Showing posts with label Vampires. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vampires. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Walking with Superman: Day 27
New York is the City that Never Sleeps, and it plays home to a particular population of residents who take full advantage of that. But when Superman comes to town, some of the Big Apple's large vampire community take notice. A number of experts in vampire physiology have hypothesized that there might be a way to use the solar-powered cells of a Kryptonian to cure vampires' fatal allergy to daylight. New York's civilian vampires look to Superman as a symbol of the hope of returning to some semblance of a normal existence, many having had their lives ruined by being turned against their wills. The less scrupulous Nosferatu see an opportunity to extend their bloody reign well past sunrise. Meanwhile, Vampire Hunter Anna Vordenburg recognizes that the bloodsuckers will be out in force after the Man of Steel, and vampiric vigilante Moonrise hopes to spare both the humans and the vampires from any further bloodshed. Vulnerable to the supernatural abilities of the vampires and sympathetic to both sides, Superman must defuse the human-vampire tensions before they tear him--and Manhattan--apart!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
This town wouldn't be so bad if not for all the damn vampires
I checked out the film version of "30 Days of Night" a couple of weeks ago. As you might recall, I was rather unimpressed by the source material.
You know, it's so rare and refreshing to see a movie that's actually better than the book it's based on. Especially when it's comic-related. "30 Days of Night" improved on nearly every issue I had with the book. In fact, I think the only problem that remained was the sense of time, that it didn't feel like a month was passing.
Thankfully, though, they really beefed up the character development. That was the biggest thing missing from the graphic novel, and the filmmakers wisely fixed that. Moving the survivors from the vaguely-defined underground furnace to the attic of an abandoned house was a great move, both for clarity and for symbolism's sake.
Cutting out the subplot of the Louisianan photographer was a good move. While it might work for universe-building (no doubt why the comic did that), it took away from the main story in the book.
But the best addition was the feeling of suspense and horror. Giving the vampires their own language of hisses and growls was inspired; it really helped dehumanize them, which coupled with the Ben Templesmith designs, made them far more menacing than they had been in the comic. Giving us several scenes where they appear only in the shadows or on the fringes was a nice touch. That might have been what Templesmith was going for in the original text, but the muddiness of the art and the rushed pace of the story ruined it, if that was indeed the case.
The thing that made me happiest, though, was that they kept the creepy little girl. That was easily the most effective scene in the book, and it worked very well on screen.
Beyond that, the use of gore was well-done, not in the current trend toward overuse and overstatement. Ending the film at the emotional climax (and leaving off the book's epilogue) was another good choice; while the epilogue would have been good for the possibility of a sequel, it would have been bad for the film's impact. Wouldn't mind seeing it as the start of the next "30 Days" flick.
It's fairly well-known at this point that "30 Days of Night" started as a screenplay, and after seeing it in both movie and comic form, I think it shows. It works much better as a film, to the point where I'll be glad to add it to my collection and I'd look forward to a sequel.
Which is quite a pleasant surprise.
You know, it's so rare and refreshing to see a movie that's actually better than the book it's based on. Especially when it's comic-related. "30 Days of Night" improved on nearly every issue I had with the book. In fact, I think the only problem that remained was the sense of time, that it didn't feel like a month was passing.
Thankfully, though, they really beefed up the character development. That was the biggest thing missing from the graphic novel, and the filmmakers wisely fixed that. Moving the survivors from the vaguely-defined underground furnace to the attic of an abandoned house was a great move, both for clarity and for symbolism's sake.
Cutting out the subplot of the Louisianan photographer was a good move. While it might work for universe-building (no doubt why the comic did that), it took away from the main story in the book.
But the best addition was the feeling of suspense and horror. Giving the vampires their own language of hisses and growls was inspired; it really helped dehumanize them, which coupled with the Ben Templesmith designs, made them far more menacing than they had been in the comic. Giving us several scenes where they appear only in the shadows or on the fringes was a nice touch. That might have been what Templesmith was going for in the original text, but the muddiness of the art and the rushed pace of the story ruined it, if that was indeed the case.
The thing that made me happiest, though, was that they kept the creepy little girl. That was easily the most effective scene in the book, and it worked very well on screen.
Beyond that, the use of gore was well-done, not in the current trend toward overuse and overstatement. Ending the film at the emotional climax (and leaving off the book's epilogue) was another good choice; while the epilogue would have been good for the possibility of a sequel, it would have been bad for the film's impact. Wouldn't mind seeing it as the start of the next "30 Days" flick.
It's fairly well-known at this point that "30 Days of Night" started as a screenplay, and after seeing it in both movie and comic form, I think it shows. It works much better as a film, to the point where I'll be glad to add it to my collection and I'd look forward to a sequel.
Which is quite a pleasant surprise.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
At least it's better than that Morgan Spurlock show
I picked up "30 Days of Night" yesterday--the graphic novel, not the movie. I plan on checking the film out, but I figured I ought to read the story first (especially given some of the movie reviews I heard).
And well, that was disappointing. I've heard so much good about the book for so long, and it's a brilliant concept besides (not as brilliant as werewolf astronauts on the moon, but close), but I was really unimpressed by the final product. It felt more like a story pitch than an actual story.
For one thing, it was way too short. For a story about a town under siege by vampire hordes for a solid month, it felt more like a really quickly-paced bad weekend. We made huge jumps forward in time without much notice, and never really saw the weeks taking their toll on the tiny group of survivors. There's such a thing as over-compression. The brevity of the piece came at the expense of character development, plot development, and suspense, all of which are slightly important to the average horror story. The end might have had more emotional punch if our intrepid hero had received more than half a dozen pages of development; meanwhile, who were the other survivors? Who was the Louisianan photographer? Why didn't they ever follow up on the "we don't have enough supplies to last 30 days" thread?
Ben Templesmith's art didn't help on that front; I hadn't seen his work before this, but it reminds me of a cross between Dave McKean and Bill Sienkiewicz. That sounds like a compliment, since I like both McKean and Sienkiewicz, but it really isn't. What it means is a lot of really sketchy, dark, minimalist art that often obscures the action entirely. While the vampires were necessarily monstrous, it's less scary to see them tearing into and/or leaving behind just amorphous splotches of red that bear no resemblance whatsoever to corpses. Combining an abridged script and unintelligible artwork leads to utter confusion in spots, and as I've said before, confusion kills suspense.
Seeing the ads and previews for further "30 Days of Night" stories in the back of this trade only reinforces my opinion that this book was simply a pitch, a zero issue for the "30 Days" universe. Good for the sequels, I suppose, but bad for those of us looking for a good, suspenseful, substantial horror story.
And well, that was disappointing. I've heard so much good about the book for so long, and it's a brilliant concept besides (not as brilliant as werewolf astronauts on the moon, but close), but I was really unimpressed by the final product. It felt more like a story pitch than an actual story.
For one thing, it was way too short. For a story about a town under siege by vampire hordes for a solid month, it felt more like a really quickly-paced bad weekend. We made huge jumps forward in time without much notice, and never really saw the weeks taking their toll on the tiny group of survivors. There's such a thing as over-compression. The brevity of the piece came at the expense of character development, plot development, and suspense, all of which are slightly important to the average horror story. The end might have had more emotional punch if our intrepid hero had received more than half a dozen pages of development; meanwhile, who were the other survivors? Who was the Louisianan photographer? Why didn't they ever follow up on the "we don't have enough supplies to last 30 days" thread?
Ben Templesmith's art didn't help on that front; I hadn't seen his work before this, but it reminds me of a cross between Dave McKean and Bill Sienkiewicz. That sounds like a compliment, since I like both McKean and Sienkiewicz, but it really isn't. What it means is a lot of really sketchy, dark, minimalist art that often obscures the action entirely. While the vampires were necessarily monstrous, it's less scary to see them tearing into and/or leaving behind just amorphous splotches of red that bear no resemblance whatsoever to corpses. Combining an abridged script and unintelligible artwork leads to utter confusion in spots, and as I've said before, confusion kills suspense.
Seeing the ads and previews for further "30 Days of Night" stories in the back of this trade only reinforces my opinion that this book was simply a pitch, a zero issue for the "30 Days" universe. Good for the sequels, I suppose, but bad for those of us looking for a good, suspenseful, substantial horror story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)