Dameon Clarke plays a serial killer named Mike who takes a nervous, awkward video store clerk named Bart on as his protege. They go around killing people and eventually shit happens.
There are two problems with How To Be A Serial Killer:
1) It felt a bit like The Last Horror Movie, which is a British film starring ... Max Howarth is his name I think? Anyway, I love that movie quite a bit, and How To Be A Serial Killer was a little like that movie, but not as well made and less entertaining.
2) The movie starts with a commercial for, and has lessons throughout the movie from, a "How To Be A Serial Killer" seminar hosted by Mike, that is obviously fantasy but damned if it isn't the best part of the movie. I would have liked How To Be A Serial Killer much better if it were just an hour-long taping of the seminar.
So it's not perfect. I liked parts of the movie. The guy who played Bart looked familiar but I'd never heard his name before (Matthew Gray Gubler). Near the end it strays a little into action movie territory.
I will say I was impressed with Dameon Clarke's performance. The movie's pretty much worth it to see him. He does "smarmy motivational speaker," "normal guy hanging out with his girlfriend," "asshole who will shoot you in the face" and "man who thinks he has a message," and he does them all well.
But, damn it, I still wish the whole movie had just been that seminar.
End of line.
-Sally
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Dracula: Dead And Loving It
So Frankenstein isn't my thing. You know what is? Dracula.
I love Dracula. I love the book, I love movies based on the book, I love parodies of movies based on the book.
I also tend to like Mel Brooks movies. I love Spaceballs, I like Young Frankenstein (I like it so much I don't consider it a Frankenstein movie; I also like it so much I tend to forget it stars Gene Wilder, who scares me) and ... actually I can't think of a lot of other Mel Brooks movies I've seen.
I saw Blazing Saddles. I think I like that one.
Anyway, Dracula: Dead And Loving It was the last movie he directed. I think I wanted to see it back when it came out but didn't because I heard there was a lot of blood in it (I was twelve and not into gore yet) and because I was disappointed in Robin Hood: Men In Tights. (I remember two things about that movie: "I have a mole?" which was funny, and "It's an Everlast," which was not.)
Now, the thing about Mel Brooks movies is, a lot of people think he peaked at Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles (whichever came second). I think he peaked at Spaceballs. And I admit that Dracula: Dead And Loving It is not a shining example of cinematic or comedic brilliance. The plot is choppy, the jokes are stupid, the acting is pretty lousy.
However! The acting is deliberately lousy, the plot isn't really important in a movie like this and I happen to love stupid humor. Several of the movie's gags made me laugh out loud. I actually had to pause the movie a couple of times so I could stop laughing enough to pay attention again. That doesn't happen to me a lot anymore.
The only real problem I had with the movie was genuinely a problem I was having; I kept comparing the movie to the book. I wasn't doing it on purpose. Every time the nitpicky part of my brain started to say "That's wrong!" I had to summon another part of my brain to tell her to shut up. "Honestly, you're going to complain that a Mel Brooks movie wasn't entirely true to the source material? What is wrong with you?!"
Luckily, I don't think most people will have that problem, and Dracula: Dead And Loving It is a great example of dumb, fun comedy, a genre I happen to love. I honestly want to give this movie a hug.
End of line.
-Sally
I love Dracula. I love the book, I love movies based on the book, I love parodies of movies based on the book.
I also tend to like Mel Brooks movies. I love Spaceballs, I like Young Frankenstein (I like it so much I don't consider it a Frankenstein movie; I also like it so much I tend to forget it stars Gene Wilder, who scares me) and ... actually I can't think of a lot of other Mel Brooks movies I've seen.
I saw Blazing Saddles. I think I like that one.
Anyway, Dracula: Dead And Loving It was the last movie he directed. I think I wanted to see it back when it came out but didn't because I heard there was a lot of blood in it (I was twelve and not into gore yet) and because I was disappointed in Robin Hood: Men In Tights. (I remember two things about that movie: "I have a mole?" which was funny, and "It's an Everlast," which was not.)
Now, the thing about Mel Brooks movies is, a lot of people think he peaked at Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles (whichever came second). I think he peaked at Spaceballs. And I admit that Dracula: Dead And Loving It is not a shining example of cinematic or comedic brilliance. The plot is choppy, the jokes are stupid, the acting is pretty lousy.
However! The acting is deliberately lousy, the plot isn't really important in a movie like this and I happen to love stupid humor. Several of the movie's gags made me laugh out loud. I actually had to pause the movie a couple of times so I could stop laughing enough to pay attention again. That doesn't happen to me a lot anymore.
The only real problem I had with the movie was genuinely a problem I was having; I kept comparing the movie to the book. I wasn't doing it on purpose. Every time the nitpicky part of my brain started to say "That's wrong!" I had to summon another part of my brain to tell her to shut up. "Honestly, you're going to complain that a Mel Brooks movie wasn't entirely true to the source material? What is wrong with you?!"
Luckily, I don't think most people will have that problem, and Dracula: Dead And Loving It is a great example of dumb, fun comedy, a genre I happen to love. I honestly want to give this movie a hug.
End of line.
-Sally
Friday, September 23, 2011
Frankenstein Unbound
I was out of town for two weeks and, when I got back, I really didn't feel like watching any movies. It's the weirdest feeling in the world to me, to be actively not in the mood to watch a movie, but it happens sometimes.
Today I decided it's finally time to get back on the Movie Lottery horse and ...
I wish I had stayed not in the mood for a movie.
When I was a kid, one of the video stores we went to had a cardboard standup promoting Frankenstein Unbound. It had a picture on it of an eye that was made of three different colored eyes stitched together. First of all, it grossed me out. Second of all, it was a bit of a Fridge Horror for me (how do you sew eyes together?! I don't even want to think about it). Thirdly, I wish I had eyes that were three different colors at once (but just naturally). Fourth, it stuck with me forfuckingever. That cardboard standup was the only reason I watched this stupid movie.
That and Raul Julia.
The movie is about Scientist John Hurt, who creates a weapon that makes things disappear, but has the small side effect of causing wormholes, one of which sucks him back in time, where he meets Victor Frankenstein (who, for the purposes of this movie was a real person. And Raul Julia).
So John Hurt stalks Frankenstein for a while (completely abandoning an entire plate of food, by the way. This guy's got fucked up priorities) and watches him yell at his Monster. The next day, he stalks Frankenstein some more and follows him to the trial of a girl who is accused of killing Frankenstein's brother. He also meets Mary Eventually Shelley (in this movie she's not married yet), and takes up stalking her for a while.
Frankenstein Unbound barely has a plot (actually, it barely has about three plots) and none of the characters are likeable. There are weird, brief dream sequences that don't add up to anything and I think the ending was supposed to mean something but it was either butchered in editing or I'm really stupid, 'cause I sure as hell didn't get what the shocker or deep meaningful message or twist (or whatever) was supposed to be.
What really bothered me ... No, actually, there were two things that bothered me. One was that the movie forced me to remember the book Frankenstein, and I fucking hate that book.
More than that, though, if I've learned nothing else from time travel movies, I know John Hurt was doing everything wrong. He told people he was from the future, he showed them his car and his digital watch, and (probably worst of all) he shows Mary Shelley a copy of Frankenstein and tells her that she will finish writing it and get it published.
And the movie never addresses that these are exactly the sort of things you're not supposed to do if you travel back in time! There are no real consequences for his stupid actions. It's like in this movie, the entire concept of being careful while time traveling is thrown out the window!
I don't really know why I care so much (it's just a stupid movie) but I feel like time travel rules are logical. There's no need to rebel against them.
End of line.
-Sally
Today I decided it's finally time to get back on the Movie Lottery horse and ...
I wish I had stayed not in the mood for a movie.
When I was a kid, one of the video stores we went to had a cardboard standup promoting Frankenstein Unbound. It had a picture on it of an eye that was made of three different colored eyes stitched together. First of all, it grossed me out. Second of all, it was a bit of a Fridge Horror for me (how do you sew eyes together?! I don't even want to think about it). Thirdly, I wish I had eyes that were three different colors at once (but just naturally). Fourth, it stuck with me forfuckingever. That cardboard standup was the only reason I watched this stupid movie.
That and Raul Julia.
The movie is about Scientist John Hurt, who creates a weapon that makes things disappear, but has the small side effect of causing wormholes, one of which sucks him back in time, where he meets Victor Frankenstein (who, for the purposes of this movie was a real person. And Raul Julia).
So John Hurt stalks Frankenstein for a while (completely abandoning an entire plate of food, by the way. This guy's got fucked up priorities) and watches him yell at his Monster. The next day, he stalks Frankenstein some more and follows him to the trial of a girl who is accused of killing Frankenstein's brother. He also meets Mary Eventually Shelley (in this movie she's not married yet), and takes up stalking her for a while.
Frankenstein Unbound barely has a plot (actually, it barely has about three plots) and none of the characters are likeable. There are weird, brief dream sequences that don't add up to anything and I think the ending was supposed to mean something but it was either butchered in editing or I'm really stupid, 'cause I sure as hell didn't get what the shocker or deep meaningful message or twist (or whatever) was supposed to be.
What really bothered me ... No, actually, there were two things that bothered me. One was that the movie forced me to remember the book Frankenstein, and I fucking hate that book.
More than that, though, if I've learned nothing else from time travel movies, I know John Hurt was doing everything wrong. He told people he was from the future, he showed them his car and his digital watch, and (probably worst of all) he shows Mary Shelley a copy of Frankenstein and tells her that she will finish writing it and get it published.
And the movie never addresses that these are exactly the sort of things you're not supposed to do if you travel back in time! There are no real consequences for his stupid actions. It's like in this movie, the entire concept of being careful while time traveling is thrown out the window!
I don't really know why I care so much (it's just a stupid movie) but I feel like time travel rules are logical. There's no need to rebel against them.
End of line.
-Sally
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Barenaked Ladies at the Thousand Oaks Civic Arts Plaza, September 16 2011
I've noticed that, especially amongst people around my age, Barenaked Ladies are considered a somewhat "uncool" band. And I will address that shortly.
My mom and I decided kind of at the last second to go to the concert. We bought our tickets at the box office a few hours before the show started and somehow managed, thanks to weird selling practices, to get front row, center seats. Woo hoo!
The opening band was called The Flying Burrito Brothers and they were talented, sure, but really not my cup of tea. Far more country than rock, which is just not my kind of thing. I don't mind a little bit of country (or more if it's older; for instance, I like Jerry Reed and Johnny Cash), but this was just too much.
But they were just the openers. Which is horrible to say, especially because I hate it when people don't respect or pay attention to opening acts. It's rude. No, I don't always like them but I'll still listen to them. Sometimes you hear something new and wonderful in an opening act. (A duo called Guggenheim Grotto opened for They Might Be Giants once and they were pretty wonderful. I tell you this in the hopes that I'll remember their name later.)
Then BNL took to the stage, opening with Who Needs Sleep, one of my favorite songs off of Stunt.
Now, to get back to my first statement: Barenaked Ladies are in no way uncool. Their music is good (most of it flat out rocks) and damn do they put on a good show! They throw about witty banter, Ed makes up raps on the spot, Jim dances with his stand up bass and, most importantly, they make sure the music sounds fantastic.
I wish I could come up with a highlight of the show to report but the evening was so full of highlights it's really hard to single out one moment.
I would like to announce, to someone in the audience who doesn't read this blog but needs to be told anyway, that even though you're in a theater in which plays are usually produced and you have a seat, this is a fucking rock concert and you should not be sitting down. So, instead of whining at the people in front of you to sit down so you can see, maybe you should stand up and dance and have a good time like the rest of us.
Because the rest of us were having a good time. The band did not play a single song that was boring or bad. The entire band worked at full capacity to make sure of that. It was truly a great show.
And I feel bad for the people who think Barenaked Ladies are uncool.
End of line.
-Sally
My mom and I decided kind of at the last second to go to the concert. We bought our tickets at the box office a few hours before the show started and somehow managed, thanks to weird selling practices, to get front row, center seats. Woo hoo!
The opening band was called The Flying Burrito Brothers and they were talented, sure, but really not my cup of tea. Far more country than rock, which is just not my kind of thing. I don't mind a little bit of country (or more if it's older; for instance, I like Jerry Reed and Johnny Cash), but this was just too much.
But they were just the openers. Which is horrible to say, especially because I hate it when people don't respect or pay attention to opening acts. It's rude. No, I don't always like them but I'll still listen to them. Sometimes you hear something new and wonderful in an opening act. (A duo called Guggenheim Grotto opened for They Might Be Giants once and they were pretty wonderful. I tell you this in the hopes that I'll remember their name later.)
Then BNL took to the stage, opening with Who Needs Sleep, one of my favorite songs off of Stunt.
Now, to get back to my first statement: Barenaked Ladies are in no way uncool. Their music is good (most of it flat out rocks) and damn do they put on a good show! They throw about witty banter, Ed makes up raps on the spot, Jim dances with his stand up bass and, most importantly, they make sure the music sounds fantastic.
I wish I could come up with a highlight of the show to report but the evening was so full of highlights it's really hard to single out one moment.
I would like to announce, to someone in the audience who doesn't read this blog but needs to be told anyway, that even though you're in a theater in which plays are usually produced and you have a seat, this is a fucking rock concert and you should not be sitting down. So, instead of whining at the people in front of you to sit down so you can see, maybe you should stand up and dance and have a good time like the rest of us.
Because the rest of us were having a good time. The band did not play a single song that was boring or bad. The entire band worked at full capacity to make sure of that. It was truly a great show.
And I feel bad for the people who think Barenaked Ladies are uncool.
End of line.
-Sally
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Midnight Movie
Before I started reading, I had the following information about Midnight Movie:
This is a book by Tobe Hooper.
It was all I needed to make me want to read it and I deliberately waited to read the synopsis on the back cover until I'd finished the book.
I'd like to keep plot information out of my review because when I walk blindly into a movie or book, I like to believe the two people who read my blog will be able to do the same thing. I love that feeling of not knowing. Being a fan of both books and movies, it's rare to go into one without knowing something (or in some cases, everything) about it.
Midnight Movie is told mainly via personal accounts of the main characters (one of whom is Tobe Hooper), as well as news clippings, blog posts, diaries and that sort of thing.
It is split into three parts. The first part drew me right in, the second part nauseated me but also kept me interested enough to keep going and by the time I got to part three I was so desperate to find out what happened that I refused to put the book down until it was over.
Much like World War Z, Midnight Movie is equal parts fascinating, scary, disgusting and sad.
Much like World War Z, Midnight Movie is well written and on certain levels I loved and enjoyed it.
Much like World War Z, it completely drained and depressed me. I feel empty inside. I don't know if I can read it again.
Unlike World War Z, Midnight Movie has a "special feature": An actual interview with Tobe Hooper in which he discusses, among other things, the difference between the Tobe Hooper in the book and his actual self. It sounds like such a small thing, but that little interview (it was maybe two pages) improved my mood, brought me gently back to the real world, reminded me that what I had just read was fiction and there was no reason to be sad.
I think the main reason I don't read fiction as often as I'd like is because I tend to get emotionally involved and coming back to reality can be difficult, especially after a book like Midnight Movie.
End of line.
-Sally
This is a book by Tobe Hooper.
It was all I needed to make me want to read it and I deliberately waited to read the synopsis on the back cover until I'd finished the book.
I'd like to keep plot information out of my review because when I walk blindly into a movie or book, I like to believe the two people who read my blog will be able to do the same thing. I love that feeling of not knowing. Being a fan of both books and movies, it's rare to go into one without knowing something (or in some cases, everything) about it.
Midnight Movie is told mainly via personal accounts of the main characters (one of whom is Tobe Hooper), as well as news clippings, blog posts, diaries and that sort of thing.
It is split into three parts. The first part drew me right in, the second part nauseated me but also kept me interested enough to keep going and by the time I got to part three I was so desperate to find out what happened that I refused to put the book down until it was over.
Much like World War Z, Midnight Movie is equal parts fascinating, scary, disgusting and sad.
Much like World War Z, Midnight Movie is well written and on certain levels I loved and enjoyed it.
Much like World War Z, it completely drained and depressed me. I feel empty inside. I don't know if I can read it again.
Unlike World War Z, Midnight Movie has a "special feature": An actual interview with Tobe Hooper in which he discusses, among other things, the difference between the Tobe Hooper in the book and his actual self. It sounds like such a small thing, but that little interview (it was maybe two pages) improved my mood, brought me gently back to the real world, reminded me that what I had just read was fiction and there was no reason to be sad.
I think the main reason I don't read fiction as often as I'd like is because I tend to get emotionally involved and coming back to reality can be difficult, especially after a book like Midnight Movie.
End of line.
-Sally
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Bronson
"I am Charlie Bronson, Britain's most violent prisoner."
Before I say anything about the movie, I'd like to direct you to the Wikipedia page about Charles Bronson. They know more about him than I do. And, just to clarify, this is a different Charles Bronson than the actor. Very different.
Bronson is, obviously, a movie about Charlie Bronson (born Michael Peterson) who has spent most of his life in solitary confinement for being more likely to be a prisoner and punch you in the face than Patrick McGoohan. You know how the internet thinks Chuck Norris is a superhero who cannot be stopped? I'm pretty sure Charlie Bronson could kill Chuck Norris just by thinking about it.
Also, he totally looks like an old timey boxer. He should be calling people rough customers and saying he's going to give them what-for. ...Actually, he is a rough customer and does, in fact, give lots of people what-for.
Yes, this is a real guy and yes, I do feel kinda weird (insensitive?) making light of his situation and violent ways but for some reason I can't help it. And the movie, at least at first, sort of does the same thing.
The first half hour or so of Bronson very much appeals to me stylistically. The art direction is fantastic, they intercut scenes of Charlie talking directly to the camera and fantasy scenes of Charlie onstage in a fancy theater putting on a show about himself for hoity toity people with the (for lack of a better word) realistic scenes that tell his story. It was fascinating and I just loved it.
Around the point they started focusing on Charlie's life outside of prison, the movie sort of fell apart for me. It was still full of fantastic art direction but the narrating and theater scenes pretty much disappeared completely and it became a much more straightforward movie, which I didn't like as much. If they had kept the tone from the beginning through the whole film I would have liked it just that much more. I'd be ranting about needing to own a copy right now if they'd done it that way.
Overall, though, it was still brilliant and Tom Hardy is fantastic.
End of line.
-Sally
Before I say anything about the movie, I'd like to direct you to the Wikipedia page about Charles Bronson. They know more about him than I do. And, just to clarify, this is a different Charles Bronson than the actor. Very different.
Bronson is, obviously, a movie about Charlie Bronson (born Michael Peterson) who has spent most of his life in solitary confinement for being more likely to be a prisoner and punch you in the face than Patrick McGoohan. You know how the internet thinks Chuck Norris is a superhero who cannot be stopped? I'm pretty sure Charlie Bronson could kill Chuck Norris just by thinking about it.
Also, he totally looks like an old timey boxer. He should be calling people rough customers and saying he's going to give them what-for. ...Actually, he is a rough customer and does, in fact, give lots of people what-for.
Yes, this is a real guy and yes, I do feel kinda weird (insensitive?) making light of his situation and violent ways but for some reason I can't help it. And the movie, at least at first, sort of does the same thing.
The first half hour or so of Bronson very much appeals to me stylistically. The art direction is fantastic, they intercut scenes of Charlie talking directly to the camera and fantasy scenes of Charlie onstage in a fancy theater putting on a show about himself for hoity toity people with the (for lack of a better word) realistic scenes that tell his story. It was fascinating and I just loved it.
Around the point they started focusing on Charlie's life outside of prison, the movie sort of fell apart for me. It was still full of fantastic art direction but the narrating and theater scenes pretty much disappeared completely and it became a much more straightforward movie, which I didn't like as much. If they had kept the tone from the beginning through the whole film I would have liked it just that much more. I'd be ranting about needing to own a copy right now if they'd done it that way.
Overall, though, it was still brilliant and Tom Hardy is fantastic.
End of line.
-Sally
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Fright Night
Fright Night is a remake of the 1980s vampire movie (also called Fright Night) and I really want to review it on its own merits, which is hard to do because I have both seen and thoroughly enjoy the original. It's obvious where the remake was inspired by the original and where it decided it wanted to do its own thing. Really, every remake aspires to do that but few pull it off the way Fright Night does.
Jerry The Vampire has moved in next door to Charlie Brewster and his mom. Charlie's nerdy friend Evil Ed tries to warn Charlie of the danger but Charlie doesn't believe him. At first. When Jerry starts blatantly being a vampire, though, Charlie takes the situation seriously and tries to enlist the help of glitzy Vegas magician Peter Vincent who claims to be a vampire expert.
Parts of the movie go on a bit too long (the car chase, for instance) and there's a bit of useless "cool kids versus nerds" bullshit near the beginning that doesn't need to be there. ("Cool kids versus nerds" is, in my experience, not a thing that exists in real life. When I was in high school everyone just hung out with their friends and didn't care enough one way or the other about people they didn't hang out with to have conflict with them.)
Colin Farrell makes a very good Jerry The Vampire. I'd be hard pressed to decide whether I like him or Chris Sarandon better, honestly, because they both perfectly nail the thing that makes vampires so fascinating to me.
My brother was saying a few weeks ago that vampires are not scary and that's why Twilight is successful; people like the romance of vampires, nobody is scared of them. I don't feel that's entirely true. At least, I feel like it's a broad generalization.
I agree that vampires are not scary, but romantic vampires are boring, defanged pussies as far as I'm concerned. I fucking hate them. They're dull. I don't care about their damn feelings.
Vampires are only interesting if they're soulless monsters. They can be attractive and all that (movies have guaranteed that vampires will always be the sexy monsters), but the second you give them souls or romantic yearnings, everything that's interesting about them flies out the window and we're stuck in Defanged Pussyville.
That's actually the one thing about the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula I don't like; they got Gary fucking Oldman as Count fucking Dracula and they threw in all that "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" bullshit. Dracula was not in love with Mina, damn it! I just reread the book and there is no romance in it (in spite of all the marriage), especially not between Dracula and ... well, anybody. (Sure, there's sexual symbolism, but that's not romance; it's obvious Dracula wasn't in love with these women. He was just hungry.)
Anyway, sorry, sidebar. Back to the topic at hand.
Christopher Sarandon (who has a cameo in the new version, by the way, which made me applaud) was a fantastic choice for Jerry The Vampire back in the '80s because he was simultaneously repulsive and fascinating. You didn't necessarily want to be looking at him, but you couldn't stop. It's that thrall thing vampires do, it's how they seduce their victims. And Colin Farrell has that same effect in the new version of Fright Night. He pulls it off beautifully. (According to an article in Rue Morgue he was a big fan of the original and it took some convincing to get him to sign on for the remake. I'm glad he did it.)
The entire core cast was great, even though it did seem like David Tennant's Peter Vincent was really just his best Russell Brand impression. I'll accept it, though, because he was thoroughly entertaining.
So, while Fright Night did seem longer than it was, it was quite entertaining and well worth the twelve dollars. It had some problems, sure (the obvious CGI blood, the obvious "we're filmed in 3-D" shots, the line "Welcome to Fright Night ... for real" which made me roll my eyes so far I could see the part of my brain that thought it was corny) but I'll still probably want to own it when it comes out on video.
Especially if they package it with the original.
End of line.
-Sally
Jerry The Vampire has moved in next door to Charlie Brewster and his mom. Charlie's nerdy friend Evil Ed tries to warn Charlie of the danger but Charlie doesn't believe him. At first. When Jerry starts blatantly being a vampire, though, Charlie takes the situation seriously and tries to enlist the help of glitzy Vegas magician Peter Vincent who claims to be a vampire expert.
Parts of the movie go on a bit too long (the car chase, for instance) and there's a bit of useless "cool kids versus nerds" bullshit near the beginning that doesn't need to be there. ("Cool kids versus nerds" is, in my experience, not a thing that exists in real life. When I was in high school everyone just hung out with their friends and didn't care enough one way or the other about people they didn't hang out with to have conflict with them.)
Colin Farrell makes a very good Jerry The Vampire. I'd be hard pressed to decide whether I like him or Chris Sarandon better, honestly, because they both perfectly nail the thing that makes vampires so fascinating to me.
My brother was saying a few weeks ago that vampires are not scary and that's why Twilight is successful; people like the romance of vampires, nobody is scared of them. I don't feel that's entirely true. At least, I feel like it's a broad generalization.
I agree that vampires are not scary, but romantic vampires are boring, defanged pussies as far as I'm concerned. I fucking hate them. They're dull. I don't care about their damn feelings.
Vampires are only interesting if they're soulless monsters. They can be attractive and all that (movies have guaranteed that vampires will always be the sexy monsters), but the second you give them souls or romantic yearnings, everything that's interesting about them flies out the window and we're stuck in Defanged Pussyville.
That's actually the one thing about the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula I don't like; they got Gary fucking Oldman as Count fucking Dracula and they threw in all that "I have crossed oceans of time to find you" bullshit. Dracula was not in love with Mina, damn it! I just reread the book and there is no romance in it (in spite of all the marriage), especially not between Dracula and ... well, anybody. (Sure, there's sexual symbolism, but that's not romance; it's obvious Dracula wasn't in love with these women. He was just hungry.)
Anyway, sorry, sidebar. Back to the topic at hand.
Christopher Sarandon (who has a cameo in the new version, by the way, which made me applaud) was a fantastic choice for Jerry The Vampire back in the '80s because he was simultaneously repulsive and fascinating. You didn't necessarily want to be looking at him, but you couldn't stop. It's that thrall thing vampires do, it's how they seduce their victims. And Colin Farrell has that same effect in the new version of Fright Night. He pulls it off beautifully. (According to an article in Rue Morgue he was a big fan of the original and it took some convincing to get him to sign on for the remake. I'm glad he did it.)
The entire core cast was great, even though it did seem like David Tennant's Peter Vincent was really just his best Russell Brand impression. I'll accept it, though, because he was thoroughly entertaining.
So, while Fright Night did seem longer than it was, it was quite entertaining and well worth the twelve dollars. It had some problems, sure (the obvious CGI blood, the obvious "we're filmed in 3-D" shots, the line "Welcome to Fright Night ... for real" which made me roll my eyes so far I could see the part of my brain that thought it was corny) but I'll still probably want to own it when it comes out on video.
Especially if they package it with the original.
End of line.
-Sally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
