With the uncanny Romanian accent, Bela Lugosi has been an icon for a lot of people, including those of my generation - a quick "hello!" to Marc van Dark from Kitty in a Casket* is in place right here and now.




Once again, as it is with me and classics in the horror genre, I haven't had a chance yet to watch this movie. Had it lying around for about a year or so, but... as I already mentioned in my review of The Brood, I just didn't get around to watch it due to the sheer number of movies I have.




But tonight was the night... and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed. Of course, there are shitty scenes and crappy effects (RUBBER BATS! RUBBER SPIDERS! Freaking armadillos...!) - but come on, people, this movie was made more than seven decades ago. And for a movie that old, it manages to be pretty good.




The acting, of course, is way over the top. Dwight Frye as the nifty character of Renfield is the one where this is most obvious - but nonetheless, I enjoyed his performance immensely.




And what would a review of Dracula be without honourable mentions to Bela Lugosi? He truly shines here. Maybe it's that he, at times, reminds me of TF**, but nonetheless his performance is awesome. No matter how much I know that the trademark accent - which I am able to imitate quite well, according to the last Shadowrun group I was playing a female character in - stems from Lugosi having been terribly bad at English, learning his text word by word and syllable by syllable - when you actually watch the movie, you hardly notice it. And there's no way around admitting that he is just nifteh***.




As for the plot, I don't think I have to reiterate it. If you have never watched any Dracula movie, you're missing out on an important element of today's culture. And yes, I mean that just the way I just typed it.

Cool old movie.






8.75/10 armadillos which definitely do not live in Transsylvania... I should know, it's basically just around the corner from where I live.



*Kitty in a Casket: Add them, listen to their music and tell Marc that I told you to do so. Nifty**** sound.

**The Friend, in case you forgot.

***cynsanity-ese for "nifty".


****Yes, I like the term "nifty" tonight.