Archive for the Vampires Category

Meals for Monsters Dines with THE LAST MAN ON EARTH (1964)

Posted in 1960s Horror, 2013, Apocalyptic Films, Based on a Classic Novel, Classic Films, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Vampires, Vincent Price with tags , , , , on May 22, 2013 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: THE LAST MAN ON EARTH
Review and Recipes by Jenny Orosel

0862_2d9a_500This year, on May 27th, Vincent Price would have been 102 years old.  This year also marks a decade since his passing. Price had a rare talent for adding a touch of class to even the most lowly, trashy films.  Because of this, and his superior acting chops, he was in constant demand for decades, and graced us with over a hundred film roles.  It’s a great icebreaker among other horror film fans to play the “What’s Your Favorite Vincent Price Film?” game.  However, whatever answer they give is wrong…unless they name THE LAST MAN ON EARTH (1964).

LAST MAN ON EARTH was the first adaptation of Richard Matheson’s classic vampire novel, I am Legend, and is definitely the most loyal to the source material, even more so than the recent version that bares its name.  For those unfamiliar with the story, a plague has ravaged the planet.  It quickly kills the infected, who then return to life as something else.  They stumble mindlessly yet relentlessly, as zombies, but cannot stand the light or garlic, and can be killed by a wooden stake through the heart.  The disease was brutal and heavily contagious.  In fact, almost everyone on the planet has fallen to the sickness.  Everyone, it seems, but Price’s Robert Morgan.  A scientist who once studied the plague, after watching both his wife and young daughter die, has become a shell of a man, hunting down and killing the other beings by day, and at night, hoping that somewhere out in the world is another person, that he really isn’t the last man left on Earth.

I’m trying to come up with something negative to say about THE LAST MAN ON EARTH, but I can’t.  That said, I can understand why some people aren’t so enamored.  The flick is very claustrophobic; a large chunk of it consists of Price alone onscreen, or with a zombie.  Among the parts where he is interacting with others is an extended flashback sequence, where we get to watch with Price as his daughter and wife succumb.  These are not your typical horror movie “why our hero needs revenge” scenes.  No, they’re heartbreakingly real.  Opposite his usual role as the wacked mad scientist with sinister, but exuberant, glee, in LAST MAN, Price reminded audiences that he was a true artist, capable of subtlety and nuance.  And, although some horror fans might be scared away from this film, I would recommend this for a dinner and a movie in, and toast the life of one of the great ones, if not the greatest.

Throughout LAST MAN, Morgan drinks coffee.  Quite a bit of coffee.  He offers coffee to his wife and friends, his recent acquaintances.  But now and then he needed a sip of the hard stuff to get him through the emotional turmoil until the next day started.  Combining those, I offer up a mug of:

LAST COFFEE ON EARTH

drink

Ingredients:

1 mug of good coffee
1 shot Irish whiskey
1/4 tsp lemon extract
Splash of cream

Directions:

Mix that up and enjoy one or two before dinner.

With dinner, I suggest a nice glass of wine.  Not just because it would taste good with the main dish, but because Price himself was a connoisseur and even recorded an LP extolling its virtues.  I had to acknowledge that when coming up with a dinner.  Yet, I couldn’t ignore the vast amounts of garlic used in the movie (wreaths of bulbs were always on Morgan’s door).  The raspberries?  They just taste good.  So, for a dinner with LAST MAN, please enjoy:

RASPBERRY GARLIC  COQ AU VIN

dinner

Ingredients:

2 tbsp olive oil
2 boneless, skinless chicken breasts (halved through the center)
Salt and pepper to taste
1 shallot
10 cloves of garlic, sliced
1 bottle white wine
2 heaping tbsp raspberry preserves
2 tbsp butter
Minced chives (optional)

Directions:

Heat the oil in a pan.  Salt and pepper the chicken.  Sauté until browned and cooked through.  Transfer to a plate and cover to keep warm.

In remaining oil, sauté the shallot and garlic until just barely browned, about a minute or so.  Pour in the bottle of wine, and let reduce by about 3/4.  Add the preserves and stir in as it melts down.  Adjust the salt and pepper after this step.  Stir in the butter.  Once butter is melted, return chicken to pan and heat through.  Serve over rice and sprinkle with chives.

I had a similar dilemma when figuring out a dessert.  Price, not only was he a wine lover, but a gourmet as well, having authored numerous cookbooks.  One of his after-dinner specialties was the “Ice Box Cake” and its many variations (Ice Box Cake being a fancy term for an ice cream cake).  Yet I couldn’t ignore making it relevant to the film, and the one scene that stuck in my mind was the flashback to Morgan’s daughter’s birthday party.  Her last birthday party, and perhaps even the last birthday party celebrated by humans.  In that scene, Morgan is discussing this new plague, but is interrupted by his daughter wanting him to come eat some cake.  What kind of ice box cake would be fitting for a little girl’s birthday party?  Ice cream cupcakes!

ICE BOX CUPCAKES

dessert

Ingredients:

1 dozen cupcakes, freshly baked, either by box mix or scratch
1 or 2 pints ice cream, softened (amount depends on what kind of ice cream used
Frosting
(NOTE: flavors of all the above are your choice, just make sure they are flavors that blend well together)

Directions:

Prepare cupcakes as directed by the instructions.  After they’ve cooled, take a spoon and scoop about an inch worth of cake from the center.  Fill with softened ice cream and refreeze.  Once the ice cream is hardened again, frost and decorate.

(NOTE–the density of the ice cream used will determine how many pints are needed.  Lighter ice creams like Dryers get compacted as they are melted and refrozen.  On the other hand, things like gelatos start out pretty dense don’t change much in the process.  Both have tasty, tasty endings, so both will work equally as well.)

I have to amend my earlier comment about THE LAST MAN ON EARTH being the only acceptable answer to “What was Vincent Price’s best film role.” WHALES OF AUGUST (1987) would also be okay, as long as we’re including non-starring roles and non-horror movies.  He was simply brilliant in that as well.  So pop one or the other in the DVD player, raise a glass (or mug) and wish a posthumous happy birthday to one of the best things to ever happen to horror films.  Happy Birthday, Mr. Price!

© Copyright 2013 by Jenny Orosel

last man on earth 

Quick Cuts Plays “WHAT’S MORE LIKELY?”

Posted in 2013, Based on Comic Book, Comic Book Movies, DC Comics, Quick Cuts, Sam Raimi, Twilight, Vampires, Zombies with tags , , , , , , , , on May 10, 2013 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS: WHAT’S MORE LIKELY?
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, and Jenny Orosel

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to another edition of QUICK CUTS.  Tonight we’ll be playing a little game.

IRON MAN 3 opened in theaters last Friday, May 3rd.  The Marvel superhero movies have enjoyed a nice run going back to X-MEN (2000) and Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man movie, SPIDER-MAN (2002).  Here we are in 2013 and they’re still going strong.

So, tonight we’re going to play a little game called “What’s More Likely?”

Our panel of Cinema Knife Fighters includes, in addition to L.L. Soares and myself, Nick Cato, Daniel Keohane, Paul McMahon, and Jenny Orosel.  Thank you all for coming.

So, tonight’s game, “What’s More Likely?” works like this.  Looking ahead to the next ten years and answer the following questions. 

First question:  What’s more likely? That there will be more Marvel movies in the next ten years, or more zombie movies?

 Spider-Man-2-Movie

NICK CATO:  I think there will always be both, but superhero films seem to be more lucrative.

ARRUDA:  So, more Marvel movies then?

CATO:  Yes.

JENNY OROSEL:  Seeing as they’re now owned by Disney, we’re going to see more Marvel movies than ever.  I fully expect they’ll do two direct-to-video sequels or prequels for every one they have in the theater.

ARRUDA:  I hope not.  There’s nothing like a direct-to-video release to kill off a movie series.  Ugh!

dawn_of_the_dead(2004) L.L. SOARES:  Oh, what do you know!

Turning to the zombie genre for a moment, hopefully, oversaturation will result in a dwindling of zombie movies.

Marvel, however, has a nice variety of characters they can draw from (including many who have never been in a movie before), and should go strong for many years.

ARRUDA:  I agree.

PAUL MCMAHON:  With the success of THE AVENGERS (2012), there will definitely be more Marvel movies. I won’t be sure about zombie movies until we see how much money WORLD WAR Z (2013) makes. With all the buzz about production problems, it could either bring about a reanimation of the zombie sub-genre or put a bullet through its head.

SOARES:  I’m sick of zombies.  I wouldn’t mind putting a bullet through the head of the genre.

DANIEL KEOHANE: I’m going with Marvel movies, without a doubt.

Zombie movies are popular right now, but the superhero movies have a much wider reach and end up making more money, overall. And there are so many characters and teams to choose from, whereas zombies pretty much lumber along the same way each time.

ARRUDA:  I’m going with Marvel movies as well.

Okay, on to our second question: 

What’s more likely? That we’ll still be seeing Marvel movies in ten years, or that we’ll still be seeing movies based on books by Stephenie Meyer?

the-avengers-1235-wallmages

Dan, why don’t you start us off this time?

KEOHANE:  Marvel movies.

(The panel cheers.)

KEOHANE:  Thank you, thank you.

SOARES:  We’re not cheering you.  We’re cheering your pick.

KEOHANE:  Don’t ruin my moment.

Where was I?  Marvel movies.  Because as good a writer for her age group as Stephenie Meyer is, she can only crank out so much content.  Marvel not only has a slew of new comics coming out every month, they have half a century of classic stories already in the can ready to become movie-ized. Even the Avengers movie was loosely based on one of the first Avengers comics (I think). Not to mention DC’s Superman movies. They’ll keep making the same origin story over and over ad infinitum.

Twilight_poster_4

SOARES:  What are you bringing up DC comics for?  This question is about Marvel movies!  Pay attention, Dan!

ARRUDA:  But he makes a good point.  Not only does Marvel have more stories to choose from, but they can remake their own origin stories. Heck, they just did it with their latest SPIDER-MAN movie.

Let’s move on.  I don’t want to give Meyer any ideas.  The last thing I want is a TWILIGHT remake!

SOARES:  I predict that Stephenie Meyer will find a way to continue the Twilight series.

ARRUDA:  No!

SOARES:  You just don’t put a cash cow like that out to pasture.

However, the future for Meyer-related projects is iffy – especially if something new grabs the public’s interest. Meanwhile, I think Marvel movies will be going strong in 10 years.

CATO:  Ten years from now?  Hopefully Meyer will be retired by then.

ARRUDA:  I’m with you.  I hope she’s retired.  I’ll be happy if I never have to see another movie based on a Stephenie Meyer book ever again.

KEOHANE:  I think Meyer is a very talented writer, and you’re not giving her enough credit.

ARRUDA:  Maybe so, but the TWILIGHT movies were awful, and they killed any interest I might have had in seeing THE HOST (2013).

SOARES:  I think you secretly like the TWILIGHT movies.  You talk about them so much.

ARRUDA:  Yeah, right!

MCMAHON:  Marvel movies, no question. They have new ideas and maybe some new-to-the-screen heroes as well.

And sorry, Michael, but it’s entirely possible, though, that in ten years they’ll be remaking the TWILIGHT movies. We can hope not.

ARRUDA:  That’s a horrible thought, though I agree with you.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that it’s bound to happen.  If film history has taught us anything, it’s that remakes are always with us.

What about you, Jenny?  In ten years, Marvel movies or Stephenie Meyer movies?

OROSEL:  Ooh, that’s a tough one, since I fully expect Disney to eventually buy Stephenie Meyer, and turn Bella into a Disney Princess. 

ARRUDA:  This panel is getting more painful by the minute.

OROSEL:  I call it a tie.

ARRUDA:  Okay, it’s time for the third and final question of the night.

What’s more likely? Robert Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark/Iron Man again, or Christian Bale plays Batman again?

Robert Downey Jr. in IRON MAN 3, and still going strong.

Robert Downey Jr. in IRON MAN 3, and still going strong.

MCMAHON:  Downey is already going to play Tony Stark in THE AVENGERS 2. There will probably be an IRON MAN 4. I can’t see him ditching that cash cow while the iron is hot. Ahem.

(Someone in the audience groans.)

MCMAHON:  I don’t think Christopher Nolan intends to do another Batman movie, and I can’t see Christian Bale playing that character under another director

ARRUDA:  Good point.  And I agree with you.

I say Robert Downey Jr. plays Iron Man again.  Between THE AVENGERS movies and the IRON MAN series, you’d think that he’d at least be back one more time as Iron Man if not more.

From what I’ve read, Bale is done as Batman.  You never know about these things, but I don’t expect him to play Batman again.

 

Christian Bale is Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

Christian Bale is Batman in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

OROSEL:  It’s going to be hard for Bale to keep it going as Batman as he ages, while even if Downey looks ragged and worn, it fits the Stark character.  Unless he ends up in rehab again.  Then all bets are off.

KEOHANE:  Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man without a doubt. This is just a guess–.

SOARES:  Really, Dan, it’s a guess?  You mean you don’t know? 

KEOHANE:  Sorry.  I left my crystal ball at home.

So, this is just a guess, but Downey seems to be enjoying himself immensely up there on the screen, whereas Christian Bale puts so much angst into his characters, his doctors will probably have him committed if he even thinks about doing another one of those.

CATO:  It may be too early to tell, but hopefully Downey will continue to play Stark…he’s perfect in the role, whereas we have yet to find a Batman everyone seems to agree on.

SOARES:  That’s for sure.  It’s all about the mask anyway.  Anyone can play Batman.

Both Downey and Bale probably want to focus on more artistic movies. That said, I think Batman is replaceable, as we’ve seen several people play him over the years, while Downey remains the definitive Tony Stark. I think it’s more likely Downey will be convinced to play Stark again.

ARRUDA:  Okay, there you have it.  It seems the general consensus is that Marvel movies will be around for a while.

That’s all the time we have for tonight.  Thanks for joining us everybody, and we’ll see you next time on QUICK CUTS.

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Nick Cato, Daniel G. Keohane, Paul McMahon and Jenny Orosel

Meals for Monsters: VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS (1970)

Posted in 1970s Movies, 2013, Adult Fairy Tales, Coming of Age Movies, Foreign Films, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Vampires with tags , , , , on April 10, 2013 by knifefighter

MEALS FOR MONSTERS: VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS (1970)
Review and recipes by Jenny Orosel

VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS silverferox design (1) copy

You know that magic moment when you’ve discovered a hidden gem of a movie?  That moment when you see something totally different and you cannot wait to introduce your friends, your family, and random strangers on the Internet to something totally unique and unknown?  And then the feeling following when you realize, you’re not the first to discover it, not the second or third, but the nine hundred, fifty seven thousandth.  That happened with me and VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS (1970).  It turns out this is a classic unbeknownst to me, a film that influenced many that came after it (including being the inspiration for 1983’s IN THE COMPANY OF WOLVES), is currently playing on Criterion’s Hulu channel, and is taught in many college courses from Women’s Studies to Eastern European History.  I feel like my eyes have been opened, much like Valerie’s (albeit, to a much less profound degree).

For those who haven’t experienced it yet, VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS is a fairy tale from Czechoslovakia.  Not one of your Disney fables, but as they were in the Grimm days.  Thirteen-year-old Valerie is awakened from an afternoon nap when a thief steals her beloved earrings, the lone gift left by her long lost mother.  No worries, as they are returned the next day.  Only, now she begins menstruating, and when she puts the earrings back on, she can see the world as it really is.  Her suitor is now an eagle, the travelling missionary is a weasel, and her small village is overrun with vampires, from the local priest to her friend’s new husband, to her own grandmother.  The priest wants to corrupt her innocence, her grandmother wants to steal her youth, the eagle is hiding a dangerous secret, and nothing but evil seems to come from the missionary.  Can Valerie survive with her body and soul intact, or will she become yet another ‘monster’ herself?

Yes, a lot of the imagery in VALERIE is heavy-handed.  Weasels, vampires, demons…these were hardly unique in the seventies, and are even less so now.  But that hardly matters in VALERIE’s world.  The imagery is so stunning that it more than makes up for the lack of originality in the symbols.  ‘Lyrical’ is the best word I can come up with to describe the pacing.  Valerie moves through the week with such a gentle ease, despite the madness surrounding her.  And it’s hard to believe that Jaroslava Schallerova, the actress who portrayed Valerie, was only 13 herself when she made this flick.  She carries the movie, being in nearly every shot, without faltering, with a performance more nuanced than what most performers three times her age are capable of.  The only downside has nothing to do with the movie itself, but rather the DVD.  The subtitles are seriously lacking in the region 1 release from Facets Video.  It’s not quite at the “All your base are belong to us” level, but there are moments when it gets closer than it should.  From what I understand, the region 2 disc from Redemption, is much better, and I can only assume that Criterion’s streaming version is tightened and some of the grammatical issues have been fixed.

Coming up with a drink for this one was a little tricky.  In the past year, the Czech Republic put major restrictions on hard alcohol.  However, beer is more popular than ever over there.  So what would be a good beer drink to honor Valerie’s transition from childhood innocence to adulthood?  I present to you the:

BEER FLOAT

drink

Ingredients:
Fruit flavored ale
Chocolate ice cream

Directions: Feel free to adapt this to taste.  I used an apricot ale.  Strawberry ice cream was attempted, but the flavor was too light to stand up to the chocolate.

Kolaches, like VALERIE, are little bits of Eastern European deliciousness that I’ve only recently discovered. They can be made with sweet fillings or, as I used them here, with savory meat for a meal.  But they do need a vegetable side.  Boiled cabbage is a popular Czech side, but that’s not something I wanted to put people (or myself) through.  So I did the next best thing:

KOLACHES WITH BRUSSELS SPROUTS

dinner

Ingredients for the Kolaches:
1 roll refrigerated French bread dough
½ Polska Kielbasa, diced
8 mushrooms, diced
½ onion, diced

Directions: Preheat the oven to 375.  Sauté the sausage, mushrooms and onion until the veggies are cooked through.  Divide the bread dough into 8 equal parts.  Flatten each piece into a disc and put onto a greased cookie sheet.  Divide the filling evenly onto the center of the discs and press down with the palm of your hand.

Ingredients (for the Brussels sprouts):
1 pound Brussels sprouts, halved or quartered (depending on the size)
Other ½ of the onion, diced.
6 slices of bacon, cut into strips.

Directions: Toss the ingredients together and put on ungreased cookie sheet.

Bake both of these, at the same time, for 25 minutes.

One of the most popular Czech desserts is a pastry called a Trdelnik.  It’s an elaborate bit of sugary goodness that takes multiple risings, and has to be baked over an open fire on a spit.  As delicious as they are, it’s too much work and too much of an expense, involving equipment that you’ll maybe use once or twice again.  Instead, I took the traditional flavors of the Trdelnik and put them into a bread pudding:

MOCK TRDELNIK

dessert

Ingredients:
1 small loaf cinnamon bread, cubed
4 eggs
¾ cup milk
¼ cup sugar
1 can tart cherries (NOT pie filling, but the kind that are packed in water), drained.

Directions: Beat the eggs, milk and sugar.  Fold in the bread and cherries.  Pour into buttered baking dish (this can be done ahead of time and stored in the refrigerator until ready to bake).  Bake in an oven preheated to 350 for 25 to 30 minutes, or until done.  Can be served hot, room temperature, or cold, but best served with whipped cream.

I’ve seen my share of Female Puberty Horrors in my day. From CARRIE to GINGER SNAPS to countless others in between, the transformation from girl to woman has been done so many times as lycanthropic transformation, the emergence of witchly powers, as a sign that the demons within her has emerged with her menstrual blood.  It’s a welcome change in VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS that, it’s not the girl who is evil, but the world around her.  The added bonus is that it’s a fantastic movie that, although muddled at times, is both fascinating and gorgeous to watch.  If you’re in the same boat I was and have never seen it, do so now, and hopefully you’ll enjoy the dinner as well.

© Copyright 2013 by Jenny Orosel

poster

Quick Cuts Presents: THE GREAT TWILIGHT SEND-OFF!

Posted in 2012, Quick Cuts, Twilight, Vampires, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , , on November 16, 2012 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS:  THE GREAT TWILIGHT SEND-OFF!
Featuring Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Jenny Orosel, Mark Onspaugh and Paul McMahon

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, this Friday, November 16, the final installment of the TWILIGHT series opens in theaters, TWILIGHT BREAKING DAWN PART II.  Don’t everybody cry at once!

So, here’s this week’s QUICK CUTS question:  if you could devise an appropriate send-off for the TWILIGHT series, what would it be? 

Our panel responds:

JENNY OROSEL: The whole vampire sparkly family takes a vacation to New York just in time to meet up with the giant tentacled alien from the end of the WATCHMEN comic book. That would be sweet.

MICHAEL ARRUDAVery sweet!

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Anyone directly responsible for the movies and all the die-hard, crying on their vlog, Sparkle-Vamp-worshipping fans would be locked in a warehouse-turned-theater and strapped to “old school” wooden seats. The Twilight series would play round the clock – IV’s of stage blood and popcorn “butter” for sustenance and astronaut diapers all around… The rest of the world would celebrate as every book and DVD is recycled into clean fertilizer to feed a starving world.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Ouch!  But oh-so-appropriate!

PAUL MCMAHON:  I’m going to quietly watch the TWILIGHT SAGA sail away. I will celebrate by visiting a large cathedral and lighting a prayer request candle. While it burns, I’m going to kneel and bow my head and say a novena that the Hollywood Gods Who Develop Book Series Into Movie Series seize the opportunity to create an awesome string of kick-ass films based on Jonathan Maberry’s JOE LEDGER books. Anyone want to join me?

The Joe Ledger series

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  We’ll meet you at the door.

As for me, really, in all seriousness, there is no better send-off than the knowledge that I will never have to sit through one of these movies again.  This in itself is a celebration. When I walk out of the theater after the end credits roll, I might even cry, I’ll be so happy!

L.L. SOARES:  Don’t go celebrating just yet. I heard a rumor that Stephenie Meyer, creator of the Twilight series, was in discussions to figure out a way to keep the franchise going…More sequels? A spin-off? I have no idea – but you know the studios aren’t going to put this cash cow to pasture any sooner than they have to.

(Pops open a bottle of champagne) So we may not have to say good-bye after all! I know Michael will be so relieved…

MICHAEL ARRUDA (ignores him):  Did you say something, LL? I’m having trouble hearing you!

 In the meantime, go forth all you moviegoers and do your duty by seeing something else!

 Thanks for joining us.  Have a good night, everybody!

—END—

Cinema Knife Fight COMING ATTRACTIONS – NOVEMBER 2012

Posted in 2012, Coming Attractions, Hit Men, Martial Arts, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , , on November 3, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS:
NOVEMBER 2012
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene:  A lavishly decorated bedroom.  Several beautiful Asian women lay on a huge bed.  L.L. SOARES karate chops his way through the bedroom door.)

ASIAN WOMAN:  Can we interest you in some pleasure?

L.L. SOARES:  You’re business.  (Lifts axe above his head.)  This is pleasure.  (Swings axe, and women run away, screaming in terror.)

(MICHAEL ARRUDA enters the room.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Scaring the women away again, I see.

LS:   At least I’m trying to scare them.  What’s your excuse?

MA:  Huh?

LS:  When was the last time you went on a date?

MA:  Shh!  I’m too busy watching all these movies.  Speaking of which, it’s time for our November Coming Attractions column.  There are some interesting movies this month.

We kick things off this weekend with a review of THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS.  I have to say, I’m really looking forward to this one, as the trailer is pretty cool.  It looks like it’s going to be a hoot.

Directed by RZA of hip hop fame, with a screenplay by Eli Roth and RZA, this actioner takes place in feudal China and features assassins, warriors, and soldiers all fighting over a treasure of gold.  It stars Russell Crowe, RZA, and Lucy Liu.

Based on its stylish and high-octane trailer, this one looks like fun.

LS:  What’s not to love? I’m a big fan of RZA and the Wu-Tang Clan, I’m a big fan of Eli Roth, and this one is produced by Quentin Tarantino. It looks a little one of those super-stylized martial arts flicks, like Tarantino’s KILL BILL movies, and it should be a great time.

I hope it lives up to our expectations.

MA:  On November 9, the action continues with our review of the new James Bond flick, SKYFALL.  I’m actually reviewing this one with Nick Cato.  (turns to LS)  Do you have something against James Bond or something?

LS:  Not really. I’ve just never been a big fan of the series. I know some people are nuts for James Bond movies, but I’ve found a lot of them to be kind of…well…boring. Truth is, I think Daniel Craig is great in the role, and I liked him a lot in CASINO ROYALE (2006), but I figured that the new one should be reviewed by hardcore fans, and I know you dig the series. And I know Nick is a huge fan, too. So I decided to sit this one out and let two Bondies review the new movie.

MA:  Bondies?

LS: Or whatever it is you Bond fans call yourselves. Bondians? Besides, it gives me a weekend off.

MA: I remember not knowing what to expect with the first Daniel Craig Bond movie, CASINO ROYALE, because I’d heard they had made lots of changes, but I ended up loving that film and enjoying the next one QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008) even more.

I enjoyed Craig’s interpretation of Bond: a much grittier, darker hero, than the previous Bonds, and he’s as rough and tough as Sean Connery’s original interpretation of 007.  The two Craig Bond movies really didn’t play like previous Bond films.  The filmmakers deviated from the traditional Bond formula, and the films were better for it.

The only thing I’m concerned about is I enjoyed the previous two films so much, I wonder if this film will be as good?  Of course, there have been so many James Bond movies, and they have a proven track record, so I’m reasonably confident this movie is going to be good.

In addition to Daniel Craig as James Bond, the cast also includes notable actors Javier Bardem, who won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in 2007, Ralph Fiennes, Albert Finney, and Judi Dench, who returns for the seventh time as M.

LS:  On 11/16, we’ll be reviewing TWILIGHT BREAKING DAWN PART II.

(MA groans).

LS:  Don’t worry, it’s almost over. BREAKING DAWN PART II is the final film in the TWILIGHT series. At least I hope it is. You should be proud of yourself. We’ve sat through every single movie in the TWILIGHT franchise. That’s quite an accomplishment! We can’t just walk away and not watch the final one.

MA: Why not?

LS: Because the fans expect us to see it and review it. And, most likely, rip it to shreds.

MA:  I have nothing to say about this one, other than I can’t believe I’m still alive after having to sit through the previous movies in this series.  God-awful, and then some!

The weekend of 11/23, Thanksgiving weekend, has a couple of movies that might be of interest. First, LIFE OF PI opens on 11/21.  I don’t know much about this one, other than it’s directed by Ang Lee and looks to be some sort of fantasy. Then there’s the remake of RED DAWN also opening that weekend.

LS:  I think it’s a long-shot if we review either one. Most likely we’ll take that weekend off. Even we deserve a holiday. Besides, if no one else on the staff reviews them, we’ll no doubt have something else cooked up for our readers.

And we finish the month with a review of KILLING THEM SOFTLY, which opens on November 30.  This one has Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini as hit men who are called in to handle some yahoos who robbed a mob-run poker game. It actually looks pretty cool.

MA:  I agree that this one looks good. It looks like a hard-edged crime thriller, and it’s got a solid cast. Along with Pitt and Gandolfini, there’s Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta, and Sam Shepard.

It should be a strong way to finish the month.

Okay, that wraps things up for November.  We’ll see you on Monday with our review of THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS.

LS:  Thanks for joining us, and we’ll see you again soon.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Meals for Monsters: ZOLTAN, THE HOUND OF DRACULA (1978)

Posted in "So Bad They're Good" Movies, 2012, 70s Horror, Animals Attack, B-Movies, Based on a True Story, Campy Movies, Dracula, Jenny Orosel Columns, Meals for Monsters, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , , on October 30, 2012 by knifefighter

Meals for Monsters: ZOLTAN, THE HOUND OF DRACULA (AKA DRACULA’S DOG)
Movie Review and Recipes by Jenny Orosel
Dracula has a long and glorious history in filmdom.  He’s been a hideous, long-nailed ghoul.  He’s been a gorgeous, sexy beast.  Hell, he’s even been a woman.  You may think you know everything there is to know about that creature of the night.  But, did you know he had a dog?

ZOLTAN, THE HOUND OF DRACULA (1978) opens with Russian soldiers detonating a field.  In doing so, they unearth a crypt.  One of the tombs inside is marked “Dracula”.  A curious soldier, careful not to disturb that one, decides to explore the one next to it.  Inside is a corpse wrapped in cloth and a wooden stake sticking out.  Now, if you unearthed something buried next to Dracula with a stake in it, what would be the wisest course of action?  Removing the stake isn’t the best choice, but it was what that soldier did.  Zoltan, Dracula’s hound (actually, it was a Doberman, but that’s one of the many details conveniently ignored in this flick) springs to life and kills said soldier.  Then he opens another tomb, awakening Veidt, Dracula’s servant, and the two set out on a quest to find a new master.  That master?  Dracula’s last surviving heir, Michael Drake.  Drake is off camping with his family, their two dogs and litter of puppies.  Will Zoltan and Veidt be able to transform Drake into a vampire, and thus have their master back?  Or will Drake and his family survive their lineage?

The best way to approach ZOLTAN is to not think too hard.  If you do, you’ll wonder how Drake can be the last of the line if he has two kids.  You’ll wonder why they thought it was a good idea to take a box full of newborn puppies out into the woods.  You’ll wonder why Zoltan and Veidt travelled halfway across the world from Russia to California for a master when they could have just opened Dracula’s tomb.  There’s a lot to ZOLTAN that doesn’t make sense.  But it is a fun, almost silly vampire flick with plenty of Karo syrup gore.  And it has vampire puppies!  Puppies!  Horror has never been so cute.

“Sic ‘em, Zoltan!”

ZOLTAN is truly a movie for the masses.  Fans of cheesy monster flicks have plenty to enjoy, and people not into horror have cute puppies to look at.  Sure, they’re bloodsucking and evil, but they’re puppies.

In honor of the first victim, that poor (albeit dumb) Russian soldier, I designed this cocktail:

BLOODY RUSSIAN


Ingredients:
5 oz vodka
3 oz pomegranate juice
Serve over ice.  Garnish with pomegranate seeds if available.

****

When dealing with hellish canines, hot dogs is a pun so obvious that, as much as I tried, I couldn’t resist.  So, to enjoy with your movie you can nosh on:

DEVIL DOGS (serves three)


Ingredients:
6 hot dogs
1 jalapeno pepper (or three Serrano chilies, if you want something spicier)
6 slices of regular cut bacon (avoid the thick cut, tasty as it is)
Buns and your favorite condiments

Directions:
Preheat the oven to 450.  Slice the chile pepper into long strips, removing the seeds and white membranes.  Slice the hot dogs lengthwise, only cutting halfway in.  Insert strips of the peppers from end to end.  Wrap a piece of bacon around the dog, securing with a toothpick at each end.  Bake on top of a rack for 30 minutes, turning halfway through.  It should go without saying, but remove the toothpicks before consuming.  Place the dogs in the buns, topped with your preferred condiment, and serve with French fries, onion rings, or the souls of your enemies.

****

Wooden stakes are convenient to have when dealing with vampires.  Unfortunately, they’re not very tasty.  For dessert, have a plate of these cookies on the table, and maybe it’ll be enough to fake out the vampires (as long as you’re dealing with gullible ones):

CINNAMON STAKES


Ingredients:
1 stick butter, softened.
¼ cup powdered sugar
½ tsp vanilla extract
½ tsp ground cinnamon
1 cup flour

Directions:
Mix the butter and sugar and vanilla together until blended.  Add flour, and mix slowly (as to not send flour shooting out across the kitchen).  Wrap in plastic wrap and leave in the fridge an hour.

Preheat the oven to 350.  Grease a cookie sheet.  Remove dough from fridge and plastic wrap.  Roll out to about ¼ inch thick.  Slice into long wedges.  Bake for 8 minutes, or just until the edges start to brown.  Cool on wire rack.

****

Interesting fact: a dog that looks an awful lot like Zoltan appears in a painting of the great Manos in MANOS: HANDS OF FATE (1966). Just a coincidence?

ZOLTAN was directed by the great Albert Band, the auteur behind I BURY THE LIVING (1958) and GHOULIES II (1988).  He knows how to give the audience a good time.  And it’s hard not to have a good time while watching vampire puppies.  So sit back, relax with a tasty meal, and watch your pets go nuts every time the dogs start barking on screen.

© Copyright 2012 by Jenny Orosel

DRACULA’S DOG was an alternate title used for Zoltan: The Hound of Dracula.

Friday Night Knife Fights: NEAR DARK VS. THE LOST BOYS – PART 3

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Friday Night Knife Fights, Staff Writers, Supernatural, Vampires with tags , , , , , , on July 27, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
NEAR DARK (1987) vs. THE LOST BOYS (1987)
PART 3 of 3
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Good evening everybody, and welcome to Part 3 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS. Tonight it’s the final segment of our NEAR DARK vs. THE LOST BOYS debate.

Up until now, it’s been all NEAR DARK.

LS: That comes as no surprise!

MA: After three rounds, it’s NEAR DARK 3, THE LOST BOYS 0. It’s time for the final rounds, where we’ll see if NEAR DARK continues its shut-out performance, as it hasn’t allowed THE LOST BOYS to score even one point yet. Or, will THE LOST BOYS finally muster some strength to get on the scoreboard and fight its way back to a comeback victory? Stay with us and find out.

Once again, I’m joined on our panel by L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh. Thanks again for taking part.

MO: No problem.

LS: I say we skip the rest of the panel and grab some beers. We all know which movie is going to win.

PM: I don’t know about that, but the beer part sounds good to me.

MO: Me, too.

MA: Well, as good as it sounds, we don’t really know which film is going to win. There’s always room for a comeback. Let’s finish the panel.

LS: You’re never any fun!

MA: It’s time for Round 4. Which film’s director does a better job at the helm?

I’ll go first.

THE LOST BOYS was directed by Joel Schumacher, and the best thing I can say for it is the movie looks good. It’s a slick professional directing job by Schumacher. Too bad no one reminded him that he was directing a horror movie. I think he secretly thought he was making this for Disney, as it plays like PETER PAN: VAMPIRE.

LS: Good one!

MA: I can’t say that I liked the job that Schumacher did here. His work on THE LOST BOYS reminded me a lot of his two Batman movies—BATMAN FOREVER (1995) and BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997) —and that’s not saying much.

(The sound of someone gagging in the background)

MA: My favorite Schumacher movie is probably FALLING DOWN (1993) starring Michael Douglas, a movie I like much better than THE LOST BOYS.

LS: FALLING DOWN is a good one. I also enjoyed TIGERLAND and 8MM (both from 1999). So the dude is capable of making good movies. But the majority of his career has been garbage.

MA: So, it goes without saying, that I prefer the direction by Kathryn Bigelow on NEAR DARK. She did what Schumacher and the others who worked on THE LOST BOYS didn’t do: she took the subject seriously. NEAR DARK is a much more serious vampire film, and as a result, is a more rewarding experience, especially for the horror fan.

LS: But LOST BOYS does take some of its story seriously. It just completely drops the ball when it feels the need to add the Coreys’ lame storyline.

As for which of these two movies had better direction, I’ll put it this way. Joel Schumacher ruined vampires in LOST BOYS, and he ruined Batman. Just keep this guy away from BATS!

Schmaucher has been working for decades and never seems to get any better at directing. Kathryn Bigelow is another level. Another league! You can’t compare them.

NEAR DARK all the way.

MO: These are two very different films.

I thought Schumacher made a wise choice showing almost all the flying from the vamp POV – especially when we see the terror on the security guard’s face (and taking the car door with him was badass) or the couple necking in the car.

MA: That was terror? I thought he looked constipated.

LS: He’s right about one thing, though. Flying vampires look pretty goofy. The POV scenes made them less so.

MO: But the bar scene in NEAR DARK, with the beer mug of blood, death by spur, etc., and the bits like the “old” kid downed on his bike or Paxton picking up lovelies… and the aforementioned bleakness… I go with Bigelow. It’s funny how you can see NEAR DARK leading to THE HURT LOCKER (2008), and THE LOST BOYS leading BATMAN AND ROBIN (1997).

MA: Very true. Good point!

LS: One trajectory is leading up, and one is leading down. Guess which is which.

Jamie Gertz plays Star in THE LOST BOYS.

PM: Joel Schumacher made an interesting choice in casting the vampires of THE LOST BOYS as teenagers. Even if he only did it to heighten interest among moviegoers at the time, it was still something that hadn’t been done to death yet. He also blends the younger and older actors pretty well. A lot was done to make it all seem” cool,” in an effort to soften the horror. Scenes that should have packed an emotional wallop were glossed over for laughs. Did I mention that the film ends on a friggin’ punch line? I agree with Mark. You get a premonition of Schumacher developing into the director who would put nipples on Batman.

Kathryn Bigelow sets an evil mood in NEAR DARK, gritty and dusty with big open spaces and lots of leather and Stetsons, calling up the Western tropes she was going for.

LS: There’s even a scene with a horse and a tumbleweed, for chrissakes! (laughs)

PM: She blends the elements of the story together smoothly, and gets solid performances out of all of her cast.

At the end, she seems to lose control of the material, though. She uses some ridiculous ‘Hollywood’ explosions to wrap things up (a tanker truck doesn’t even finish jackknifing before it blows sky-high), and like I’ve said, Jesse and Diamondback seem to just give up. As much as I hated the punch line ending of THE LOST BOYS, it’s only a few seconds and doesn’t interfere with what’s come before.

I’m going with Joel Schumacher and THE LOST BOYS.

MA: Wow. I agree that the ending to NEAR DARK isn’t all that great, but you think Grandpa coming to the rescue is better? I think you just might have been distracted when you watched this one!

LS: I’ll say!

MA: Okay, Round 4 goes to NEAR DARK, even though Paul tried yet again to get THE LOST BOYS in there.

Which means that after 4 Rounds, it’s NEAR DARK – 4, THE LOST BOYS – 0.

LS: Can we leave and grab those beers now?

Jenny Wright as Mae in NEAR DARK.

MA: Not yet! Because now it’s the moment everyone’s been waiting for. The fifth and final round. And let me just remind everyone how the scoring works. With this final round, should we all choose THE LOST BOYS, then that’s considered a “knock out” and THE LOST BOYS would win this bout, even though it has yet to score a point.

MO (points to LS): That means he would have to choose THE LOST BOYS over NEAR DARK?

MA: Yep.

(They all start laughing.)

LS: I’m telling you, let’s go grab those beers!

MA: Not yet! Hey, stranger things have happened, but don’t quote me on that. I’m not making any predictions!

The final question is: If you had to pick, which film do you think is better?

Mark, take it away.

MO: For jokey, family fun (with some good makeup effects), I’d go with THE LOST BOYS. It’s also a good time capsule for 80′s fashion.

But, if it’s straight-up horror with style (my preference), I’d go with NEAR DARK. So, it’s NEAR DARK for me.

One final note: I don’t mind vampire films setting up different rules than the ones we are used to, if they adhere to them—on the TV series BEING HUMAN I am fine with vamps being out in the sunlight, but prefer vamps like those in TRUE BLOOD or NEAR DARK, where the sun is death.

THE LOST BOYS also sets that up, but seems to break several of its own rules when Edward Hermann casts a reflection and is not affected by holy water—I thought this was a cheap device to throw us off his scent as lead vamp—that lame “Don’t ever invite a vampire into your house, you silly boy. It renders you powerless.” quote by Edward Hermann doesn’t excuse this sloppy writing.

MA: I completely agree. It’s one of the lamest moments in the movie. It’s one of the lamest moments in the history of vampire movies, period!

MO: Finally, I will say the Eddie Munster reference in THE LOST BOYS made me

laugh. It’s probably the only line that did make me laugh.

LS: That’s funny. That’s the only line that made me laugh, too.

MA: Lucky you. I didn’t laugh. Paul?

PM: THE LOST BOYS tried too hard to be a comedy, and as such never really punched the fear or danger buttons for me. There’s nothing there to earn the R rating. If the film were released today it would be PG-13 without changing a frame.

NEAR DARK was more of what I want from a vampire flick—more evil, more danger, more blood, more creepiness. NEAR DARK doesn’t try to be “cool” and doesn’t shellac the scariness with jokes and wacky characters. Plus, if it came out today, it would definitely keep its R.

My pick for the best movie is clearly NEAR DARK.

MA: Truth be told, I’m not a fan of either movie.

I saw THE LOST BOYS when it first came out, opening to strong reviews, but I hated it. I thought it was silly, the humor a misfire, and I couldn’t get into it.

I saw NEAR DARK later, after word of mouth had proclaimed it an excellent vampire movie. I saw it, but wasn’t wowed. In terms of 80s vampire movies, I like FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) much better.

But to choose between the two, there’s no comparison. I’d go with NEAR DARK, hands down. I like its story better, and the overall feel of the movie is much more to my liking. It’s scary, gritty, and realistic. THE LOST BOYS is ruined by its goofiness, and simply put, it’s a joke that I didn’t find funny.

LS: Yeah, we don’t need to belabor this, do we? NEAR DARK is head and shoulders (and everything else) above THE LOST BOYS. And I think it’s better than your beloved FRIGHT NIGHT, too (even though it did have Roddy McDowell in it). But that’s another argument for another time.

MA: Yeah, maybe we should have done that one! Because FRIGHT NIGHT is way better than NEAR DARK! But like you said, that’s for another time.

Well, that’s it, folks. The final tally is—NEAR DARK – 5 and THE LOST BOYS – 0. NEAR DARK pretty much smoked THE LOST BOYS the whole way. It was never that close.

LS: I’m exhausted. Can we those beers now?

MA: Yes, now we can relax and have a drink. Okay, everybody, thanks again for joining us! And thank you Mark and Paul, for taking part. Until next time—.

Good night everybody!

(FADE TO BLACK)

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Paul McMahon

Friday Night Knife Fights: NEAR DARK vs. LOST BOYS – PART 2

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Friday Night Knife Fights, Vampire Hunters, Vampire Movies, Vampires with tags , , , , , on July 19, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
NEAR DARK vs. THE LOST BOYS (Both from 1987)
PART 2  (OF 3)
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome back everybody!

Tonight, it’s Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS, NEAR DARK vs. THE LOST BOYS.  Once again, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh, and myself, Michael Arruda, are all here on this panel as we try to determine which of these 1987 vampire movies is the better of the two.

Last time, NEAR DARK took Round 1, and so the score after one round, is:

NEAR DARK 1, THE LOST BOYS 0.

On to Round 2.  You guys ready?

LS:  No, we like just sitting here.  Of course we’re ready.  Let’s go!

MA:  Question 2: Which film has the stronger cast?

L.L., why don’t you start us off?

LS:  A lot of the cast of THE LOST BOYS is actually quite good. I’m a big fan of Jason Patric, who plays Michael. He went on to some very good roles after this movie, and he’s a sympathetic hero (although why he still lives with him mom and goes to high school when he looks to be about 25 continues to baffle me). I also like Dianne Wiest as Lucy, the mom. She went on to be in a lot of high-brow flicks.

MA:  I’m with you with Wiest, but Jason Patric in this movie is a bore.

LS:  As for the vampires. Hey, I have to admit that I dig Keifer. The guy has presence. You believe he leads a gang of vampires. There was a time when I didn’t like him as an actor, but I’ve definitely changed my tune on that.

MA:  I definitely agree.  Keifer Sutherland makes the most of his scenes here, and I liked him a lot.

LS:  And Jamie Gertz is pretty hot. Edward Hermann is kind of goofy as Max. He’s not great, but he’s memorable. And I like Barnard Hughes as Grandpa. I guess he’s supposed to be a comic relief character, although he’s not the only one.

MA:  You liked Max and Grandpa?  Come on!  As much as I like Edward Hermann, Max is an awfully weak character for someone who is supposed to be a vampire leader and a love interest for Weist’s character.  I didn’t buy him in either one of these roles.  I think Hermann’s miscast.

LS:  Max is a dumb character. How can he be miscast? Who would you have chosen, Sir John Gielgud?

MA:  Let’s see.  It’s 1987.  How about Kurt Russell?  I would have believed him as a leader of the lost boys!

LS (shaking his head):  But he’s not supposed to seem like a leader of the lost boys. He’s supposed to trick you. Wally Cox would have been better than Kurt Russell, but I think he was dead already by then. It’s not really an important role anyway, and Hermann is just fine in it. His overly mannered presence made me laugh, unlike Corey Feldman’s jokes.

And who doesn’t like Grandpa?!!

….but everyone else in the movie?

The other vampires are pretty bland when it comes to personalities, so they didn’t impress me much at all.

And then we get to the true reason why THE LOST BOYS is fatally flawed. The “other” storyline that’s going on here. The one starring the “Two Coreys.”

MA (rolls eyes): Ugh!

LS: It’s like there are two movies going on simultaneously. The real one, where Jason Patric struggles not to become a vampire. And then there’s a second one, starring Corey Haim and Corey Feldman.

The horror that is COREY FELDMAN!

Corey Haim plays Sam, Michael’s younger brother, and he’s just another annoying brat. I hated all his scenes. But he’s Laurence Olivier next to Corey Feldman, possibly the worst actor in the history of movies.

MA:  I actually liked Haim when I re-watched THE LOST BOYS for this column.  Feldman, not so much, but I wouldn’t call him the worst actor ever.  Some folks in the TWILIGHT movies have dibs on that distinction.

LS: You liked Corey Haim? Well, there goes your credibility out the window. His performance is just made up of stupid jokes that aren’t funny, him whining all the time, and telling people he has nightmares because of comic books. He’s just a little jerk. As for Feldman. He’s not the worst actor ever? What planet are you from? I don’t like the TWILIGHT movies but even a shirtless (and brainless) Taylor Lautner could act Feldman under the table! Come on!

MA:  We’ll see how you feel this November when we review the final TWILIGHT movie.

LS:  In THE LOST BOYS, Feldman plays Edgar Frog, who, with his blander and less annoying brother Alan (Jamison Newlander), runs a comic book store and also keeps track of the vampire residents of the seaside town they live in, Santa Clara.  They’re supposed to be funny (one is named Edgar and one is Alan, get it?), but they’re just complete assholes. Feldman especially acts if he is in a completely other movie—some lame-ass teen comedy—because he certainly doesn’t take any of this stuff seriously, and personally I think that’s because he can’t. He doesn’t have the acting ability to portray a serious character. He’s a clown.

I can tell these characters are complete idiots the first time Sam goes into the Frog brothers’ comic book store. They have a conversation about Superman comics that is just friggin’ lame and shows that they probably know nothing about real comics books. And then Sam says “I’m looking for a copy of number 14 of Superman, which, if they had one, would be worth thousands of dollars. It’s just asinine.

But I’ll go so far as to say every single time this movie focuses on the two Coreys and their shenanigans, the entire movie comes to screeching halt. You lose any momentum that has been building, any attempts at the movie being scary, and you lose any belief or concern about the other, real, storyline. They just completely ruin the movie for you. And that goes double for Feldman, who is like cinematic poison here.

I don’t know if he’s this bad in every movie he’s in—because I kind of avoid Corey Feldman movies—but I don’t remember him being half as annoying in STAND BY ME (1986).

Director Joel Schumacher (more on him later) should have made up his mind. Did he want to make a good horror movie about a guy struggling to remain human, or did he want to make a crappy teen comedy where Corey Haim and Corey Feldman constantly do things to get middle-school kids to laugh? Because he can’t have both.

MA:  Well, he could have had both if he took both storylines seriously.  The  “Coreys” story is simply too goofy, but if those teens were portrayed as real people rather than as cartoonish vampire hunters, then their scenes would have been better.  In FRIGHT NIGHT, for example, the humor in the Roddy McDowall storyline works because McDowall took the role seriously.

LS:  Don’t mention Roddy McDowall in the same breath with those two teen twerps!  They ruined THE LOST BOYS!

Which brings us to NEAR DARK. I dug every single cast member, except maybe Homer, who got on my nerves most of the time, but nowhere near as much as the Coreys. And Jenette Goldstein as Diamonback either isn’t fleshed out enough or isn’t memorable enough to stand out for me. But everyone else—I don’t’ need to list them all, do I?: —is just really good here. I even like Tim Thomerson (a B-movie veteran) as Caleb’s dad, even though he doesn’t have a lot to do here, and I like Marcie Leeds, who plays his little sister Sarah, a lot. (Marcie is a way better child actor than Joshua John Miller as Homer, by the way).

Hands down, NEAR DARK has the better cast.  Even if THE LOST BOYS had even more good actors, it would lose. Because Corey Feldman’s performance is made of anti-matter and negates everything it touches.

MA: I wish you’d tell us what you really think about him.

LS: Sorry, I know I held back a little.

MA: Paul, what about you?

PM:  This is a tough call.

THE LOST BOYS had more name recognition with lots of popular Teen Beat pinup stars, multiple Emmy nominee Edward Herrmann and Diane Wiest, coming off her first Oscar win for HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986). Even so, not a whole lot of acting showed up onscreen. Herrmann and Wiest had very little to do, and in the end Corey Haim did the most of the actual acting in the film.

LS: You call that acting?

PM:  Yeah.  He’s pretty good in his scenes.

MA:  I agree with Paul.  I liked Haim in this movie.

LS (shakes his head): You guys have gone crackers.

PM: In NEAR DARK,  the actors were less well known, with Lance, Bill and Jenette Goldstein (who played Jesse Hooker’s girl Diamondback) all coming off ALIENS the year before.

The relationship between Caleb and Mae (Adrian Pasdar and Jenny Wright) in NEAR DARK was based on exactly the same set up as the relationship between Michael and Star (Jason Patric and Jami Gertz) in THE LOST BOYS, namely, a horny man thinking: “What a babe! I’m'a get me somma dat!” In NEAR DARK, though, the relationship is far more involved because after Mae bites Caleb, beginning his turn into a vampire, she’s put in charge of getting Caleb to make his first kill and turning him completely, something he is resisting.

Caleb and Mae have a sad love affair (with blood) in NEAR DARK.

LS: I really liked that aspect of the story.

PM: And as for child vampires, Homer would have Laddie for breakfast. The NEAR DARK cast evokes a lot more emotion than the cast of THE LOST BOYS, and is more believable to boot.

My vote for the best cast goes to NEAR DARK.

MA:  I agree with Paul that Dianne Wiest and Edward Hermann are fine actors, but neither of them had much to do in THE LOST BOYS.  I actually thought Corey Haim did an excellent job as Sam, but I didn’t like the plot he was stuck in at all, involved with those silly juvenile vampire hunters.

But I was most impressed with Kiefer Sutherland as the vampire David.  To me, he’s the best part of THE LOST BOYS.  I wish he had been the main vampire in the movie, and the story had been built around him.  Oh well.

LS: Sutherland is pretty much the main vampire in this movie, and it kinda was built around him, so I don’t know what you’re whining about. Their “big boss” is a secret until the end and certainly the movie isn’t built around him.

MA: If Sutherland were truly the main vampire he’d still be around at the film’s conclusion!

LS: That’s such a minor point. I’m judging the whole movie, not the last two minutes. Why are you so hung up on who ultimately is the “main vampire.” As far as screen time, and the impression he makes on you, Sutherland is the main vampire.

MA: I’m just saying he’s my favorite character in the movie, and for my tastes, he’s not in it enough, nor is the story built around him as much as I wish it were.  You obviously disagree.

In NEAR DARK, Adrian Pasdar is okay as Caleb Colton, but he certainly didn’t wow me.  But Jenny Wright as the vampire Mae, now she’s a different story!  Her quirky beauty in NEAR DARK makes her one hot vampire.  Sizzle!

I also really enjoyed Lance Henriksen as lead vampire Jesse Hooker.  To me, he’s the presence that is so sorely lacking in THE LOST BOYS.  Had Sutherland been in LOST BOYS more, then I think he would have given the movie that presence, but as it stands, he’s not as powerful a character as Henriken’s Jesse.  For me, Henriksen is the most memorable part of NEAR DARK.

LS: I can’t praise Henriksen enough. He is terrific in NEAR DARK. One of his best roles.

MA: Surprisingly, I didn’t like Bill Paxton all that much in this one, and this surprises me because usually I enjoy him a lot.  I think it’s because it’s the same “Bill Paxton” shtick we’ve seen before in other movies, and I don’t think it works as well when he’s a vampire. I didn’t find him as funny as a vampire, but I also had a hard time taking him seriously as a psycho vampire.

LS: I thought Paxton was annoying at times, but I think that was on purpose. Overall, I loved his performance in NEAR DARK. The guy is a force of nature, and he deserves more roles like this.

MA: Well, I found his portrayal of a vampire too annoying!

But I did enjoy veteran actor Tim Thomerson as Caleb’s devoted dad, Loy, who spends the bulk of the movie trying to save his son from the vampires.

LS: Thomerson is great.

MA: I like Sutherland and Haim in THE LOST BOYS, and I like Henriksen, Wright, and Thomerson in NEAR DARK.  Advantage:  NEAR DARK.

What did you think, Mark?

MO:  I love Dianne Wiest in THE LOST BOYS, and Edward Hermann is good as the bumbling, good-natured head vampire.

(MA& LS groan).

MO: But come on – NEAR DARK has Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein, all from ALIENS (1986), and Jack Deth himself, Tim Thomerson!

Gotta go with NEAR DARK on cast.

MA:  Round 2 goes to NEAR DARK as well.  After two rounds, it’s:

NEAR DARK – 2, THE LOST BOYS – 0.

Edward Hermann has a spooky secret in THE LOST BOYS.

On to Round 3.

Question 3: Which film has the more effective screenplay? 

Paul, let’s start with you.

PM:  I’m not a fan of horror movies that pretend to be comedies. What little threat there is in THE LOST BOYS comes from Michael allowing himself to get pulled steadily into David’s group so that he can be with Star. This tension is offset by Michael’s brother Sam getting pulled into the comic zaniness of the vampire hunting Frog Brothers. The first time I watched them enter the sunken hotel, I expected them to chicken out and run away screaming. That said, the screenplay balances those elements at least as well as a good YA novel would. It keeps the suspense all the way through to the end of the film, with the only real let down being that it ended on a punch line. A punch line, for chrissakes!

MA:  You found suspense in THE LOST BOYS?  Seriously?  I thought THE LOST BOYS completely dropped the ball on anything remotely related to horror.

LS: If it focused on Patric and Sutherland and Gertz as a love triangle, it would have worked.

PM:   NEAR DARK is solid, brooding and downright scary in parts, not to mention a whole lot bloodier than THE LOST BOYS. While Michael brazenly ignores that Star is hanging out with some very shady characters, NEAR DARK’S Caleb has been bitten and is forced to remain among her band of rowdies to stay alive. The stakes for him are higher (take the pun as you will).

However, the ending of NEAR DARK didn’t pop like it should’ve, it just kind of fizzed out. The vampires just seem to give up, a huge disappointment which seemed out of character. While that might have been done to keep the running time down, it looked like Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red just plain ran out of ideas.

I give a slight edge to THE LOST BOYS in terms of screenplay.

MA:  I completely disagree.

I give the screenplay edge to NEAR DARK, hands down.

The screenplay to NEAR DARK by Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red is a gritty realistic tale that remembers something important, something that THE LOST BOYS forgot:  it’s a horror movie, stupid!  It also remembers to be scary!

THE LOST BOYS screenplay by Janice Fisher, James Jeremias, and Jeffrey Boam ruins any chance of it being taken seriously by throwing in a silly vampire hunter plot that belongs in a kids’ movie, or at least a PG movie.  What’s it doing in an R rated movie? It just doesn’t fit in at all!

And the attempts at humor in THE LOST BOYS all misfire.  The humor is nowhere near as sharp or as biting—heh heh—as the humor in its 1980s contemporary, FRIGHT NIGHT (1985).

LS: Hell, FRIGHT NIGHT is a better vampire movie than THE LOST BOYS.

MA: But the worst part of THE LOST BOYS story is that the vampires are not treated seriously.  It’s a very superficial screenplay.  It comes off as “let’s write a story about vampires without really caring if anyone believes it or not.  After all, who believes in vampires?”  Sorry, but this is the wrong approach.

This surprised me, because screenwriter Jeffrey Boam, who passed away in 2000, has a lot of screenplay credits, and I like a bunch of movies he wrote:  THE DEAD ZONE (1983), INNERSPACE (1987), FUNNY FARM (1988) and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE (1989).  Oh well.  You can’t strike gold all the time.

LS:  Well, I agree about THE DEAD ZONE, but none of those other credits wow me.

Look, I’ve said it before. THE LOST BOYS had potential. If it stuck to the serious aspects of the story, it could have been a classic of its time. But the silly antics of the kids just overshadows everything and ruins the tone, and anything good about the script, and worst of all, those scenes aren’t even funny, so they sacrificed the good stuff for nothing! Watching it again this week, I noticed how good it could have been, and it kind of saddened me. . It was a lost opportunity. With a better script, a different director, and some changes in the cast, it could have been terrific. But as it is, it’s a bad movie.

Sam and the Frog Brothers. Three stooges who should have been left on the cutting room floor in THE LOST BOYS.

The screenplay for NEAR DARK is far superior. Sure, it’s dated now in some ways, and it certainly has flaws in logic, but overall, its’ a solid story that holds up very well over 20 years later. Kathryn Bigelow proved this was no fluke. She went on to make more great movies like STRANGE DAYS (1995) and she won the Oscar for THE HURT LOCKER (2008). And Eric Red is another talented writer. He also gave us THE HITCHER (1986, and 2007) and BODY PARTS (1991).

You can’t compare the quality of the scripts. NEAR DARK wins hands down.

MO:  I think the bleak, desolate vision of Kathryn Bigelow and Eric Red’s NEAR DARK holds up better than the jokey, bright and candy-colored screenplay of THE LOST BOYS, even though I liked some of the latter’s riffs on Peter Pan, including a pirate’s cave and seeking “mother” for those lost boys…

LS: Yeah, and the title of course. The Peter Pan riffs were one of the best things about THE LOST BOYS. And yet another aspect squandered by an otherwise putrid script.

MO: But I found NEAR DARK more intense and less hopeful, because of the lack of one-liners and kooky characters, and that made the triumph of our protagonists all the sweeter, because the film could have gone either way, as opposed to THE LOST BOYS where you just know they’re not going to kill off the two Coreys.

LS: Oh, I wish they had.

MO: So, I’m going with NEAR DARK, too.

LS; The only logical choice, I’d say.

MA: Okay, then.  Round 3 goes to NEAR DARK, despite Paul’s misguided vote for THE LOST BOYS.

Which brings the tally up to NEAR DARK – 3, THE LOST BOYS – 0.

And that’s all the time we have for tonight.  Join us next Friday for the third and final segment of this debate to see if THE LOST BOYS will ever score a point, or if NEAR DARK will march on towards a decisive win.

Thanks for joining us, everybody.  See you next Friday!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Paul McMahon

One more part to go. Don’t go too far. Squeak, squeak.

Friday Night Knife Fights: NEAR DARK VS. LOST BOYS – PART 1

Posted in 1980s Horror, 2012, Evil Kids!, Friday Night Knife Fights, Gangs, The Cinema of Joel Schumacher, Vampire Movies, Vampires, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , , on July 16, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS
(SPECIAL MONDAY EDITION!)
NEAR DARK vs. THE LOST BOYS (Both – 1987)
PART 1 OF 3
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, and Mark Onspaugh

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to a special weekend edition of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.

L.L. SOARES:  With nothing exciting opening at the movies this weekend, we decided to skip our traditional Monday Cinema Knife Fight column and instead kick off the week with a FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS piece.

MA:  This will run in multiple parts, with the subsequent parts appearing on Friday nights, the usual night for FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS.  Part 2 will be posted this Friday.

LS: But this first part appears on a Monday. Is that confusing enough for you?

MA: Tonight it’s the battle of the 1980s vampire movies, or I should say the 1987 vampire movies since these flicks were released the same year, NEAR DARK vs. THE LOST BOYS.  Joining us tonight in our quest to see which film tops the other, are CKF staff writers Paul McMahon and Mark Onspaugh.  Thanks guys for joining us.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Happy to be here.  It’ll be nice to participate in a column where I won’t be distracted for a change.

(LS starts juggling hand grenades)

MARK ONSPAUGH:  What was that about your not being distracted?  Good luck with that!  I’m happy to be here as well, as always.

MA:  All right, then let’s get started.  Tonight’s bout has five questions, or rounds, in Friday Night Knife Fight lingo.  Whichever film wins the most rounds wins the bout, and if the final question is unanimous, then that’ll be scored as a knock-out and that film will win the bout regardless of how it scored during the previous rounds.

PM: That doesn’t sound fair.

MA: It makes it like a boxing match.

LS:  We’re Cinema Knife Fighters!  We’re not fair!

MA:  No, but we are honest.

LS:  Shut up, you!

MO:  Going at it, already?

LS:  Not soon enough for me!

MA:  Okay, let’s move forward with our first question.  Since these two movies are about vampires, that’s where we’ll begin.

Question #1:  Do you prefer the vampires in NEAR DARK or THE LOST BOYS?

Mark, since you’re a veteran of these columns, let’s start with you.

MO:  Okie-dokie.

This is a tricky one.  THE LOST BOYS has some very cool makeup effects, while NEAR DARK has almost none.  It has some blood, some burning and some wounds, but that’s it.

MA:  I like the make-up effects on the vampires in THE LOST BOYS too, especially on Kiefer Sutherland.

LS:  I think NEAR DARK works without effects. But the ones in THE LOST BOYS are pretty good for the time. Both movies seem pretty dated now.

MO:  But the NEAR DARK vamps are more than just punk kids, or calculating adults—.

MA:  By calculating adult, are you referring to the Edward Hermmann character, Max?

MO:  Yeah, that guy.

MA:  He’s pretty lame.

LS:  But he went on to become the grandfather on THE GILMORE GIRLS!

The bad-ass vampires from NEAR DARK.

MO:  I was about to say that the vampires in NEAR DARK—there is a twisted cruelty to them that, to me, runs deeper than the juvenile delinquent vamps in THE LOST BOYS.

LS:  Now you’re talkin!

MO:  In a perfect world, my preference would be vamps like NEAR DARK with makeup effects (including those taloned bat-feet!) from THE LOST BOYS, but I get that NEAR DARK director Kathryn Bigelow wanted to say anyone could be a vampire, that they wouldn’t fly around or show big fangs.  So much is attitude with a vampire—I’m going to go with the bad-ass and bleak vamps of NEAR DARK.

LS:  I don’t think there’s even a smidgen of doubt about that one.

(MO tosses grenade over his shoulder, and there is a big explosion off-camera)

MA: FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS is always explosive!

MO: Getting back to Cannom, he also worked on VAN HELSING (2004), THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2006), and ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012).

LS: So you’re telling us that he’s a really talented guy, but  his choice of movies to work on can be pretty awful?

MO: I’m saying his makeup effects are really cool.

MA: Hey, I liked ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER, both the movie and its effects!

(LS laughs)

MA (to LS): Since you’re pretty much already made your opinion known, LL, why don’t you go next?

LS:  Well, y’know, I sat down last week and watched both of these movies again. I hadn’t seen either of them in a while. The last time I saw NEAR DARK was like five years ago, and I haven’t seen THE LOST BOYS since the 80s.  So it was interesting to go back and look at these movies with fresh eyes.

The thing about THE LOST BOYS is that it wasn’t as freakin’ godawful as I’d remembered. Sure, I’ve got some major problems with it that I’ll discuss later, but the basic vampire storyline, Jason Patric and the vampires trying to recruit him, really isn’t so bad. The vampires are kind of cool-looking, especially Keifer Sutherland with his black duster (which he made cool LONG before THE MATRIX), when they’re in vampire mode. But when they’re not, they look like a really lame hair band. There are two guys in the group who look almost identical and I couldn’t really distinguish them. And then there’s Alex Winter, from BILL AND TED’S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE as Marko, a younger vampire. And Jamie Gertz is hot and I practically liked any scene was she was in. So despite the hair metal look, these vampires weren’t completely horrible.

THE LOST BOYS – Vampire Gang or Hair Band?

But the ones in NEAR DARK are just so much more believable. Sure, they’re supernatural creatures, too, but they’re more gritty, less flashy (except for Bill Paxton) and I just thought they were superior in every way. I gotta go with Mark on this one, attitude counts for a LOT, and the NEAR DARK vamps are bad asses compared to the more wimpy LOST BOYS. THE LOST BOYS might have more flash, and the big-ass fangs, but they just seem childish in comparison.

I also thought it was interesting how you became a vampire in each movie. In THE LOST BOYS you have to drink the blood of a vampire—as Michael does when he thinks that the bottle of David’s blood is wine. It’s an interesting scene when the wine is introduced, after David shows Michael how he can make him see things that aren’t real. So it’s an elaborate process that takes time. Michael has to drink from that bottle several times, but it affects him right away. He starts avoiding sunlight and wearing sunglasses inside.

In NEAR DARK, when Mae just bites Caleb, the transformation begins, which is kind of scary, how easily it happens. No tricks, no big elaborate plan. Just a little nibble, and Caleb is a goner.

However, it is interesting how, in both movies, you have to make your first “kill” to complete the process for real. And neither movie’s hero wants to take that step. That’s a big similarity in both movies.

And Jenny Wright is so much more interesting as Mae than Jamie Gertz is as Star. Gertz is very pretty, but also very “Hollywood.” In comparison, there’s something odd about Wright. She always seems to be holding back, always seems to be afraid to really emote about anything, and it works in her favor. She’s also pretty, but in a more unconventional way. And where Star is the bait to lure men in, Mae is more her own person.

MA: Paul, how about you?  What are your thoughts on the vampires?

PM:  I’m with L.L.  NEAR DARK all the way.

There’s an evil about Jesse and his group that surpasses anything in THE LOST BOYS.

LS: THE LOST BOYS are still on training wheels!

PM: In THE LOST BOYS,  Kiefer’s David had a glam band that followed his every command and offered no challenge at all to his leadership. (Max wasn’t any kind of leader to those boys, no matter what he says at the end of the film.)

MA:  Max couldn’t lead a marching band, let alone a band of vampires!

LS: Aww, he’s not so bad. I’ve always liked Edward Hermann.

PM:  Lance Henriksen’s Jesse Hooker was more menacing by far. Jesse’s crew had intense personalities that made them independent characters. Bill Paxton’s Severen was the most evil character in either film, and Joshua Miller stole his scenes as Homer– quite the feat for a child actor.

The great Lance Henriksen as Jesse Hooker, leader of the vampire gang in NEAR DARK.

MA:  I dunno.  I couldn’t really get into Miller.

LS:  I didn’t care for Homer that much either. I just never grew to like him; he was an annoying brat, which I guess was the point. His constantly trying to turn Caleb’s sister, Sarah, into one of them was the one interesting thing he does in the movie. But she always out-smarted the little runt, and even though he had super strength, she always managed to get away.

Vampire kid Homer from NEAR DARK – you little brat!

But don’t forget, THE LOST BOYS has its equivalent, too, with Laddie. Another little kid vampire. Laddie isn’t half as memorable as Homer, and I think he’s just there to make Gertz look maternal, and thus softer than the rest of the vampires. More sympathetic, because she’s always protecting the littlest vampire.

PM:  The vampires in NEAR DARK kill every night, and during the bar scene they play a torturous game of cat and mouse with the patrons, enjoying the hell out of the fear they generate.

MA:  I think that’s the movie’s best scene.

PM:  Homer’s dance through the burning carnage is creepy as hell.

LS: The only time I thought Homer was creepy or clever at all was the scene where he pretends to have had an accident with his bicycle, and some guy stops to see if he’s hurt, and he bites him. But that dance was lame, like most of Homer’s scenes. What a little jerk!

PM:  I thought the dance was creepy.

LS:  Hell, if you want to compare little kid vampires, Kirsten Dunst as Claudia in INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994), makes both Homer and Laddie look pretty insignificant.

PM: In THE LOST BOYS, David’s group only kills in one scene and it’s over pretty quickly for an R-rated film.

LS:  THE LOST BOYS was R rated?  I thought it was rated G! I bet it wouldn’t earn its rating if I asked my special R-rated computer.

Seriously, that one scene is pretty gory for the time, I guess. But yeah, it’s over very quickly.

PM:  Michael doesn’t even get bitten to become a vampire, he is tricked into sipping David’s blood from a wine goblet.

LS:  Lame! And what’s with that dumb name —“Michael?”

MA:  Ha, ha!  Here, have a grenade!  (MA pulls pin on grenade and tosses it to LS):

LS:  Gee, thanks!  And it’s not even my birthday!  (Tosses grenade at camera).  3D effects, Cinema Knife Fight style!  (There’s an explosion off camera followed by some groans and screams.  Rubber hands and feet fly out from behind the camera towards the panelists, who all duck.)

MO (laughing):  This is the best 3D ever!

PM:  The scene when Mae bites Caleb in NEAR DARK is charged with enough sexual tension to leave the viewer cold.

My vote goes to NEAR DARK.  No contest.

MA:  I’m not a fan of the vampires in either movie, really, but I think this is one area where THE LOST BOYS may have NEAR DARK beat.

LS:  Oh no, Michael wimps out, as usual.

MA:  Hear me out.  The few times we see the vampires (at least when they look like vampires, since they “transform” when they hunt/feed/kill) in THE LOST BOYS, I like the way they look, especially the makeup on Kiefer Sutherland.  I agree with what Mark said.  I think the make-up effects in THE LOST BOYS are pretty cool.

Keifer Sutherland as David, leader of THE LOST BOYS.

LS: But vampires are more than just effects.

MA: Agreed. But, in terms of how they look, I prefer the vampires in THE LOST BOYS.  But in terms of how they act, and how I feel about them in general, I prefer the vampires in NEAR DARK.  They’re a more deadly, realistic bunch.

In THE LOST BOYS, the group of teen vampires led by Kiefer Sutherland do very little.  When they feed and kill, it’s overdramatic, quick, and not scary.  And the head vampire Max (Edward  Herrmann) is a joke.  So, in terms of how they act, I hate the vampires in THE LOST BOYS, with the exception of Kiefer Sutherland.  He gives the best performance in the movie, and I have to admit, I like him better than any of the vampires in NEAR DARK.  This, combined with the cool makeup, gives THE LOST BOYS the edge, albeit a very thin one.

However, I’m in the minority, as the three of you chose the vampires in NEAR DARK, and so Round 1 goes to NEAR DARK.

LS: Hurray!

MA: And that’s all the time we have for now.  Join us again this Friday night for Part 2 of FRIDAY NIGHT KNIFE FIGHTS:  NEAR DARK (1987) vs. THE LOST BOYS (1987).

Good night everybody!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Mark Onspaugh and Paul McMahon

More to come! Squeak, squeak

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012)

Posted in 2012, 3-D, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Historical Horror, Martial Arts, Period Pieces, Revenge!, Vampire Hunters, Vampires with tags , , , , , , , on June 25, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: The battlefield at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Present Day. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES walk through the area.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA: This has got to be one of the most somber places I’ve ever visited. You can almost feel death all around you. (turns to LS) Or maybe that’s just you.

L.L. SOARES: No, I know what you mean. I was surprised you chose this place to do our review. Not the usual locale for Cinema Knife Fight shenanigans.

MA: I just thought this location would be the perfect setting to make my point, that today’s movie, ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012), in spite of its ridiculous title, is not a comedy. It plays it straight throughout.

LS: It may not be an intentional comedy, but it’s not a reverential piece of historical filmmaking, either. It’s a silly vampire movie! Hardly worth this location!

MA: Perhaps, but it just felt right. The hero of this movie is, after all….Abraham Lincoln!

(Orchestral music plays in the background)

LS (grimaces): What’s with all the seriousness? Man, are you a buzzkill!

MA: Anyway, I hadn’t planned to stay here. Let’s take advantage of the magic of Cinema Knife Fight Land and go to a more appropriate place. (Snaps his fingers, and suddenly they’re in a crowded pub surrounded by folks in 19th century garb.)

LS: Now that’s more like it! But why is everybody dressed so funny?

MA: I dunno. Maybe this is the cast party for the movie. Or maybe we went backwards in time. You can never tell around here.

LS: So why don’t you start the review? I’m going to grab a couple of cold ones from the bar.

MA: Thanks!

LS: Why are you thanking me? Get your own!

MA: Sometimes you make the Grinch seem generous.

LS: The Grinch is a wuss!

MA: Anyway, in today’s movie, ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER, based on the novel by Seth Grahame-Smith, who also penned the screenplay, young Abe Lincoln witnesses his mother attacked by a vampire. Years later, as an adult, Abe Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) seeks revenge against the vampire who killed his mother, but not knowing anything about vampires, his attempt at retribution is a complete fail. He is nearly killed, but a stranger (Dominic Cooper) comes to his aid and saves him from the vampire.

The stranger’s name is Henry Sturgess, and he actually had met Lincoln earlier in a bar, a lot like this one, and it turns out Sturgess knows a lot about vampires. He’s a vampire hunter, and Abe Lincoln agrees to be his protégé and learn all there is to know about hunting vampires, with his eventual goal being to avenge his mother’s death.

LS: Excuse me, was I snoring? Must have dozed off for a second.

MA: Aren’t you supposed to be getting yourself those cold ones?

LS: Oh yeah.

MA: Lincoln moves to Springfield, Illinois, where he finds a job working in a general store for an amiable young man named Joshua Speed (Jimmi Simpson), who quickly becomes one of Lincoln’s best friends. It is also here where Lincoln meets Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the woman he eventually falls in love with and marries.

When he’s not working or studying to be a lawyer, Lincoln’s busy as a vampire hunter, using his weapon of choice, an axe, to destroy the multitude of vampires living in Springfield. Lincoln learns about these vampires through letters sent to him by Henry Sturgess, who sort of acts as Lincoln’s “mission impossible” contact. You almost expect the letters to self-destruct into puffs of smoke after Lincoln has read them.

LS: Don’t forget, it’s not just a normal axe. It’s blade is coated in silver! The dreaded enemy of vampires. Or was silver the one that werewolves don’t like? I’m not sure. It gets so confusing sometimes. Everyone has their own rules. But in this movie, vampires can go out in sunlight and can do all kinds of cool things you wouldn’t think they could do. But they hate silver. Oh, and they can turn invisible! How convenient!

MA: Yeah, the invisible part was silly, but the hating of silver can be traced back to several of the Hammer Films. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) stabs Dracula (Christopher Lee) with a silver knife in DRACULA A.D. 1972 (1972), and in THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA (1973) Van Helsing attempts to shoot Dracula with a silver bullet. In both those movies, silver was fatal to a vampire.

LS: In the trailer, when they poured liquid over Abe’s blade, I thought it was holy water, not melted silver. But it’s been a long time since anything religious hurt a vampire in the movies, so I should have known better.

MA: Lincoln and Sturgess eventually cross paths with the vampire leader, Adam (Rufus Sewell, in a deliciously evil performance) who’s been in existence for 5,000 years! He makes Dracula seem like a baby! Lincoln also learns that Adam is using the black slave trade to his advantage, using the slaves as food for his vampires. So, Adam is definitely a proponent of the slave trade and aligns himself politically with the folks in the south.

LS: Rufus Sewell is “deliciously evil” here? Man, you have no clue what evil is all about, do you? He’s a cartoon. And he’s not scary for one instant. I thought Sewell was completely miscast as the king vampire here. But more on that later.

MA: No idea was evil is all about? Pardon me, Mr. Evil Know-it-all!

Lincoln has a personal investment in the welfare of the slaves, because one of his best friends is a free black man, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), who becomes one of Lincoln’s closest advisors.

LS: Just to play Devil’s Advocate here—a role I enjoy, by the way—I wasn’t sure whether having slavery and the Civil War tie into the vampire agenda was clever or kind of offensive. It kind of trivializes the real horrors of slavery, doesn’t it?

MA: Not really. Slavery is still horrible. The vampires were simply using it to satisfy their own needs.

Realizing that the problems in the world are too big for just one man, Lincoln throws his hat into politics, hoping to become part of a system that can make a difference in the world. He marries Mary Todd, wins the presidential election, and eventually finds himself fighting vampires on the battlefield, as Adam and his vampires have aligned themselves with the Confederate army.

(LS returns with two beautiful women, one on each arm.)

MA: Aren’t you married?

LS: Not in Cinema Knife Fight Land!

MA: I thought you were getting some cold ones?

LS: I changed my mind and went for hot ones.

(Women bare their fangs to reveal they are vampires)

LS: Oh well, I guess they are cold ones, after all. Care to take a nibble, ladies? I’m sure I’m quite delicious.

(Vampire women each sink their teeth in a side of LS’s neck)

MA: Aren’t you worried they’ll suck you dry?

LS: Not really. This is Cinema Knife Fight Land, and here I’ve got unlimited blood.

(LS smiles and raises a mug of ale and drinks along with the vampires)

MA (shaking his head): The things we do for this column. Anyway, back to our movie.

I fully expected this movie to be a complete turkey, but I have to admit, I liked it.

(LS makes turkey noises in the background)

MA: That said, I still don’t get the concept. Why choose Abraham Lincoln to be a vampire hunter? It still seems almost like a random thing to do. Hmm, who should I choose to be my hero in this alternate history tale about vampires? Stick my hand into a hat and pull out Abe Lincoln!

LS: Makes as much sense as using any other historical figure, I guess.

MA: Of course, Abe Lincoln is one of our most beloved U.S. presidents of all time, and so it’s certainly not a random act, and this affection for Lincoln is one of the things that works to the film’s advantage, but even so, I’m still not ready to concede and call this combination of history and horror a stroke of genius. But I do have to admit, in a strange way, it works!

LS: I dunno, it didn’t really work for me. I thought the title was clever for about two seconds. The concept is mediocre at best. “Let’s take a famous historical figure and turn him into another BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.” Whatever…. (Yawns)

MA: First and foremost, ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER looks terrific. I saw it in 3D, and it pains me to admit it—again because I expected this one to be awful— it’s one of the better 3D movies I’ve seen. The visuals were almost as good as what we saw in HUGO last year.

LS: I saw it in 3D, too. Not intentionally – it was just the best show time for my schedule. But you’re right, the 3D effects were better than we normally see in these kinds of movies. But I wouldn’t go so far as to compare them with HUGO. The 3D here isn’t that good.

MA: I don’t know if it’s because Civil War America is more picturesque than alien worlds or haunted forests, but I enjoyed the look of ABRAHAM LINCOLN better than the look of other movies we’ve seen recently, like PROMETHEUS and SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN. I think director Timur Bekmambetov did a great job at the helm.

LS: The setting was okay, I guess. I could take it or leave it. No way is it as visually rich as PROMETHEUS or SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN. It’s all rather drab—which is fine in a vampire movie—but nothing I’d single out as a plus. As for the direction, that’s another kettle of fish entirely.

MA: ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is also helped by its R rating. While the film isn’t scary, there are lots of bloody killings. There’s even some nudity and language. I was surprised, but ABE LINCOLN kinda earns its R rating.

LS: Barely. I actually went into it thinking it was PG-13, and it was a little while before I realized it wasn’t. The nudity happens in brief snippets for the most part. Some of the killings (of vampires) are graphic enough to make me realize it was an R movie. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say it earns its rating.

MA: The look and feel of this movie reminded me of a Disney film for adults. It had that look, that attention to detail, that made it look almost like a richly animated movie. The movie looks like what would happen if you put both Disney and Hammer Films inside one of THE FLY’s machines and had their respective filmmaking genes spliced together.

LS: Yeah, it actually reminded me of a Tim Burton movie, like SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999) maybe. Except SLEEPY HOLLOW is a much better movie. This is no coincidence, though, because Burton produced ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER. Hell, it might have been a better movie if he actually directed it, since he’s comfortable with this kind of stuff.

MA: Another reason I liked the action sequences in this movie—and again I’ll give credit to director Bekmambetov—is that they were quick. So often in today’s movies, because directors have the technology to do so, the action scenes go on forever, and this becomes boring as the movies play out like extended video games. Not so here in ABE LINCOLN. The action scenes are quick and bloody, and they’re supported by lots of scenes where we get to know the characters.

LS: Quick? Ninety percent of the time they played out in slow motion! It got incredibly tedious after a while. All of the action sequences have the same “by-the-numbers” feel to them. Once you see one, you know what to expect. And the alternating between fast movements and irritating slo-mo ones just bored the hell out of me. And you know what, the action scenes did have a kind of video game look to them! They were so stylized, they certainly didn’t look realistic.

MA: But they didn’t go on and on and on. That’s what I meant by quick.

LS: Not quick enough for me.

MA: There’s also a strong sense of story, and you can tell this movie was based on a novel. Screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith does a nice job here adapting his own novel, and he achieves better results than his last screenplay, for the muddled DARK SHADOWS.

LS: Really? You thought this was a big improvement over DARK SHADOWS? Well, I’ll agree that at least it doesn’t constantly go for cheap laughs. I really think Grahame-Smith’s screenplay for DARK SHADOWS was the main reason that movie was so disappointing. Here, his script does come off a little better, but I wasn’t all that amazed by it. I’m glad everyone plays things straight, at least. But I didn’t find this movie very exciting.

MA: DARK SHADOWS was horrible compared to this movie.

LS: Let’s face it. DARK SHADOWS was horrible. Period.

MA: I liked that this was a serious vampire story. It wasn’t tongue-in-cheek. We didn’t have to suffer through Abe Lincoln delivering one-liners after every vampire kill. ABE LINCOLN is not VAN HELSING (2004), thankfully. This could have been a very silly movie, but it isn’t. Then again, maybe I just have a soft spot for vampires.

LS: If this movie has anything going for it, it’s that it plays things straight. Unfortunately, that’s not enough to make for a great flick – vampire movie or otherwise.

MA: Speaking of which, I wasn’t too crazy about the look of the vampires in this movie, and their movements were way too fast and very fake-looking. They weren’t bad, but they were just a little too exaggerated for my liking. And like the rest of the movie, they weren’t scary.

LS: No, the vampires didn’t look very good at all, and they weren’t scary. In fact, to go back to a previous point, I found Rufus Sewell as Adam (he’s called that because he’s the vampire all the others come from – oooh! how frightening!) to be a major flaw in the tension. I like Sewell enough as an actor—he was great as the lead in 1998’s DARK CITY, for example—but he’s completely miscast here. He is not intimidating, he doesn’t seem dangerous at all, and he is NOT scary in the slightest. There are so many better actors they could have chosen to play this role. This is the big bad villain, and the character should have real presence. Sewell just doesn’t cut it.

MA: Really? I thought Sewell oozed evil.

LS: Well, he might have oozed something, but it wasn’t evil.

The funny thing is, I found Marton Csokas as Jack Barts— a flunky of Sewell’s Adam—to be much more convincing as a dangerous vampire, and there were times where he even seemed a tad scary. He should have been the lead vampire! I also liked Erin Wasson as Vadoma, Adam’s right-hand woman vampire, who was also more formidable than her “master.” I really hated Sewell in this role, because he was such a damned weak bad guy!

MA: I liked the characters and the performances throughout.

Abraham Lincoln as your main character—how can you not like him? Well, if the lead actor stunk, that’s one way, but Benjamin Walker doesn’t stink at all. He brings Lincoln to life and makes him a very likeable person.

LS: I thought Walker was okay in the lead role. He actually reminded me of a young Liam Neesom at times. He has a similar face. But overall, I wasn’t all that impressed by him. He was okay in the role, but nothing special. Kinda bland, actually.

And as for that fateful trip to the theater at the end—hell, any kid who has read a history book knows what happens then, so it’s not a spoiler—does that mean that John Wilkes Booth was part of the vampire conspiracy? Was he a VAMPIRE HUNTER HUNTER? Something to ponder, perhaps.

MA: Henry Sturgess is an interesting character. As the vampire hunter who trains Lincoln, he’s a multi-dimensional character with a curious back story, which hearkens back to this being based on a novel. Dominic Cooper, who played Howard Stark in CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011) does a nice job here as Sturgess.

LS: Dominic Cooper is one of the best things about this movie. I liked his performance here very much, even more than Walker’s Lincoln. But this brings up a big complaint of mine. In the movie, we find out how Henry Sturgess was able to acquire his skills and amazing strength—there’s a legitimate reason why he’s so affective as a vampire hunter—but we never once get an explanation as to how Abe Lincoln is so good at it. He does these amazing martial arts moves; he’s able to cut down trees with one mighty swing of his axe (once he gets the hang of it); and he can take on several vampires at once. How? Is he a superhero? Is he from another planet? Not once does the movie explain his “powers,” and for that reason I didn’t buy them for a second. There is no way a normal man can do this stuff. And if vampires are supposed to be much stronger than humans, then Lincoln’s entire story here is actually kind of stupid.

MA: You know, I can’t argue with you on that point, and I’d go so far as to agree with you that Lincoln possessing these powers is stupid, but again, for me, in spite of this, somehow it worked.

LS: For you, maybe. Not for me.

And hell, even if he is superhuman (and he clearly is), his fighting style is impossible for the time period. Asian martial arts just were not taught to Westerners in those days. It was forbidden. But ever since BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER (1992), ever single vampire fighter is an expert in martial arts. It’s kind of embarrassing. And isn’t there any other way to fight except showing off with all kinds of karate/kung-fu moves and fancy kicks? This has become a very annoying cliché at this point. How about making Abe a super-powerful boxer, instead? It would make more sense for his time.

(LS and MA are now sitting at a table, drinking ale, when a shirtless BRUCE LEE suddenly approaches them)

BRUCE LEE: I find this movie offensive. Here I go and revolutionize martial arts in American movies during my lifetime, and now, ANYONE can do what I did. All they have to do is call themselves a VAMPIRE HUNTER.

LS: I can’t disagree with you there.

MA: Come on, it’s only a movie. It’s silly entertainment.

BRUCE LEE: It completely trivializes the years of work and skill that goes into being a true martial artist.

LS: (nods) I dunno, Michael, he has a point. Plus, give me something like ENTER THE DRAGON (1973) over ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER any day of the week. It’s a helluva lot more entertaining.

(BRUCE LEE goes to start a brawl at the back of the room)

MA: I don’t know why he was so upset. It’s just a movie.

Ever since I saw Mary Elizabeth Winstead in SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010) I’ve been a big fan. She does an excellent job here as Mary Todd Lincoln, a female character who gets to do more than just be rescued by a male lead. She grows with the story and becomes integral to the plot as the movie goes on.

LS: I like her as well. I don’t think she’s amazing as Mary Todd, and I certainly don’t find her convincing as the former first lady—this is clearly a completely different person than the real Mary Todd—but she’s enjoyable enough when she’s onscreen. She certainly doesn’t contribute to the more annoying aspects of the movie.

MA: Jimmi Simpson as Joshua Speed, and Anthony Mackie as Will Johnson, do nice jobs in their respective roles as friends of Lincoln. These characters are multi-dimensional as well, and they are much more than just your average token buddies.

LS: I liked Joshua Speed. He was okay. It’s funny that Jimmi Simpson’s career is actually rooted firmly in comedy, with a recurring role as “Lyle the Intern” on the LATE SHOW WITH DAVID LETTERMAN (from 2008 -2009) and as a semi-regular on the hilarious show IT’S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA, as the weirdo Liam McPoyle. It’s good to see him playing a serious role here, and his character was likable enough. As for Anthony Mackie as Will Johnson, I found him rather bland. They don’t really give him an awful lot to do, except hang around with Abe and seem earnest.

MA: I also really liked Rufus Sewell as the main baddie in this movie. His vampire Adam is an imposing adversary for Abe Lincoln and company. Sometimes a movie is only as good as its villain. In this case, Adam is a powerful foe, and Sewell delivers a commanding performance as the deadly vampire who’s been alive since the days of ancient Egypt. He’s one of the movie’s strengths.

LS: If a movie is only as good as its villain, then ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER isn’t good at all. As I’ve already said, Sewell is a very lame villain.

MA: I also loved the climactic battle aboard the train between Lincoln and friends and Adam and his vampires, as this sequence on a burning trestle was very cinematic. Again, a nice job by director Bekmambetov.

LS: I found the climactic battle aboard the train really boring in parts. It went on way too long, and I just didn’t care about any of the characters enough to be emotionally invested in it.

MA: Had this movie been scary, it would have been great.

LS: Well, it would have been an improvement. We’re in agreement that this movie is not scary.

MA: I expected it to be horrible, and so I’m shocked to say that while ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is not a great movie, it is a very good movie.

It’s better than both the TWILIGHT series and the UNDERWORLD movies because it has something that both those series lack: an imagination. And some good old-fashioned bloody oomph!

(EDWARD CULLEN, the vampire from the TWILIGHT series, approaches their table)

EDWARD: Vampires that don’t sparkle? You’ve got to be kidding me. Who would believe that?

MA: There were tons of vampires before you that didn’t sparkle!

EDWARD: That’s ancient history, old man. I am what today’s generation wants in a vampire. If you want to be cool, then you gotta sparkle. Abraham Lincoln would never be able to stop me.

LS: He may have a point. The sparkly vampires are kind of strong…even if they look like they were caught in an explosion in a glitter factory.

EDWARD: And vampires are more civilized today. I would invite Mr. Lincoln to sit down for a cup of tea. We wouldn’t have to fight at all. Instead, I could spend the time bemoaning how sad I am.

MA: And where is the excitement in that?

(LS snores loudly)

EDWARD: Oh, you’ll never understand me! You don’t even try to!

(EDWARD leaves in a huff)

MA: Wake up! (nudges LS). Where was I? Oh yeah, I was going to give this movie my rating. I give ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER, three knives.

LS: I think this movie thinks it is a lot cleverer than it really is. But writer Seth Grahame-Smith is clearly the “flavor of the month” with his DARK SHADOWS script and now this. I can only hope he disappears as quickly as he showed up in Hollywood. This is the same guy who gave us the novel PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES, which started the whole horror/history mash-up genre, and it’s gotten incredibly tired in a very short amount of time. It’s like a flimsy joke – it may work once, but it won’t have any staying power. Neither does this one-joke genre.

And I think writing should be as limitless as one’s imagination, so it’s not like I don’t think anyone should be allowed to play around with actual history. I think a really talented writer could take this concept and do something interesting with it. But that writer was nowhere to be found when they were making ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER.

And I wasn’t all that impressed with the direction by Timur Bekmambetov here. This is the talented Russian director who gave us the really enjoyable movies NIGHT WATCH (2004) and DAY WATCH (2006). I suggest people check out those movies on video instead, because they are works of art compared to ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER. I give it one and a half knives.

MA: Well, we disagree on this one. I thought it was a handsome production, and I for one got caught up in the look and feel of this movie, and so I happily went along for the ride.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to get a couple of cold ones of my own.

LS: Be careful. They bite.

MA: Not those kinds of cold ones. I’m talking the kind that comes in a mug with a frothy head.

LS: Like that one? (points)

(MA looks over his shoulder to see a severed head floating on top of a huge mug of beer on the bar.)

MA: (throws up his arms) I give up! (Exits)

(LS goes over and lifts the big mug and brings it to his lips)

LS: Head for the mountains!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER ~one and a half knives.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers