More Freaky Movies!

Sorry I disappeared for a while, guys. I've been known to do that. Danged space aliens.

I have another movie review for you all. Better yet, I have TWO reviews! And one of them is even from a recent movie! Yaaaaay!

First, we've got The Woman in Black, a ghost story set in Victorian England, and below that is a review of Bram Stoker's Dracula, the 1992 rendition of the classic vampire tale. 

The Woman in Black

In which Harry Potter may now boldly wear a mustache!

I was highly disappointed to find that this wasn't a biopic about my life, but at the same time I was relieved. That would have been one boring movie. 
As it was, I came very close to run screaming from the theater.
Woman in Black is a horror movie of the creepy haunting variety. It stars Daniel Radcliffe, or as you may know him, that guy who played Harry Potter. He's gotten very handsome, by the way. I know he's gained quite a few fan-girls from his Harry Potter days, but I never found him all that appealing. Maybe it's because in this movie, he's wearing late 1800's period clothing.


The story concerns Arthur (Radcliffe) going to an old house to put the deceased previous owner's papers in order...Or something. Due to my ADD or whatever it is, the details escaped me. Anyway, when he gets to the village close to the place, the townsfolk don't seem too keen on the idea of him going there.
Of course, in true horror movie tradition, he ignores their warnings and heads off to the suspiciously creepy, deserted(?) old manor, which sits out in the middle of a huge misty swamp. The scenery in this movie is absolutely gorgeous, for those of you inclined to like brooding, foggy landscapes. The whole film is beautifully shot.  
Once at the house, it doesn't take very long for things to get eerie. He first spies the eponymous woman standing out in the estate graveyard. He runs outside to see who she is, but he finds no one. From here, weirder and weirder things start happening, the creepiness escalates, children start dying all over the place, and Z gets a heart attack while consuming too much buttery popcorn.

If more men dressed like this, fewer of you would be single. Just sayin'.

Radcliffe is a competent, though not very interesting actor, and he does a competent, though not very interesting job in this movie. But let's face it, this is hardly a character piece, and he's not given much to work with. As usual, he's very good at looking sad and angsty. In Woman in Black, he's a young widower, still depressed about his wife who died in childbirth four years ago. He has a little boy, which is his main reason for going through with his scary assignment. If he doesn't, he'll lose his job. Good father + grieving widower x cute Daniel Radcliffe = Sympathetic protagonist, I s'pose.

Issues
This was a rather disappointing movie as far as creativity is concerned. All the things happening in this film, you've probably seen before. It employed just about every horror trope you can think of, including creepy children, said creepy children staring out windows, bloody writing on the wall, vengeful spirits, terrifying wind-up toys, a swamp boy, the doubting scoffer, possession, the haunted house with suspicious noises in the night, etc. It almost felt like an extended "Supernatural" episode, and I kept expecting Sam and Dean Winchester to show up. It only lacked the goofy humor, though it did seem to have a very subtle self-awareness that I found amusing.
Oh, and potential plot-hole! It looked to me like Arthur just had to go through a bunch of paperwork to do whatever his job entailed. Why didn't he just pick up all the paperwork in the house and work on it elsewhere? Instead of, you know, SPENDING THE NIGHT AT THE HAUNTED HOUSE? 
There also dadgum freaking jump-scares EVERYWHERE.

The Good Stuff
Like I mentioned before, this is a gorgeously shot movie. All the scenery, sets and costumes and camera work are wonderful. There ought to be more horror films set in the Victorian age, because it just works, and you can milk all the horror tropes for all they're worth. This movie certainly did so with relish. There was so much awesome gothic imagery, it's almost worth watching just for that.
It also relies more on psychological horror than nasty gross-out stuff. When not using the annoying-but-effective jump-scares, it utterly takes advantage of that heinous fear most of us have of seeing a ghostly face peering out of the darkness at us. You know, when you think you see something weird out of the corner of your eye, you turn around, and nothing is there? This movie knows. And it nearly sent me into cardiac arrest. It also feeds on parental instinct, because the plot involves kids dropping like flies. I'm glad I don't have kids, because otherwise I'd be having some freaky nightmares.

So despite not being very inventive, it was still pretty scary. It does what "Supernatural" does by taking all your typical horror elements and wallowing in them like a happy hippopotamus. It didn't really leave an emotional impact on me, though I've had a hard time going into a dark room for a few days. So it wasn't a great film, but it was worth the price of admission, and I would probably watch it again.

My Movie-snob Rating: ***
My Personal Rating ***



Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

He's ashamed of his odd hairstyle choice.

Oh boy. This was a weird one.
The 90's brought us some good movies. Interview with The Vampire, Sense and Sensibility, Ed Wood, all those classic Disney animated films, etc.
But the 90's was also one of the most awkward decades ever. Looking back, it seems like, "durr...The 80's are over...Now what?"
Fittingly, this was a super-awkward vampire movie. Not like Twilight, heavens no. That's uncomfortable-silly-teenagers-plus-hideous-acting awkward. Bram Stoker's Dracula was more like an-epic-goth-parade-through-Wal-Mart awkward. You have to admit that it's awesome, but it is so incredibly bizarre.

OK, so the story is straightforward enough. Dracula wants to buy a house in England. Real-estate guy Jonathan Harker goes to his castle in Transylvania. Dracula sees picture of Jonathan's bride-to-be, Mina, and thinks she's a reincarnation of his tragically deceased wife from centuries ago. So while seducing his beloved, he decides to terrorize London while he's at it. Van Helsing and friends band together to put the undead creeper permanently back in his grave.

Issues

But what's weirder than "Zardoz", anyway?

Holy crap, where to begin? The camera work and editing were nuts and there was narm aplenty. Bizarre imagery was thrown in with little-to-no reason behind it. There were disconcertingly cheesy special effects. Weird stuff was constantly happening with no explanation, there was that somewhat infamous scene of gratuitous werewolf sex (yeah, eat your heart out, Team Jacob!), some more random erotica, and oddly-behaving characters. I got the sense that a lot of it was weird for the sake of weird. It wasn't necessarily scary, just weird. Not quite "Zardoz" weird, but in that same vein.
And as usual, Keanu Reeves is pretty muchly pointless except for being a plot-device. Maybe he was supposed to act as a dull contrast to Gary Oldman's Dracula, but "act" may be too strong a word, here.
...What was with Aged Dracula's hair?

Good Stuff
Fantastic cast. Oh my gosh, what a great cast. Winona Ryder as Mina, Gary Oldman as Dracula, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, Cary Elwes as Lord Holmwood, Tom Waits as Renfield the crazy guy...The cast was definitely the saving grace of this movie, Keanu Reeves aside. Gary Oldman is utterly badass as Dracula. He hams it up, but only the the best way possible. He's everything a good Dracula should be: Grotesque, sexy, scary, powerful, tragic, and evil, all at the same time.
The sets and costumes are also magnificent. OH THE COSTUMES! This was costume porn at its finest, especially if you're a kook like me when it comes to gothic and steampunk fashion. The whole movie is just loaded with over-the-top gothic imagery, and like The Woman in Black, it happily wallows in it. As well it should! Everything is simply gorgeous and extravagant, and if it weren't for the crazy editing and camera, the visuals would be perfect.

EXCELLEEENNT!

Vampire makeup was terrific. Dracula as an old man was freaky-awesome. Creepy, creepy. Pale white, saggy skin, long fingernails, the works. Can't say as much for the werewolf/gorilla suit, but the vampire getups were very nicely done. Seriously, though, what was with that werewolf, and what was with Aged Dracula's hair?
The characters are interesting enough that you care about them, even though you probably know what's going to happen. Mina falls for Dracula, though the romance is written a bit shakily, and you really do want her to be with him. It may be only because you know her alternative is Keanu, but otherwise I found this movie to have a pretty good emotional strength. It was so artsy-fartsy, that it sure as heck ought to.

OMNOMNOMNOM

In the end, I'm still not sure if I liked this one. There were things that I loved about it, but it was just so danged weird and a little pretentious for all the narm and cheese it presented. It seemed confused, and didn't really blend the horror and romance as well as it wanted to. But I can see it becoming a film classic in years to come and I enjoyed it for sure. I would definitely watch it again.

My Movie-Snob Rating: ***1/2
My Personal Rating: ***1/2


One last note: The 1992 Dracula is the source of one of my favorite songs! "Love Song for a Vampire" by Annie Lennox has been on my iPod for years, and even though I knew it was from this movie, I'd never seen the movie until recently. So now I have! Go me. I'm sure you find that utterly not-fascinating, though, so I'll just leave you with the music video.

Thanks for reading, kids!

Just so You're Aware...

Yikes, it's been nothing but vampires with me lately. It's like they're following me. First aliens, now vampires. Why me? Will I never have peace?

You've probably seen this story floating around the internet since it is rather eye-catching. I mean, when you read a headline like, "Nicolas Cage: I'm Not a Vampire," you kind of have to do a double-take. You mean there's nothing more pressing going on in the world? Don't worry about the American debt crisis, y'all. Nicolas Cage is not a vampire!

The mass hysteria is due to an old picture surfacing, featuring a man from the 1800's who bears a striking resemblence to Nick Cage. But don't photographers have trouble capturing vampires on flim?

So apparently Cage has a look-alike from the mid 1800's, and
believe or not, he actually looks goofier than the current one.

Jack Mord is apparently the individual who came up with this theory. With a name like Mord, I would be worried about my own living status. Mord sounds a lot like "Mort" which is close to "Morte" which means death! Am I the only one seeing this? This needs closer scrutiny!

This is what Jack Mord himself says about his hypothesis: "My theory is that he allows himself to age to a certain point, maybe 70, 80 or so, then the actor 'Nicolas Cage' will 'die,' But in reality, the undead vampire 'Nicolas Cage' will have rejuvenated." If I am correct, I think Cage did own a castle in Europe. Sadly he had to sell it because of money issues. Dude, who loses a castle?

I'm still not entirely sure if Mord was serious when he put forth his theory, but he must have been, because people are NEVER sarcastic on the internet.

If any actor was a vampire, though, it would probably be him. Nick just seems kinda vampirey to me. Must be the nose, or something. And if it's not Nicolas Cage, it has to be Tom Cruise or John Travolta. Don't you remember that part of vampire lore that talks about vampires all being scientologists? No? Maybe I just made that up. That was merely vicious slander on my part, guys, sorry.
But I am serious when I say that Nicolas Cage is NOT a vampire. You guys can rest easy.

Besides, wouldn't vampires be better actors? Geeze, people.

Thanks for reading!
Z

Vampire (Movie) Weekend

That band is OK. I can't get into them. I think it's just because their name is disappointing. They don't sound vampirey at all! Bauhaus, plz.
This weekend must have been an unofficial vampire movie marathon for me, because I watched a vampire movie Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday night. We already discussed Nosferatu, so let's talk about the other two.

Underworld: Awakening



Commin' to kick some major BUTT.

 Dude, I had never seen the Underworld movies before, and I feel I have been cheated of something glorious. I was never that much into vampires, and if I was, it was just the black-and-white Bela Lugosi types. And Twilight, but we don't talk about that. (SHH!)

Underworld had its problems for sure. Like *SPOILERS* I'm pretty sure I would remember getting pregnant, even if I was sedated *END SPOILERS* and there were a few other plot-points that I found to be headscratchers. But there are three things in this world that I love that can make up for a lack of logic: Cheesey, over the top in-yo-face badassery, sci-fi/fantasy, and leather and latex (so I guess that's four things. Five things?). The Underworld movie had said goodness in frigging ABUNDANCE. Dude, I want to marry Selene now. She is a real man.

One thing that really bothered me though, was that scene where Selene was interrogating the guy. He gives her what she wants, but she totally shuts him down and kills him anyway. Harsh, much? I guess if I was stuffed in an ice-box with no idea what had been done to my husband, I would be mad, too. But still. As misanthropic as I can be toward my own kind, I still have a soft spot for my fellow humans. I mean, we've been through so much together...

Through it all, though, the problems in Awakening weren't so glaring that they took away from the awesomeness of the movie. It was violent. It was badass. It was exciting. It was badass. It was cool, and did I mention it was badass? If any other fans of the franchise hate this movie, keep in mind that I am an Underworld virgin, so I have nothing to compare it to. For what it was, it was highly enjoyable. It may have helped that I went to see it with a couple of dudes, too. And it's been a long time since I saw such a charasmatic lead in a recent action movie. Kate Beckinsale wasn't much in the way of personality, but she was just so...BADASS. My goodness. Slow-mo time.

Things I learned from Underworld: Awakening
1. Werewolves never have good CGI.
2. But they are still scary as five-year-old leftover chicken enchiladas. Well, not that scary.
3. We will have world peace when the vampires are exposed. Except no, we won't, because we'll be fighting the vampires.
4. All vampires and werewolves have British accents. Except the ones from "Twilight" and Bela Lugosi. And like I said, we aren't mentioning the "T" word.
5. Once you are a vampire, you are required by vampire law to wear leather, PVC, or latex, under pain of death.

My Movie Snob rating: ***1/2
My personal rating: ****


Interview With the Vampire

Please don't take my goth card. I had never seen this movie before, OK? Like I said, I'm not vampire-obsessive. I prefer elves and faeries. Lord of the Rings is my thing, yo. And Phantom of the Opera. Love me some Phantom. I actually never had a cow over the fact that some Mormon chick wrote some books about sparkling vampires. But never mind that. On to the review.

This movie. I know it's a good movie when my movie-snob self and my movie-snob sister turn off the TV, stare at the black screen for a while, turn to stare at eachother, and then proceed to wig out about the movie for the next 24 hours. This was one of those movies that you continue to think about and continue to WANT to think about through the next day.

It helped that it included a lot of bootyful mens in the cast.
But I digress.

I liked how this movie portrayed vampires in a sympathetic light, but it didn't really excuse their monstrosity. It wasn't like Twilight, which goes like, "Oh, the poor vampires! They just tryin' to do what's right!" The Ricepires are bad and they know it. They also enjoy it. And it wasn't like Dracula, which goes like, "I don't drink Vine because I am a souless bloodthirsty critter!" The tragedy (and horror) of Interview was that these vampires are SO human.

From my perspective as a Christian, it's kind of a glimpse of what humans really are. I am of the belief that humans are not basically good. Interview With the Vampire is one of the best and most tragic illustrations of a Godless, empty, sinful humanity that I have ever seen on film. Ironic that it was about fictional monsters.

First off, the acting is awesome. I'm a huge Brad Pitt fan, though I'm more a fan of his acting than his looks. He's too jockish for my tastes, but he IS purdy. Louis wasn't my favorite character in the movie, though, even though I did like and empathize with him. But he was more of the straight man of the cast. He's kind of the only sane man in his little vampire family, and is heavily burdened by an active conscience. Unlike a certain sparkly vamp, though, Louis can't control his instincts.

Don't you wish your girlfriend was hot like me?

Tom Cruise as Lestat is either loveably vile or hatefully awesome. Lestat is sexy, ambiguously (or not so ambiguously) flaming, and a magnificent douche. He's a jerk, he manipulates, he intimidates, and he acts very much like an emotionally abusive boyfriend. But he's lonely and bored and doing his darndest to convince himself life is worth living for the rest of eternity. He parties hardy and doesn't let anybody get in the way. And he has little patience for whining. Did I mention he's sexy? I like Tom Cruise as a blond.

All I can say about Kirsten Dunst as Claudia is...Geeze, what happened between Interview and the Spiderman movies? She's both freakish and sympathetic as an eternal little girl. Child actors are usually no fun, but Kirsten holds her own with the two older guys, and does a great job at being a convincing baby vampire. She's just as interesting as Louis or Lestat. Though seriously, Claudia. Growing up is overrated. So are boobs.

A contributing reason for the Spidey remake.

The biggest gripe I have about Interview is that I wish they gave a clearer explanation on how you kill Ricepires. The only sure way that I saw was the sunlight method (saaaaaaad sceeeeene). later in the movie, Louis kills some vamps with fire, but that didn't seem to work too well the first time he tried it(!). And can you really kill them by chopping them up? How much do you have to chop them up? And why do they have to sleep in coffins? The sound was terrible on my copy of the movie, so I may have missed something.

All in all, I think Interview with the Vampire is a new favorite movie of mine. It's scary, it's sad, it's sometimes quite funny, it has some great character developement, and it makes a lasting impression. The ending is quite awesome as well. My sister and I were laughing and "DUUUUDE"-ing as the credits rolled. It's a good movie, if depressing as heck, but it's quite a worthy addition to my stack of macabre films.

Things I learned from Interview with the Vampire
1. Tom Cruise as Lestat is even sexy as a rotting corpse that's been stuck in a swamp for years. Kind of disturbing.
2. Anne Rice is friggin' EVIL to her characters.
3. Kirsten Dunst is a good actress after all.
4. Puss'n Boots is a vampire. I knew it all along.
5. You can kill Ricepires with fire. ...Or can you?!

My Movie Snob rating: ****1/2
My personal rating: ****1/2

Gaw, sorry about the mile-long post, guys.
Z

Take Two and Nosferatu!

Nggh, I figured this would happen. I've tried numerous times to start a blog, but like I said, I think I'm ADD. No, seriously. I just don't want to be diagnosed with more crap, so I don't ask my doctor about it. I can deal with ADD!

Phoo, I probably offended some people, there.

Anyway.

Where have I been? HIDING! The aliens found me, and so I've taken to setting up a bomb shelter and hiding in it so they won't find me again. I don't think they want to probe me or anything, but they keep saying something about "Miley Cyrus," so I figure whatever they want can't be good. But what I really want to talk about is...

a. Hey, I renamed my blog! I figured if I narrowed it down too much, I wouldn't want to do it. So it's not just about fashion anymore, though I'm sure that will come up plenty of times because I'm a fashionaholic. If that's not a word, it is now.

b. Nosferatu! I just watched it last night. Well, I finished it last night anyway. I started it a week ago, but I fell asleep. Not because I thought it was boring, but because for some reason, my lack of sleep caught up with me. What? I sleep four to five hours a night! How could I be tired? *Looks like a panda because of dark circles* I just don't get the importance of this thing called "sleep." Whaaaat.


Nosferatu, a 1922 silent film, was not as creepy as I was hoping, but it was nevertheless quite enjoyable. It featured Max Shreck as a eerie, emaciated, giant-schnozzed, pointy eared vampire known as Count Orlok. The film was obviously based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, but the names were changed to protect the innocent and other liberties were taken with the story.

It's a German movie, so it's loaded with atmosphere and creepy shadowplay. Shreck is also insanely creepy-looking as Orlok. I take my hat off to the guy for being able to function at all under that makeup job. Get a load of this, though if you are a self-respecting vampire fan at all, I'm sure you'll recognize him.

Isn't he cute? I love his hands. I wish I could grow my fingernails out like that. He kind of reminds me of a less-disturbing Anna Varney, her talent and awesome weirdness aside.

Despite the good things about it, there were still some things about this movie that bugged me, or that I didn't find quite as impressive. First off, it's one of those horror movies where the creature moves very, very sloooowwwwly. I wouldn't find this bad in itself, but the protagonists never make a huge effort to get away. They throw their hands up over their forehead in a dramatic fashion and swoon and act terrified, but the vampire just keeps coming.

And coming.

And coming.

Dude, did I just see a turtle run by?

And coming.

OK, to be fair, maybe the monster had a hypnotic gaze or something. That was one of Dracula's original powers, right? But still. That kind of thing in horror movies gets old, but since this is an early horror film, I give it a pass. Maybe back then it was suspenseful.

Second issue: Wow, the protagonists were limp biscuits. I can understand being freaked out by something that looks like Count Orlok, but man, these guys would swoon and pass out over everything! It's common for silent movie characters to over-exagerate, but I got the impression these guys would screech and faint at the sight of my dog, too.

Horrifying. I'm sorry if I made any of you throw up or anything like that. But yeah, the constant swooning and all was actually kind of funny, but didn't help the scariness.

Then there was the last thing that I found annoying, though this time it wasn't the fault of the original movie. The music was bizarre. Being a silent movie, it had a musical score that was added later. I don't know when it was added or who wrote it, but it started out harmless enough. It began as creepy synthesized organ music, sometimes with the use of chimes or glokenshpiel (orhoweveryouspellthat) that were used to good effect. Unfortunately, most of the time it just sounded like some hipster got ahold of a keyboard and thought he was doing something really progressive and original. Which usually translates to a lot of irritating noise. Sometimes it really ruined the mood. If they'd kept it low-key, it would have been quite nice. I kept fantasizing about what it would sound like with a bunch of Blutengel songs added in instead. Then again, maybe not.

Goth music is never silly. Nuh-uh. Nope. (I LOVE BLUTENGEL!!!)
All in all, I think Bela Lugosi made the creepier Dracula, but if you're a fan of vampires or old horror flicks, check out Nosferatu sometime. It's a lot of fun and though it can be slow sometimes, it's a fascinating glimpse into another time. Max Shreck makes a great vampire, and gloomy German silent movies always make an interesting watch.

Thanks for reading, my lovelies!
Z