|
Post by CT on May 15, 2010 9:42:05 GMT -5
This film stars Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, and Ethan Hawke. It is the year 2019 and 10 years into a massive international outbreak of vampirism. Unlike a zombie outbreak, governments, militaries, and corporations have not fallen. They're simply now run by vampires. With the human population now dwindling to 5%, the military and corporations are hunting the survivors in order to farm them for blood. Vampires starved of blood become crazy and deformed like crackheads on steroids. When it becomes clear that even a blood substitute can't save the human race, a few sympathetic vampires ally with humans to fight corporate vampire America and work toward a cure that can save the people of both races.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 17, 2010 9:42:56 GMT -5
I've been wanting to see this one for a while. Just appeared on DVD so it'll be on cable by the end of the summer.
|
|
|
Post by CT on May 17, 2010 20:32:35 GMT -5
I liked it quite a bit and give it a 4/5.
Creative plot with some great gore, vampires, and some really awesome deaths. The acting is good which you would expect from this cast. I only knock off 1 star because it did get a bit predictable at the end and some of the characters were corny. Willem Dafoes role could have been great but was hurt by too many bad one liners.
Overall cool movie that blends horror, action, and sci-fi.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 18, 2010 9:48:14 GMT -5
Well, usually vampire films are only good if they utilize one of the following three rules:
1. The main vampire lives in a Gothic castle 2. The vampires know kung-fu 3. The vampires are lesbians
And with rare exceptions, the best ones in the genre are built around at least one of those examples, so it'll have to be really good for me to get into one that doesn't have one of those features.
|
|
|
Post by CT on May 18, 2010 11:34:50 GMT -5
None of those apply to this one but I think there's probably enough gore and action to keep your interest. Like you said it'll be on cable soon and if you dislike it you wont be out any dough.
|
|
HNT
Grizzled HMaM Vet
Horror in General & Everything Else Moderator[/i]
Kiss my tuchis
Posts: 6,296
|
Post by HNT on May 19, 2010 9:18:51 GMT -5
Well, usually vampire films are only good if they utilize one of the following three rules: 1. The main vampire lives in a Gothic castle 2. The vampires know kung-fu 3. The vampires are lesbians And with rare exceptions, the best ones in the genre are built around at least one of those examples, so it'll have to be really good for me to get into one that doesn't have one of those features. Well, this one sounds like it has a very intriguing political angle that I can't wait to check out, although I can understand that you won't be particularly interested in that aspect of it. As for your requirements: 1) It is fine if the vampire lives in a gothic castle, but I don't know that it is required. After all, some of my favorites don't have that angle going on at this point. Heck, even guilty pleasures like Fright Night managed to do away with this angle. It all feels a bit 1930's, at least to me, these days. 2) This can be awesome, but what about if the vampire hunters know kung fu? That can be sweet too. I have to say though, this also is not necessary, and tends to denote a kind of lame half comedy type film. Certainly not a vampire film that I would be prepared to take seriously. 3. While I love Jess Franco as much as the next guy, the truth is that this tends to actually indicate that a vampire movie is gonna suck for sure. I am totally fine with that in terms of good cheesy fun, but realistically it indicates a late night skinemax stroke fest more than a serious film, lol.
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 19, 2010 9:50:21 GMT -5
1. This covers all the Universal/Hammer films and their imitators, like Blacula and the series done in the 40s/50s. It's an atmosphere issue, as those tend to work me over quite easily.
2. Usually, if the vamps know it, the hunters do as well. I've rarely seen ones where both don't know it. It's just a clumping mechanism I use. And it allows for action scenes with big multi-man brawls throughout the entire film, which are the main point for including that guideline.
3. It's not just Franco, but Jean Rollin, Roberta Findlay, Harry Kumel, Joseph Larraz and Jorge Grau who were all frequent contributors to the style. Plus, you also have the Karstein trilogy from Hammer, who did the style with class and sleaze, which is the main point of the inclusion here. The sleazier, the better, and what better way to do than practically have an excuse to show naked women for 90 minutes? That's a fun time all around.
And frankly, I did say that there was a few minor exceptions of good vampire films not being one of these three, so it doesn't have to be just these.
|
|
|
Post by CT on May 20, 2010 12:31:29 GMT -5
It takes place in the future so gothic castles have been replaced by todays big city equivilent: skyscrapers. There's enough action and awesome deaths to make up for he lack of Kung Fu, and much of the population has become vampires so I assum some of them are lesbians hehe.
|
|
|
Post by 7 on May 20, 2010 21:04:28 GMT -5
Admit it GL, you can't even argue against that logic.
CT just made the definitive argument against whatever you might say. Adding anything will just be redundant.
You now need to watch this film simply because of his awesome post. A blessing for CT!
|
|
|
Post by GL on May 21, 2010 9:45:43 GMT -5
Can't you guys read any of my posts all the way through? I said 'with rare exceptions, the best ones in the genre are built around at least one of those examples.' That with rare exceptions phrase means that I can enjoy genre entries without them. I've just found a common system that, when I've grouped the films together when I'm done watching them, I've found the best ones to be followers of the three-listed examples more often than not. Doesn't mean they have to be to simply be placed up there, just a small observation I've made.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Jun 7, 2010 14:02:33 GMT -5
I thought this was a lot of fun actually. The effects were pretty good, I liked the look of the film and the cast. I do think the characterization was a bit lacking at times, and yes, it was a bit predictable. I also have a feeling this is one of those that in a couple of months I will remember enjoying, but little else. So I give it a 3, probably closer to a 3.5.
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jun 22, 2010 18:53:19 GMT -5
Glad you enjoyed it. Yes it was fun and entertaining anyway. Some creative deaths too which never hurts
|
|
|
Post by CT on Jun 22, 2012 16:30:10 GMT -5
Did anybody else end up seeing this?
|
|
|
Post by GP on Jun 27, 2012 8:29:58 GMT -5
Yup. Very disappointed. At first I loved the look of it but even that wore thin after a while. Severely colour graded films are really starting to get on my tits. I would love, just for once, to see a movie of this ilk where everything is accomplished 'in-camera'.
|
|
|
Post by Clathian Salvator on Jun 27, 2012 10:29:41 GMT -5
yeah, not the greatest vampire film, but not the worse
|
|