Byzantium (2012)

Title: Byzantium (2012)

Director: Neil Jordan

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Gemma Arterton, Sam Riley

One of Neil Jordan’s most recognized films is Interview with a Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) which to me is not only one of his best films, but also one of the best vampire movies ever made. I personally hold it in my top five because it’s very theatrical, gothic and even epic, the Gone with the Wind of vampire movies. What I enjoyed the most about that film is how it focused on the “eternity” of the vampire and how they deal with it. Decades of existence pass through them, yet how does that affect a vampire? Do they get on each other’s nerves? Do they grow weary of each other? What do you do when you get bored with eternity? What do you do when people start to notice that you don’t age or get sick or die? What do you do when you stay stuck in the same age all your life? Above all this, Interview with a Vampire also delivered on the gore, the blood and fantastic effects. It has all the elements that a good vampire movie should have. On top of this, it presented us with the idea of sympathizing with its creatures, these vampires aren’t completely evil; instead some of them are battling with their vampire nature, they are just trying to make sense of their crazy existence. So of course I was thrilled when I learned that Neil Jordan would be tackling the vampire genre once again with Byzantium.  Was it any good?  

Byzantium focuses on two female vampires; a mother and a daughter team who go by the name of Clara and Eleanor. Clara, the mother, makes her money by double timing it as a prostitute and as an exotic dancer while Eleanor, the daughter, does nothing but mope around, writing poetry which she throws away just as soon as she writes. Young Eleanor is confounded by the fact that she can’t tell anyone that she’s a vampire. She feeds on old people who are on the brink of death, or people who are on their death bed. So anyhow, one thing leads to another and mother and daughter end up on the streets, without a place to live in, so Clara in a desperate move hooks up with a guy who has inherited a hotel called ‘Byzantium’. Can mother and daughter live here for a while? Can they settle with this guy? At the same time, Clara and Eleanor are on the run from a group of vampires who call themselves ‘The Pointed Nails of Justice’. They are a brotherhood of vampires who think that Eleanor and Clara are an abomination and should be eliminated. You see this brotherhood, emphasis on the word ‘brother’, have a rule: no sisters allowed. Will they ever catch Eleanor and Clara?

Byzantium is a movie that touches upon themes of feminism. Its main characters are two females, a mother and a daughter, so it is very much about what women and what they endure in a society dominated by men. These are two girls surviving in a world that condemns them for being women. The secret brotherhood of vampires wants them eliminated because women aren’t allowed to be vampires, so right there we’re talking about a society that looks down on women, an ailment that sadly still plagues our modern society. It’s something I personally despise in general, women should be treated as equals, when they are treated as less, well, it’s just another form of bigotry and bigotry and I just don’t get along. I like stories like this one, about women rebelling against the prevailing chauvinism in society. On the other side of the coin this is also a story about a mother who’s having a hard time coping with the fact that her daughter is all grown up and ready to fall in love and take the world on her own. Clara fights with Eleanor because Eleanor falls for a human, same as a real mother would fight with her young daughter for falling in love with a young man. There’s always that difficulty parents go through with letting go when their children grow up, this movie addresses these issues.    

One good thing the film doesn’t do is forget that it’s primarily a vampire film, and a horror film. This is something that Neil Jordan himself mentions in the audio commentary; he wanted to augment the horror elements in the film, which is why the film starts out in a pretty gory fashion; with Clara decapitating some dude with a piano string. Another gory detail, the vampires in this film don’t have fangs; instead they have a nail that grows whenever they need to puncture someone’s jugular to feed. So gore hounds won’t be entirely disappointed. These vampires might be sultry and poetic, but they sure as hell don’t hesitate to slit someone’s throat. It’s interesting to note that this movie can have elements of teenage love, yet doesn’t lose its horror edge.  So in that sense it’s similar to Interview with a Vampire because it weaves visual poetry and a classy aesthetic with gory violence. And speaking of visual poetry, well, this one is filled with beautiful compositions and color. The whole color palette of the film mixes intense colors, with cold blues, it’s an interesting mix. The whole film takes place in this sleepy, rainy coastal town, it makes for creepy, deeply atmospheric visuals.

So yes, I enjoyed Byzantium a lot because it’s a mixed bag of classy aesthetic, sultry visuals an atmospheric setting with just the right amount of gore and blood. It’s a film that plays with very real themes, amongst them feminism and mother-daughter relations. Also, it asks important questions like: do we always have to be like our parents? Even when they don’t realize what unreliable parents they are? Even when they themselves don’t realize what bad examples they are setting? Do we have the right to simply reject them and walk away? Is blood thicker than water? Do differences between parents and siblings have to sever ties completely? Or does love prevail in the end? These are heavy questions that Byzantium both asks and answers. Though nowhere as perfect or complex as Interview with a Vampire was, Byzantium is still a solid vampire film from a seasoned director like Neil Jordan who’s no stranger to horror films, we can’t forget he’s the director behind In the Company of Wolves (1984), a fantasy tinged retelling of little red riding hood; with the horror elements amped up. Highly recommend that one if you haven’t had the chance of checking it out, it’s an interesting mix of horror, surrealism and fantasy. Byzantium shows a thing or two to modern filmmakers. Mainly that a vampire film can be about teenage vampires falling in love…without losing its edge. 

Rating: 4 out of 5

Dracula Untold (2014)

Dracula Untold (2014)

Director: Gary Shore

Cast: Luke Evans, Sarah Gadon, Charles Dance, Dominic Cooper, Art Parkinson

Of course I gave this one a chance, it’s Dracula and I love Dracula movies. True, Dracula movies can be a bit repetitive, because filmmakers always decide to retell the story, so it’s always some sort of variation on Bram Stokers novel, but I love to see these different takes on the story. I enjoy seeing how different creative teams give their own twist to the story, tell it in their own way. Unfortunately, I’d never heard of the guys behind this particular film. Gary Shore, the director, had never made a full length feature film before this one, yet here he is directing this big budget version of Dracula. That of course, immediately raised a red flag for me, because while I’m all for upcoming new directors making films, I prefer it when they've proven themselves via some independent film they've made before tackling a 70 million dollar film like this one. When a new director pops out of the blue like that, well, I don’t know what to expect, but as always, I have no problems in giving them the benefit of the doubt. Well, at least the director behind this film shows his influenced by the right movie; one or two visual references are made to Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). Same goes for the writers who’d never written a film before this one. So that’s a couple of red flags right there. But the trailer made it look like it had one or two new ideas squeezed in there worth watching. So I gave it a shot. Plus, it was Dracula.

And it’s not just me that has a thing for Dracula films. Like James Bond or Godzilla, Dracula is an icon, a household name that brings the masses to the theater. I mean, it had been a while since I’d seen a line form at my local theater. It’s only household names like Star Wars and Indiana Jones that do this. And so, there I was, making this huge ass line to go see this new version of Dracula, hoping it wouldn't disappoint me. Did it? Well, sorry to say my dear readers that it did disappoint me. Why you may ask? Well, for starters, to me Dracula is something special, a story meant to be treated with care by filmmakers. It’s an ancient tale that has been passed on from generation to generation. Like the titular character in Bram Stokers novel, Dracula movies never seem to die. So of course I hate it when studios don’t treat the story with the proper care. And it sucks even more that Universal Studios has done this because they are the ones known for their famous ‘Universal Monsters’ movies. I speak of course of the classics like Dracula (1931), The Wolf Man (1941), The Mummy (1959) and so forth. If there’s a studio that should have been concerned with making a proper Dracula movie, it was this one. Unfortunately, they've changed Dracula to fit the current common Hollywood practice of softening up horror films. Ugh. I hate this new trend in Hollywood. Why does it anger me so? Well, for starters, we’re talking about one of the famous ‘Universal Monsters’ here; key work being ‘monster’. And here’s the first thing I hated about this movie, this is a monster movie without a monster, not only visually, but also as a character.

I mean, I always saw monsters movies, and this is the way monster movies where for the longest time; as a way to showcase some awesome artistry in terms of makeup effects. Sadly, make up effects works seems to have disappeared from filmmaking. Remember those golden days, when the awesome make up effects work of Stan Winston, Rob Bottin and Rick Baker reigned supreme in cinemas?  Those days yielded such awesome creations as  the ones seen in films like Aliens (1979), The Thing (1982), Predator (1987), Jurassic Park (1993), The Terminator (1984), Legend (1986), Harry and the Hendersons (1987)….I mean, these were films in which make up effects work really shined. And monster films meant make up effects, once upon a time. I always looked forward to seeing how make up effects artist would try to wow me with their work. Sadly that’s all been replaced by CGI…and sadly, it does not have the same effect. It does not feel tangible…or real, not like the monsters we’d see in for example Coppola’s Dracula (1992) now there’s a film that displayed some amazing make up effects work! That was a monster movie! That was a sensual yet monstrous Dracula! While Dracula Untold throws a few homage’s down Coppola’s way, it clearly doesn’t even come close to being as awesome as Coppola’s film. It needed that extra oomph, that extra emotion, that intensity that Coppola’s film had. It seems that Hollywood simply doesn't want to give us truly monstrous creatures, but more on this softening of the horror movie later. 

The thing about Dracula is that the story is a passionate love story; Dracula is always sexual, passionate. He loves Mina, but he is also a monster. Dracula has always been a character with a dual personality, one that displays incredible amounts of passion and love, but one that also displays a horrifying, monstrous side; his vampire side, the side that feeds on human blood. So of course I was let down when I discovered in horror that in this version of Dracula, he has been turned into a family man, complete with scenes of him being all lovable and father like, which was something that was never part of the Dracula story. So that was step 2 of softening up Dracula, making him a dad. See a pattern here? First he isn’t monstrous or demonic or even evil looking, and second they turn him into a dad. Third he wants to save his people. Fourth? The screenwriters found a way to make him actually not want to drink blood for most of the movie! So here we can see how they’ve turned Dracula from anti-hero to outright hero, period. This goes completely against what Dracula is all about. Dracula is supposed to be the bad guy, the one that scares you and gives you the willies. Not the savior of his people, not the loving father. And certainly NOT the guy who goes to church to pray to god for help! For Christ sake, Dracula sells his soul to the devil, how can you have a scene of him going to church to pray to god for guidance, when he is a vampire, and vampires have an aversion to crosses and all things religious?

What the hell Hollywood? So my question is this, why is Hollywood so hell bent on softening up horror movies and icons? Suddenly vampires sparkle in the daytime, zombies are falling in love and turning human and Frankenstein isn’t even monstrous looking? Of course I talk of Twilight (2008), Warm Bodies (2013) and I Frankenstein (2014), and I’m sure there’s a couple more I’m leaving out. Nowadays if a movie is ultra gory it is sent straight to dvd. I mean, had this been the eighties, all those gory Hatchet (2006) movies would have been theatrically released, but not in these ultra conservative days. Today, the only horror movies that are making it to the silver screen are those that propagate superstitious, supernatural, Christian based fears. I speak of course of films like The Conjuring (2013), Insidious (2010), Anabelle (2014), Quija (2014), Paranormal Activity (20017) and the sort. If it’s a horror film that will get people believing demons are real, then it’s okay. But a purely evil horrifying monster that has nothing to do with Christian fears, nope, those are not being made anymore. Think about it, when was the last time you saw a slasher in movie theaters? I rest my case. Even excellent slasher films like Maniac (2012) get the theatrical shaft. And hey, I’m all for a good ghost/demon movie, but damn it, when that’s all that’s being made, you kind of feel like they’re pushing these concepts upon you. Cause, I see these ghost/demon movies as fun horror movies, but I can assure you there’s a myriad other people who think things like the ones depicted in these kind of horror films can happen to them for real and these movies only serve to augment those fears.

Films are a powerful means of spreading ideas out into the world, sure they are a great form of entertainment, but they also function as a way of spreading ideas quickly and effectively and currently, Hollywood wants the masses to stay Christian. Which is why we get Dracula praying to God on this movie, it's why he's displayed as the hero, as the goody little two shoes. This is why we get Superman going to church to ask a priest for counseling in Man of Steel (2013), this is why we’re getting Christian horror movies like The Remaining (2014) and this is why we’re getting this avalanche of Christian films like Left Behind (2014) (shame on you Nicholas Cage!) God is Not Dead (2013) and Heaven is for Real (2014). I mean, even the titles behind these films say it all. Even big time directors are bowing down to this Christian craze, I’m talking about guys like Darren Aronofsky and his Noah (2014) and Ridley Scott with Exodus: God’s and Kings (2014). I’ll go see these movies because I see them as fairy tales, but come on, what the hell is going on in Hollywood? Is there some sort of hidden agenda from somewhere high on up to spread Christian beliefs and to soften up both action and horror movies? Cause if there is, it sucks! For years now it has been going on and now it’s hit its pinnacle with Dracula Untold. Not gonna say this movie is not without its cool moments and visuals, but I will say that this Dracula isn't scary; we've lost the horror movie, the horror movie where that main character is the one that gives you the hibbie jibbies, where that main monster scares your pants off. Where is it? I miss it. I miss the good old days when horror movies where actually scary.  

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 5

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Only Lovers Left Alive (2013)

Director: Jim Jarmusch  

Cast: Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, Anton Yelchin, Mia Wasikowska, John Hurt

Jim Jarmusch is not the kind of filmmaker that will appeal to everyone because his films are deliberately slow paced, which if you’re in the right mood could be just what the doctor ordered. In my case, Only Lovers Left Alive was exactly the kind of movie I was looking for. You see, this film is populated with mellow characters in no rush to blow anything up or save the universe. Quite the contrary, these guys are basking in their mellowness, and I dug that. It’s a change of pace. Sometimes, modern films seem to be in some sort of rush, like a child who suffers from ADD, always in search for the next big rush. Yes my friends, there’s no denying that today’s audiences are junkies of the rush. But here’s Jim Jarmusch wanting to teach us once again that slowing things down can actually be a cool thing, let’s get retrospective, let’s think about things, let's analyze. 

Only Lovers Left Alive is the story of Adam and Eve, two vampires who are extremely cultured and ancient, they know a lot about everything, their clothes are hundreds of years old. Eve has hundreds of ancient books and is an expert in literature and speed reads everything while Adam is an expert musician who wants to remain anonymous, hiding away from fame. These two vampires are married, but have been living so long that they don’t need to live together. Adam lives his rock and roll life style in Detroit Michigan while Eve lives in Tangiers, Morocco. Their lives are reunited when Adam reveals to Eve that he’s depressed with humanity. She detects his depression, so she flies to him, both reuniting in Detroit. Can these two vampires survive in our modern decaying society?

What I liked about this movie is how Jarmusch uses the vampires eternity to criticize humanity. You see these vampires have seen so many facets of humanity that they can comment, with an all encompassing point of view about where we are now as a race.  They've seen us go through the inquisitions, through hitler, through everything, they've seen Galileo and Tesla suffer for their knowledge, they know just how much cruelty we are capable of, because they've seen it. In a way, so have we because we can read a history book, we can all look back at humanities mistakes and learn from them and evolve, but it seems we are inclined more towards repeating our mistakes then growing above them. I love how both vampires simply drive around Detroit during the night, they see all these abandoned buildings and factories and say “it’s like everybody left”. I gots to tell you my dear readers, I sometimes feel the same way about my own city. So many businesses closed down, so many abandoned buildings, you can see the urban decay taking over. The city is rotting away. It’s life, sucked away. So of course, I connected with these vampires, driving around a decaying city in ruins. Reminiscing about where it all went and if its ever gonna come back.

These vampires are pretty cool, they are so cultured, they remind me of how I wish I could spend eternity, reading books and listening to cool music, just chilling the hell out, when these guys drink their blood, it’s not unlike smoking a dooby or drinking your favorite poison. How cool are these vampires? Well, they hang out with William Shakespeare, who by the way is also a vampire! Ha, awesome. They eat blood popsicles and hang out in rock and roll bars. They wear glasses at night. The only thing is that the state of humanity brings them down. Adam can’t believe how humanity has managed to not only poison their water supply but their own blood as well. He wonders if humanity is still fighting about oil and when the water wars will begin. These guys philosophize about everything, I dug it. Swinton and Hiddleston have great chemistry together, they sold me the part of these two vampires in love throughout the ages. But overall, the cast is awesome, including John Hurt playing an aging vampire Shakespeare.

Jarmusch filmed on location in some awesome looking places, for example, he actually shot in Detroit, a city that is actually in decay. Huge buildings that use to be factories now look like ghosts, haunting a dying city, Jarmusch captured it all beautifully, made all the more dark and brooding because most of the film takes place late at night, when the vampires hang out. Morocco adds a completely different type of background, with beautiful vistas of a completely different type of society. They go to Morocco escaping the masses, escaping humanity whom they appropriately call “zombies”. Watching this film you kind of get the idea that humanity is in the brink of some huge cataclysmic change, like the world will soon turn, like that famous worm that turns when provoked enough. That idea that the world is somehow pushing us to return to an animalistic state of being, like the out of control world we live in is calling out our animal instincts, and pretty soon we won’t be able to hold back. Jarmusch’s Only Lovers Left Alive is thought provoking, romantic and sexy. In a lot of ways, Only Lovers Left Alive reminded me of this offbeat, obscure vampire film called Blood & Donuts (1995), because of this weird mood that it elicits, this weird aura that only comes from films that take place during the wee hours of the night, the small hours when the creatures of the night emerge. I recommend this film if you want to see something sultry, a film that slows things down to the pace of blood ebbing down a vampires throat.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Argento's Dracula 3-D (2012)

Title: Dario Argento’s Dracula 3-D (2012)

Director: Dario Argento

Cast: Rutger Hauer, Asia Argento, Thomas Kretschmann, Marta Gastini, Unax Agalde, Giovanni Franzoni

There’s this idea amongst film buffs that directors tend to make worse films the older they get; and I think it's true, with very few exceptions, as directors get older, they lose that magic that made their first films great. Case in point: Dario Argento who had his golden age back in the 70’s and 80’s when he made films like Suspiria (1977), Deep Red (1975) and Opera (1987). I remember those movies being awesome because of their atmosphere, the over the top violence and those special camera angles that Argento was so fond of. But somewhere around the late 80’s and early 90’s Argento was showing signs of fatigue, his films just weren’t the same. I guess when I started to notice something was off with Argento was around the time he made his version of Phantom of the Opera (1998) which was just a goofy, goofy film. Trying to be all serious and romantic, yet failing horribly at it. After that one, he’s never really ever given us anything as remotely good as his early stuff. Seeing Argento’s Dracula cements the idea that Argento is totally done for as a director. Sadly.

I get what Argento was trying to do with his take on Stoker’s Dracula; simply put Argento was going for a tribute to Hammer’s Dracula films, you know the ones that starred Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Specifically, Argento’s Dracula plays out a lot like Terrence Fisher’s Horror of Dracula (1958), the very first Hammer Dracula film, it even uses that idea that Terrence Fisher used in Horror of Dracula were Jonathan Harker travels to Dracula’s castle to function as a librarian. The film feels like it’s trying to be purposely old school, right down to this silly sounding Halloween soundtrack that it has. The film looks and feels pretty much like a Hammer film, the difference lies in the graphic gore which was something that Hammer films never dabbled too deeply into. I mean, Hammer films had their blood, but they were never too graphic, not like Argento’s Dracula which goes over the top at some points. That’s right my friends, on this one Argento amps up the levels of gore, which is always fun in my book. There’s this moment where Dracula goes nuts and starts slicing off heads like there’s no tomorrow, I have to admit, those were some cool scenes. But gore alone does not make a good horror film; we gotta have other things thrown in there, like for example some common sense, which Argento has always loved to throw out the window. Did you ever think you’d end up seeing Dracula transform into a giant Praying Mantis? No? Well, after you see Argento’s Dracula you can scratch that one off your bucket list!

So this film has enough gore and nonsensical elements to get the fan boys talking on the net, what else do we need to make this one stand out? Oh yeah, how about some good old fashion nudity? Well, there’s tons of it as well. I mean, five minutes into the film two young lovers are making out in a barn and there’s flesh everywhere! If you ever wanted to get a good look at Asia Argento’s nakedness, this is your chance! Don’t worry about it, her dad is okay with it, he’s the film’s director! So yeah, this one has all the shocking elements necessary to get fan boys attention. Problem is that along with all these ‘goodies’ we get some really terrible elements to this film, which sadly brings it really down or makes it cheesier, which some folks don’t mind. For example, the computer animation is just freaking terrible. God! How can a director like Argento look at this footage and say “were good to go”? I mean, the digital stunt doubles on this one? So laughable! But then again, even the real actors are terrible! There’s this actress that plays Mina Harker (Marta Gastini), she has these scenes where Dracula and her are all emotional about their love for one another and all that…you should see that scene, it’s the most shameless rip off! She’s imitating Wynona Ryder in Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)! She uses the same facial gestures, the same everything, her performance was Xeroxed, it made me want to puke because it was such a shameless copy/paste! Asia Argento herself turns in a terrible performance, but she was never much of an actress if you ask me. Not even Rutger Hauer can save this one, sorry.

Overall, even though this movie isn’t what I’d call a good Argento film, I’d say that it retains a certain cheesy watchability to it which reminded me of another one of Argento’s goofy yet enjoyable films: The Phantom of the Opera (1998). Argento’s Dracula is a train wreck of a film, but it’s a fun train wreck. It has all the things you’d expect in a Dracula film, the full moon, the spooky woods, the mist, the castles, the big breasted vampire ladies, crosses, stakes, coffins and lots of blood! It really is trying to be an old fashioned horror movie, and I have to give it props for that. It’s kind of like a modern day Hammer film, but cheesy to the max, with bad dialog and acting, and Argento’s unique brand of weirdness. For example, Argento’s obsession with insects returns! I’ve already mentioned the giant Praying Mantis, but he also plays with some images he’d played with before in Phenomena (1985), namely, a horde of insects swarming outside of a house. Yup, on this one Dracula can also turn into a bunch of flies! In many ways, this is a fun movie, because hearing this dialog is a trip, but also because it’s trying so hard to be spooky and old school that it’s kind of endearing in that way. I’d say this one would make a fun watch come Halloween night, but that’s all its good for because no matter how hard it might try, Dracula 3-D won’t be reminding you of Argento’s glory days; those days are long, long gone.

Rating: 2 out of 5 

Vampyres (1974)

Title: Vampyres (1974)

Director: Jose Ramon Larraz

Cast: Marianne Morris, Anulka, Dziubinska

I’ve been catching up with the whole Lesbian Vampire sub-genre and it’s been a trip. Weirdest thing about these movies is that most of them are very well made and beautiful to look at, also, most of the time they lean more towards being artful and beautiful to look at. Vampiros Lesbos (1971) and The Living Dead Girl (1982) surprised me in that way, as did Daughters ofDarkness (1971), which I like to call 'the classy one'. Vampyres always gets mentioned as an important part of the sub genre, so I decided to finally give it a spin. Up to this point, I’d seen nothing but good lesbian vampire movies, this I’m sad to inform was the first of the bunch to disappoint me. Why? Well, my disappointment lies in the film being so simple minded, I mean, there’s no meat to this film. The story starts with these two lesbian chicks making out in bed and suddenly this mysterious dude comes in and shoots them. Talk about coitus interruptus! So anyways, after that they become vampires. Their modus operandi in order to feed is to use their female powers on men who pass by their castle. Then they ask for a ride and wham, guys fall in the trap like flies on a spider web.

I don’t mind simplicity in a film if said film compensates with something else, like for example style, or action. Gore will do the trick as well. Maybe even funny elements? The only thing this film has to offer is nudity, and tons of it. These vampire girls are naked practically throughout the whole film, in fact, the film starts with the girls naked in bed! I don’t complaint when there are beautiful women up on the screen, but when that’s all the film has to offer, and everything else falls flat, then the film feels like a poor excuse for a porn film. It feels empty. I mean, this literally feels like soft porn. I didn’t get this empty feeling with films like The Vampire Lovers (1970) or even Vampiros Lesbos (1971). In those films, the nudity is tantalizing and yeah, why not, gratuitous, but at the same time, the nudity wasn’t these films main focus, the nudity is like an extra. Plus, there was always the beautiful cinematography, the locations, the atmosphere, the gore! Vampyres lacks a lot in all these places, all it has going for it are the naked girls, everything else is simply put: boring as hell.

The films plot reminded me a bit of Clive Barker’s Hellraiser (1987) because it is a film about women using their sensuality to reel in their victims, unfortunately, Vampyres has none of the shock value seen in Hellraiser. The film did have a couple of chances to be shocking, but it completely wasted them to completely bore us to death. For example there’s this scene in which the girls feed on this guy, and we see blood all over the place, but where are the wounds? The blood seems simply put on the actors before filming the scenes, it wasn’t gushing out of any wound. And speaking of wounds, there is this one scene that kind of got my attention in which one of the vampire girls slits this dudes wrist and starts sucking on the open wound, it was a pretty nasty sequence, which by the way just went on and on and on. I have to admit it had me cringing, but unfortunately that’s as far as this movie went in terms of getting a reaction from me. The other thing I did enjoy where some of the shots of the castle during the night, these scenes where truly eerie, made even cooler because this is the same castle in which The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) was shot in! I thought I recognized that castle!

Now if you’re the kind of person who is satisfied with a film that focuses entirely on nudity and sex, then by all means indulge! These actresses are beautiful and well, they do go down on each other on more than one occasion. Speaking of the sex scenes on this movie, they are feral, almost animal like. The girls are vampires so that’s to be expected I guess, but one dude is like all beastly when he has sex with one of the vampire vixens. So anyhow, I wasn’t impressed at all with this one, I’d recommend it to hardcore fans of vampire films, but even then you might be disappointed because there are no fangs, no gore and none of the traditional things you’d expect to see in a vampire film. You almost feel like these girls are simply weird girls who like to drink blood. Vampyres was my first real disappointment in the lesbian vampire sub genre, I recommend seeing other films in this genre before wasting your time with this one.

Rating:  2 out of 5 

        

Blood for Dracula (1974)

Title: Blood for Dracula (1974)

Director: Paul Morrissey

Cast: Udo Kier, Joe Dallesandro, Vittorio De Sica

During the 60’s and 70’s Andy Warhol was one of the biggest names in pop art, he was a rock start of the art scene. Warhol was a creative tour de force, one of the many offshoots of his art was film, he directed over 60 films and some 500 black and white short films. Some of the more amusing ones I can mention are Vinyl (1965), which was an early adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange, and Batman Dracula (1964), a short film Warhol did without the permission of DC Comics which paid tribute to the famous comic book characters! I bet you didn’t know Warhol had done that! Warhol’s films were sexually charged, including graphic sexual acts, drug use, transgender characters, homosexuality; basically, the dude didn’t care for conservative views. He wanted to shake things up! Some of the films were really trippy and experimental stuff like for example his first film was called Sleep (1963), it consisted of six hours of a poet named John Giorno,  sleeping. He also made another film called Blow Job (1964) which consisted of 35 minutes focused on the face of someone receiving oral sex. So anyhow, sometimes he’d show these movies to the world in art exhibits, porn theaters or nightclubs because regular theaters wouldn’t dare show them. Since his films were considered “socially unacceptable” or offensive, well, theaters would get raided, and cast members even arrested!

A pic from Andy Warhol's Batman Dracula

This was a crazy period in Warhol’s life, Warhol and his pals would get together in a studio of his called ‘The Factory’ where they would have orgies, take all sorts of drugs and make films and art together. That all ended on June 3, 1968 when a lady named Valerie Solana attempted to murder Warhol by shooting him in his own studio. After that life changing event, Warhol became more reclusive and entrepreneurial, one of his many business ventures included producing commercial films, two of these Warhol produced films ended up being horror films: Flesh for Frankenstein (1973) and the film I’ll be talking about today, Blood for Dracula, also known as Young Dracula. Warhol had nothing to do with the creative side of these films, he only produced them, Paul Morrissey was the guy who directed them. Blood for Dracula is all about Dracula taking a trip to Italy in order to find a virgin he can marry. In a nutshell, Dracula needs to drink the blood of a virgin or he will die! So Count Dracula takes a trip to Italy, because according to Anton, Italians are very religious people and are more inclined to have virgins in their families! Dracula tells his servant: “If you really were clever, Anton, you would bring me a Virgin from Italy and I wouldn’t have to go!” Not a bad idea Dracula, but then we wouldn’t have a movie now would we?

I found Blood for Dracula entertaining for various reasons, number one being that it felt like a Jean Rollin film because it mixes beautiful vistas and locations with nudity and gore. This is something I love about a lot of these low budget vampire films from the 70’s they always shot in beautiful locations and real castles. In the case of Blood for Dracula, director Paul Morrissey decided to shoot in Italy. Since it was Andy Warhol, an artist, who served as producer, the filmmakers were given the freedom to go totally nuts and film whatever the hell they wanted, which was probably the reason Blood for Dracula was given an ‘X’ rating. It was cut down and edited a few times when it was first shown in theaters, but thank the film gods we can now see the complete version of the film in all its sexually charged, blood soaked glory. I recommend the Criterion edition of this film, and the version released by Image films, because they are the most complete versions you can get out there, this way you’ll get all the gory goodness you’re supposed to get with this film.

Now, what makes Blood for Dracula a keeper? Well for starters it’s got this over the top performance from Udo Kier! Both Flesh for Frankenstein (1973) and Blood for Dracula were career defining films for Kier and now I can finally see why, this Dracula looks kind of weak and flimsy, he doesn’t seem to pose much of a threat, yet slowly but surely he finds his way into these girls beds. A huge part of what makes this film entertaining is Kier, he is unintentionally funny. When he doesn’t get his blood fix, he goes into these hilarious fits, where his whole body shakes, you gotta see it to believe it. When he drinks blood from a non-virgin, well, he starts to vomit all the blood he just drank, and well, Kier plays it extremely over the top, it also makes for a cool visual. So yeah, this version of Dracula is kind of funny. You haven’t lived until you hear Udo Kier screaming at the top of his lungs: “The blood of these whores is killing me!” Funnier still is watching Dracula discuss social issues with a communist/farm boy. This film reminded me a bit of Jean Rollin’s The Living Dead Girl (1982) because it saved the best of its gory goodness for the last ten minutes, the gore is pretty impressive. But then again, Udo Kier was no stranger to gore and violence, one of the very first roles to put him on the map was an extremely violent film called Mark of the Devil (1970), that one was so gory they offered you barf bags at the door in case you suddenly wanted to vomit mid picture!

Like a Jean Rollin film, Blood for Dracula has excessive amounts of nudity and erotic scenes. The nudity is gratuitous, but since this film was produced by Andy Warhol an artist known for graphic nudity in his own films, it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Blood for Dracula has lot nudity in it, in fact, I’m sure it was expected from film goers and used as a selling point by the studio. So what we got here is a sexy, erotic version of Dracula, which makes perfect sense; eroticism has always been an element that permeates any good Dracula film. Dracula has always served as an allegory for male sexuality. He is often times played as this incredibly strong sexual presence that will melt the ladies away. With its overt sexuality and communist political views, Blood for Dracula was a film that was fighting the status quo of things, a film tailor made for members of the counter culture. Mario, the strapping young servant of the house, is one of the characters used to push communist political views, he is disgusted by rich people and pretty much does whatever he wants even though he is a servant of the house. He has sex with all the ladies in the film (sometimes two at a time), thinks that rich people are trash and that socialism is the future! Again, the dialog is hilarious, in one scene Mario is having a conversation in which one of the girls tells him that Dracula’s interested in marrying a virgin and then he asks “So what’s he doing with you two whores?” I just couldn’t help laughing at some of the bits of dialog and situations. I guess we could say this is an unintentionally funny version of Dracula, but a lot of it has to do with Udo Kier and his performance, which is very entertaining, he’s like this bitchy whiny version Dracula.  

I see these Paul Morrissey/Andy Warhol horror films as a response to the success that the Hammer horror films were enjoying back in those days. Warhol simply saw a way of making some money. I gotta say the results were pretty entertaining and highly watchable! I have no idea if these films were successful or not, my guess is they weren’t because we didn’t see more of them, but I would’ve loved to see Andy Warhol’s take on other monsters. Imagine Warhol’s take on The Wolfman? With Kier as the Wolfman and Joe Dellesandro as Ben Talbot? Or Kier as The Mummy? Kier and Dellesandro could have easily been to Warhol’s films what Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee were to Hammer Films, but alas, we only have the two horror films they produced, which is good enough for me, these films are a fun watch and bonafide cult classics, highly recommended for a night of sexy silliness, Paul Morrissey style!  

Rating: 4 out of 5

Nadja (1994)

Title: Nadja (1994)

Director: Michael Almereyda

Cast: Peter Fonda, Galaxy Craze, Jared Harris, Elina Lowensohn

Vampires by way of David Lynch? Sign me up! So you get David Lynch to not only produce your vampire movie but to cameo in it as well? You lucky bastards you! So anyhow, here we have an art house vampire flick; which is not the rarity you might think it is. True, there are many crappy vampire films being produced every day (way too many if you ask me) but you’d be surprised at just how many ‘art-house’ vampire flicks are out there as well.  I remember  a few of them, let see, there’s Blood for Dracula (1974), made artful simply by the fact that it was directed by Andy Warhol himself, then we have Tony Scott’s The Hunger (1983), Blood and Donuts (1995), Romero’s Martin (1976), Del Toro’s Cronos (1993) to mention just a few of the most prominent examples. These are vampire films that don’t concentrate so much on the gore and guts; rather, they focus on presenting us with a more artful and original takes on the vampire genre.

Nadja does the same thing that a lot of contemporary vampire movies do, they play out their story in a modern setting, but it essentially plays with all the characters and situations presented on Bram Stoker’s famous novel. So on Nadja we have a Dracula, a Dr. Van Helsing, a Lucy, a Reinfeld and so on. But don’t mistake Nadja for just another retelling of Bram Stoker’s novel, instead, the film plays like a day in the life of the Dracula family. You see, according to this film, Dracula had many children over the centuries, and now they roam the earth, feeding on humans. Nadja is the daughter of Dracula, and when we first meet her, she is on her way to meet her brother, to let him know that their father has truly died. Along the way, Nadja falls for and seduces a blond girl by the name of ‘Lucy’ and after their lustful encounter, Lucy can’t forget her. Will Lucy turn into a full vampire? Or can Van Helsing and his nephew save her from the clutches of the vampire family?

So first things first, Nadja is not only artsy fartsy, it is extremely artsy-fartsy! Starting by the fact that the film is in black and white, which by the way I found very pleasing to the eye. I am not a black and white hater, in fact, for certain projects I say it fits perfectly, for example in Robert Rodriguez’s Sin City (2005) the black and white augments the sense of film noir and the feeling of reading one of Frank Miller’s black and white comic books. The black and white goes with Nadja because the filmmakers obviously display a certain admiration for old school horror movies like White Zombie (1932) and Dracula (1931), going as far as actually using some scenes from White Zombie as part of the film; which brings to mind how Nadja turned out to be a straight forward vampire film, I was expecting even more subtlety with the vampire themes, but nope, it’s pretty straight forward. It might as well have been called Daughter of Dracula or something! In Nadja we meet Dracula’s daughter and she’s this slick lady who loves to smoke her cigarettes by the pale moon light walking around the city looking all sorts of mysterious and sexy. The black and white also gives Nadja the feel of an experimental film, which in many ways it is.

The blurry effect

For example, the director decided to use a blurry vision effect to demonstrate how it would feel to be under the power of a vampire. During these scenes, the image of the films looks as if it’s being filtered through some sort of really low definition camera that’s out of focus as well, so we see these blurry images. I say this effect works within the context of what the director is trying to achieve, but I also think he over used it; for example there were various scenes in which I was digging the crisp black and white imagery and suddenly the director would switch back to the blurry vision thing, to me it got in the way of enjoying the black and white cinematography which was beautiful; though I will admit the blurry effect also adds to the strangeness of the film. Nadja certainly exudes a strange vibe, that feeling of being somewhere in the middle of the city during the deep hours of the night, when the freaks come out. So just be ready for a film that takes many risks by trying different visual techniques like these.  

Like many vampires who have walked for eons upon the earth, the vampires in Nadja like to philosophize about life and muse about the way things are, it’s one of the things I liked about the film. Something might be happening and suddenly one of the vampires starts philosophizing, handing out golden nuggets of wisdom. They say things like “The pain I feel is the pain of fleeting joy” referring to her passing relationships. And speaking of relationships, this is yet another lesbian vampire film to add to the list. Nadja likes the ladies and falls for one of her victims, just like in VampyrosLesbos (1971), Daughters of Darkness (1971) and Vampire Lovers (1970). In fact, at times Nadja felt like a remake of Vampyros Lesbos with regards to the character of Lucy and the relationship that develops between her and Nadja. They meet in a bar, hit it off and end up having a crazy night together that ends in seduction. The day after, Lucy can’t think of anything else but being with Nadja! Same thing happens with the two romantically entangled lady vampires in Vampyros Lesbos. But this shouldn’t surprise anyone, vampires have always been the embodiment of seduction.  

The actress who plays Nadja, Elina Lowensohn is so beautiful and exotic looking, I add her to that roster of actresses who’s look is so otherworldly that they light the screen on fire whenever they appear. Elina Lowensohn’s performance as Nadja brought to mind the equally seductive performances of actresses like Nastassja Kinski in Cat People (1982) or Anne Parillaud in Innoncent Blood (1992), you know sexy, dangerous, exotic looking female fatales. Bottom line with Nadja is that it’s a very somber film, with lots of serious vampires smoking cigarettes and musing about life. At its core is a story centered on family “as you get older you begin to realize that family is the only thing that matters” and relationships but told through the filter of the whole Dracula mythology. During the film we follow Dracula’s siblings and discover they’ve been feuding for years; can they deal with each other after years of avoidance, especially now that their father's death has brought them together? At the same time, you’ll find some comedy squeezed in between all the seriousness; but it’s very subtle, never in your face. Peter Fonda’s Dr. Van Helsing is an amusing performance, he offers up some of those subtle yet effective comedic moments. The thing with a movie like this is that you gotta be in a very mellow vibe to watch it; you gotta want to watch a slow, quiet film about brooding sad vampires. Save it for one of those nights when you want to see something different, artful and experimental in nature, hey it was produced by David Lynch (he even cameos in it!) what’d you expect? Normality?

Rating: 3 out of 5   

David Lynch cameos in Nadja

The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Title: The Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

Director: Jean Rollin

Cast: Alexandra Pic, Isabelle Teboul, Bernard Charnace

This film comes to use from one of the great French horror directors, Jean Rollin. Now this of course depends on who you ask because some critics dismiss Rollin as a pornographer, an amateur filmmaker or simply a maker of sleazy, gratuitous b-movies. But I beg to differ, I really do. Sure Rollin’s films had gratuitous nudity and violence, but to me Rollin’s films are also poetic and haunting and though some of them might come off as empty examples of style over substance, I also find relevant themes in his films. Take for example The Two Orphan Vampires, one look at it and you might say the film is paper thin, with little in the way of plot. And in a way you’d be right, because it is a simple film, but if you give this film a deeper look you’ll find a film that comments on religion and the contrasts between new ways of thinking versus the old.

In The Two Orphan Vampires we meet Henriette and Louise, two young girls living in a catholic orphanage. Their unique situation is that they are both blind, nobody knows why, nobody knows how, they simply are. One day, an ophthalmologist comes visit the orphans to inspect their eyes and soon decides to adopt and take care of them, he becomes their father figure, taking them from the orphanage and welcoming them into his home. The nuns are happy the orphans finally have a home, the orphans are happy they are finally out of the orphanage and the doctor is happy to help these two blind girls. But unbeknownst to all these people, the two orphan girls are only blind during the day! At night they become vampires and can see just fine! When night unfolds, the two girls roam the city streets looking for victims to feed on. How long will they continue this charade before others discover their secret? Will they ever be caught?

Thematically speaking, The Two Orphan Vampires is all about beliefs. First off we have these two girls living a lie. They live in a catholic orphanage, where they give this façade to the nuns, making everybody believe they are these two angelical blind girls. Now the meanings behind the girls being blind while living in a catholic orphanage are pretty obvious, this was Rollin’s way of addressing how religion can blind people, shutting their eyes to the realities of life. Humans are always drawn towards the lurid, seedy aspects of life, this is why the girls go out at night. It’s after they sneak out at night that these girls enjoy life, it’s at night that their vision returns, it’s when they escape the confines of the orphanage that they have their fun in the world, this is the time when they really see life for what it is. A mix of fun and struggle to survive, a dog eat dog world with moments of wonderment as well as suffering, a bitter sweet existence. An interesting aspect of all of this is that the girls are teenagers, a time when most people succumb to the more rebellious aspects of life; the teenage years are a time when you question everything and want to push your limits. This is why the girls escape their elders to smoke their cigarettes and drink their alcohol. So the film depicts two rebellious teenage girls giving their backs to Christianity in order to have their fun in life.

At the same time, the film addresses existential issues. The two orphan vampires are constantly questioning who they are and where they come from. They are vampires who have died many times over and have come back to life, with foggy memories of who they use to be. Problem is they can only remember a few of the lives they have lived, they can’t go that far back into their existence, so they start to wonder who they used to be in earlier lives and they come upon this book about Aztec civilization that gives them the idea that they were these ancient Aztec gods. Kind of like how humanity has a recollection of past civilizations, but at some point our history becomes foggy and we end up asking ourselves where we all really come from? Same as the two orphan vampires, we too have a foggy memory about these things. The two girls can only imagine they were Aztec gods, they are not certain, the same way we cannot find the answers to the big questions in life, so we make up answers and call these answers religion.

The Two Orphan Vampires features Rollin’s signature poetic visuals, the film is also told at Rollins usual slow pace, as if it was in no hurry to tell you its story, it simply unfolds at the pace it wants to whether you like it or not. I’ve grown to like this aspect of Rollins films because to me they are a breath of fresh air when compared to the frenetic pace of some of today’s films. So in that sense Rollin fans will find this to be like many of Rollins other pictures. But where this one takes a left turn is in the absence of nudity and violence, there’s very little of both on this film. Also, those looking for lesbianism will find the film lacking in that aspect as well, for while the girls hug a lot, it is never implied that they are in love. They function more as sisters. There is one scene where they are naked together, but it’s a completely unnecessary scene and seems to be spliced in the movie only to appease the producers who always asked Rollin to fill his films with nudity and violence. When compared to previous Rollin films, this one feels restrained in these areas, which was something that hardcore Rollin fans didn’t like about this film, personally, this didn’t stop me from enjoying this one.

The Two Orphan Vampires was made late in Rollins life, he was into his sixties when he made this one, and very ill I might add, yet the film still retains many of the aesthetically pleasing elements that I enjoyed about his earlier works like The Grapes of Death (1978), The Living Dead Girl (1982) and Fascination (1979), and though this film isn't nearly as good as these I've mentioned, there are still many good things to say about The Two Orphan Vampires, for example, the beautiful localizations are present…this was one thing that Rollin loved about filmmaking, shooting in actual beautiful locations, so we still have these beautiful shots of actual places, sometimes Rollin would compose these shots on the spot, an aspect of his films that I love. True, this is not Rollins best film, it has a few flaws, like the actresses who play the orphan vampires, though beautiful this was the first feature film for both, so sometimes their performance isn’t the best. The bad dubbing kind of hinders the enjoyment of the film; it makes the poetic dialog come off as robotic and unnatural. Still, I enjoyed the visuals, the music and the themes, it is not the disaster that some would have you believe. Sure it was late in Rollins career, but wow, the guy made this film through some serious illness, sometimes going from the hospital to the set, it’s a miracle he managed to pull off a beautiful looking film and on such a low budget! Admirable in deed.

Rating: 3 out of 5