Salem's Lot (1979)

As previously stated, I hadn't realised that Salem's Lot was originally a TV miniseries and thus, split into two separate discs in its DVD incarnation. I thought the ending to the first disc was the ending - and quite a bad ass one it was, too! But finally, a week later, I managed to finish the three-hours of Salem's Lot that I should've watched in the first place. And very glad I am that I did, even though it involved several cups of tea and about a hundred rice crispie cakes (I made some for Randall's birthday). 

I was warned by my brother (who, for some unknown reason, is terrified of this film) to watch Salem's Lot "properly", i.e. with the blinds shut, the light dimmed, and a big blanket to hide under. Since it was raining at the time, I obliged. And funnily enough, it was also raining during my viewing of the first disc. It got me thinking about whether a horror atmosphere can be created prior to watching a film. I may write about it some time. But I'm getting off the point. Onwards!

"We can still be friends, right..?"

To be honest, Stephen King isn't somebody with whose work I could claim to be particularly familiar. In fact, I think the only other film of note, based on one of his novels, that I've seen to date, is Stand By Me which, as far as I'm aware, was based on The Body. I love Stand By Me. It's one of my all-time favourite films, and sits proudly on my too-small stack of DVDs. But a horror story it is not (not in the traditional sense of the word, anyway). And if there's one thing King is famous for, it's horror stories. Not to mention that this particular incarnation was directed by one of the great horror directors, Tobe Hooper. Thus I was delighted to find that Salem's Lot, despite being slow in places, and undeniably aged in others, does the job of a decent horror movie - it manages to scare and enthral.

The plot of Salem's Lot, such is the way with most of King's stuff, takes place in a small, quiet town somewhere in Maine, and revolves around a suspicious writer and a horror-obsessed kid. The writer has returned to town to write a novel about the Marsden house, somewhere known for being haunted, and in which he had a frightening experience as a child. He begs the question - "Can a thing be inherently evil?" and then spends much of the movie trying to convince the unassuming townspeople that yes, it can. What this film does very well, thanks in part to the unsettlingly minimalistic score, is to create an atmosphere of safety for the audience. Scenes of marital distress and childish games play out so softly and easily, that it's easy to lose oneself in the story and forget that, pretty soon, the rug will be pulled out from under us. 

His hair will surely save the day

It's worth noting that, because this was originally broadcast as a TV miniseries, it is a very slow-moving, quiet film. When things do happen (and they do), the pace remainds slow and steady. Ghostly vampire kids float towards windows and scratch their long nails against the panes of glass. A shadow rises up and envelopes the screen. Marks appear on necks and the townspeople begin to get tired and weak. If Salem's Lot were being made today, it would probably concern an epidemic, as opposed to a vampire infestation. Everything happens so slowly, and the townspeople are so blissfully unaware, that it would be easy to just dismiss this as a boring character study of small-minded people in an out of the way town, who refuse to see anything or anyone outside of their little bubble as relevant. But it is, to its credit, a horror film, and a great one at that. 


I'll admit that there were very few moments, during the first half of the film, where I could honestly say I was scared, but I was definitely on edge. And that tension extended far into the second part, and even further too. The first sighting of the head vampire, in the local jail, made me scream and jump out of my seat in shock. It's not just that he pops up out of nowhere - he is genuinely terrifying to look at, even today after I've been desensitised to most villains besides a dude with a big knife. And after vampires have been so ruined by the bullshit that is Twilight, it is truly inspiring to see a real, snarling, bloodthirsty creature of the night, the way it should be portrayed. 

The scariest thing my grandmother has ever seen

When Barlow, the head vampire, transformed from a black cape on the kitchen floor, to his full form, I felt the real fear of knowing something terrible was about to happen, even though I knew the screen would fade to black before it did (another nice touch, and one that gives the film a genuinely creepy edge). The kills are quick and the audience sees practically nothing, but somehow that just adds to the tension.

My grandmother told me recently that this is the scariest film she has ever seen and, although Salem's Lot probably isn't as relevant today as it was twenty years ago, it is still definitely worth a look, and sits rightfully next to newer films, such as 30 Days Of Night, that show proper, genuinely terrifying vampires, as they are meant to be shown - as monsters who will suck the blood out of anyone they choose, as opposed to sparkly statues who eat deer and write lullabies for fat emo kids. May it live forever as the antithesis to Twilight and give us hope that vampires can be, and are, still scary. 






Next time....finally! Red State! Will it be as good as predicted? Will it be better? You'll find out next time.

One week to go!

I have a confession to make - I am a complete and utter Kevin Smith superfan. I'm also a teenage boy, trapped in the body of a 23-year-old chick, but that's slightly more obvious than my first admission. 

I have unashamedly loved Kevin Smith's work since I was about 15, and first discovered the amazingness of Jay and Silent Bob, Dante and Randall, and all of the characters played by the once great (not so great anymore) Jason Lee. I count Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks and Clerks 2 among some of my all-time favourite movies. They contain some of the laugh-out-loud funniest lines, most ridiculous dialogue, and realistic characters I have ever had the joy of experiencing - and I quote these films constantly. Hell, my beloved best friend and partner in crime, Randall, is so called because a mutual friend compared us lovingly to the eternal friends of the View Askew universe, Dante and Randall. My young life has been undoubtedly influenced by Smith's dry wit, sharp dialogue and colourful array of characters - without his films, I'm sure my life would be much less bright.

So, when it emerged that Kevin Smith intended upon releasing a horror film which is, let's face it, so far outside of his comfort zone that he may as well have announced his intention to quit film and become an Olympic athlete, I was shocked, intrigued but, above all else, excited. Although his latest release, Cop Out, was absolutely dreadful (a self-reviewing title, if ever I've seen one), the film before that, Zack And Miri Make A Porno was a wonderfully filthy, heart-warming romp that I really rather enjoyed, and still happily watch every now and again (and quote, of course). While some people have written Smith off as of late (his self-obsession and ridiculous public dramas, such as the fight with Southwest Airlines, really aren't helping his case), I remain loyal and open-minded about Red State, his first foray into my favourite, dark little world.

It hasn't been plain-sailing with this release, of course. There was the somewhat false auction, in which Smith claimed his film was up for grabs, before buying it himself. There was the national tour of the film, and the subsequent problems with actually releasing it to the mainstream. In fact, I was worried it wouldn't even get a release date over here, and when it was pushed back to November, I gave a hearty sigh. So, imagine my elation upon seeing the above poster dotted all over my fair city, signalling that the film would be released nationwide, and, more importantly, earlier than expected, on September 30th (just a week from now - eep!). 

Now, my good friend Rich has already seen it, and I could do the same if I so wished, since it's freely available online. But there's something about waiting, and seeing it in the cinema, without spoilers or anything else (all I know about it is that it's about the Bible Belt, and religious fundamentalists), that is really getting me excited - more excited than I have been for a film since Scream 4, and the last Harry Potter movie. So I'm going to wait, excitedly and impatiently, for another week, until Randall and I can go and feast our eyes upon what is sure to be, probably not a horror masterpiece, but hopefully a great Kevin Smith film, on the big screen, which is something I haven't had a chance to do since Clerks 2 (the first film of his that I was old enough to see in the cinema, funnily enough). 

Therefore, despite everything that's happened this past year, and despite Kevin Smith's ever-changing public persona, I still remain excited for Red State. And even more excited to be front and centre when he and Jason Mewes bring their "Jay and Silent Bob Get Old" show to Dublin next February.

In other news..... Lots of films seem to be being re-released in the cinema these days. First, it was Back To The Future, then The Lion King (in 3D, snore). And now, this weekend, it's the fantastic, never-gets-old Jurassic Park, which still scares me a little bit, I must admit. Then, some time soon (hopefully within the next five minutes), one of my favourite films of all time, The Rocky Horror Picture Show is coming back to the cinema, remastered and maybe even extra awesome, which means fishnets, corsets and doing the "Time Warp" in the aisles - possibly even some audience participation, if we're lucky! 

I haven't heard anything about why these films are being re-released, but hopefully this trend of bringing classics back to the cinema lasts at least a little while longer, because it has the potential to be really good fun. And, if nothing more, it lets us relive our childhoods, eat copious amounts of junk food, and dance around in full costume (even more than we usually do).

Final Destination 5 (2011)

I should be reviewing Salem's Lot this week, in keeping with the vampire theme of late, but I am quite stupid and didn't realise until it was too late that the movie is in two parts and, as a result, on two DVDs. Now, I could just review the first half and perhaps end the post on a cliffhanger, but I don't think that'd do much good. Instead, I'm going to focus on the other film I saw this weekend, Final Destination 5. As somebody who doesn't necessarily have much time for these films, while not hating them either, I awaited this entry to the series with slight trepidation. I'd already read, in great detail, about all of the deaths online (I love spoilers, depending on the movie - I'd never spoil Red State, for example) and I was curious to see them on screen. Happily, FD5 is a fun, dumb, harmless little escape that zips along at a lively place and never quite takes itself too seriously. 

 

For the uninitiated, the Final Destination series began in 2000 and has spawned a whopping four sequels in the eleven years since its’ inception – some of which (my personal favourite is the third instalment, complete with roller coaster disaster and bimbos being burnt alive in sun beds) have been great. Funnily enough, although it pains me to admit it now, my 12-year-old self was quite terrified by the original film. The idea of Death stalking me really got to me, although fuck knows why, since, as I’ve grown up, I’ve realised it’s quite a silly concept. But hey, I’m all for dumb fun every once in a while, and if there’s one thing the Final Destination serious does, or at least should, do right, it’s crazy, mind-bendingly complicated death sequences, that make one wince and laugh in equal measure. 

 ACTING!!

It has been hit and miss over the years, and I managed to avoid the fourth instalment without even realising I’d done so, which doesn’t say much in favour of the series’ staying power. However, the fifth film, the second to be presented in under-whelming 3D (still not impressed), is amusing, inventive and fun, without ever forcing the viewer to think too hard. It opens with an impressive, albeit slightly long, 3D credit sequence, during which fire, knives and shattered glass fly towards the audience, all set to a piece of music that wouldn’t be out of place in a James Bond film.

The suspension bridge collapse, about which everybody has been gushing, is jaw-droppingly awesome, and the deaths incurred by it are gruesome and hilarious, in equal measure. Of course, the main characters (I think there are around 8, but what does it really matter) manage to escape their fate thanks to the main dude’s premonition about the inevitable accident, and they then spend the rest of the film dying in a spectacularly silly fashion. 

 

To make people think of Saw maybe..? 

The plot itself, of which there is little, doesn’t really matter, and nor does the character development, or whether we even give a shit about who’s on screen at any given moment. The point of watching these strange little films is to see attractive people being killed in interesting, cringe- or laugh-inducingly, odd ways. Therefore, the most important element of FD5, for me, is whether the deaths are any good.

For the most part, they are. Although the original shock value of wondering if somebody is going to be killed a certain way, only to see him/her killed in a completely different way, has all but disappeared, there were still certain moments that caught me off guard. My personal favourite death was one caused by a gymnastics routine. Although silly, it was the only death that really made me squirm in my chair. Otherwise, I was guffawing with the rest of the room. FD5 is definitely not as funny as FD3, but that has an awful lot to do with the uncharacteristically likeable cast. Usually, the dialogue is painfully awkward and the acting stiff and uninspiring, but with the new cast of unfortunates, the producers have managed to do the unthinkable – create characters that are genuinely engaging. 

 Spot the weird Tom Cruise dude!

Nicholas D’Agosto is particularly warm as the leading man, while his pal, who looks and acts a lot like Tom Cruise, does a great job of losing the plot about halfway through. Emma Bell, she of the brilliant, criminally underrated Frozen is great in the girlfriend role, and hopefully she gets to ascend from here into the star she rightly deserves to be. She is, after all, so much better than Final Destination. Another happy edition to the line-up is the great David Koechner, starring here as the snarky, disbelieving boss of the company in which the others work. Although he’s a welcome edition, I was a bit sad to see the man I know mainly as Champ Kind from Anchorman die so gruesomely. I couldn’t help thinking “Whammy!” when it happened, and a quick glance to my left assured me that Rich (whose horror collection puts mine to absolute shame) was thinking the exact same thing. It also got me thinking about how silly we all must look in 3D glasses, but how little we care when the film is good and we want to turn excitedly to each other. It’s hard to kiss with them on, but luckily I’ve only smooched during one 3D movie (it wasn’t this one).

The 3D itself isn’t terribly impressive, although I did find FD5 less dark than other 3D films, such as Fright Night, for instance. Seeing people being impaled, while the object shoots out of the screen towards the audience, is by no means revolutionary, but it is quite good fun. Aside from that, nothing much is added by the third dimension. It doesn’t take away from the film though, which is good, but it’s still quite unnecessary. A trailer for a film I am very much looking forward to, Shark Night, had me very excited but, once again, slightly confused, due to the addition of 3D to the proceedings. I can’t imagine why a shark film would need to be in 3D, since sharks popping up out of the water are scary enough all by themselves, but either way I am very excited to see it (albeit, hopefully in 2D). As for FD5, it’s harmless, brainless, gory fun of the best kind, and definitely a welcome addition to a series that should’ve ended years ago. The ending, and so-called twist, had me rolling my eyes, as did the heavy-handed messages about death (including the idea that one can kill someone to save oneself, something which up until now did not exist in the Final Destination universe), which are unnecessarily high-minded for a film with its tongue firmly in its cheek. Still, it’s great fun nonetheless, and definitely worth a look if you’re in the mood for something light-hearted, bloody and relatively short. 

Looks way scarier than it actually is

The Human...Millipede?

As regular readers (all two of you) will be aware, I have a very strong stomach when it comes to horror. However, if there's one thing I absolutely despise, it's prolonged torture, unnecessary, overly graphic gore - basically, most shit that defines the genre of "torture porn". And, although I can stomach most of what other "normal" people cannot, if there's one film that makes my skin crawl (no pun intended), it's The Human Centipede. 

For those lucky enough to have not heard of this film, it centres around a mad German (of course) doctor, who disfigures three people and sews them all together to make, well, a human centipede. And then they shit in each other's mouths. Hooray. 

Now, when I was finishing my final year of journalism and German in college, I was working on a radio project in a dark, windowless computer lab late one night. One of the guys from my class, who was also working late, told me to check out a trailer for the aforementioned film and I, thinking it was some sort of amazing B-movie, watched it. 

I have yet to force myself to watch the film in its entirety.  

It's not because I'm scared. The thought of the centipede doesn't scare me, it just grosses me out. And I like to eat junk food during horror movies (or indeed, any movies), so watching something that makes my stomach turn doesn't really seem like a good idea. Okay, okay, maybe I'm making excuses. If my 15-year-old sister can sit through it, I sure as fuck can. But I probably still won't.

Anyway, the point of all this, is that the trailer for the second film, imaginatively titled, The Human Centipede 2 (despite the fact it clearly revolves around the creation of a human millipede) just came out this week. And, to speak frankly, it's pure crap. Let's get one thing straight - I adore horror villains. They can be terrifying, sympathetic and hilarious - all at the same time, if the writing is really great. The villain from TC2 seems slightly - how do I put this delicately - mentally handicapped. He's overweight, dead-eyed, and appears to be quite slow. I realise that seeing him watching a millipede with glee is supposed to make me shit my pants, but it doesn't. It just seems kind of...sad. So tell me, Tom Six, how the fuck is that terrifying? And no, putting "madman" before you show him does not make the character scary.


It's worth noting that TC2 has already been banned by the BBFC for showing sexual pleasure being derived from sexual violence. In one instance, the "villain" (inverted commas, because he looks slightly pathetic) masturbates using sandpaper. In another, he rapes the chick at the back of the "millipede" with barbed wire wrapped around his penis. Whether that's enough to ban a film is beyond me. I personally don't think a film should ever be banned, but sexual violence is a serious concern. Anyway, here's the trailer. It looks as if most of it takes place in a carpark, but anyway, enjoy! 

Queen Of The Damned (2002)

So, I'm kinda cheating this week... Although I'm sticking with the vampire theme of last week, I've chosen to review a movie that I've seen countless times, a movie I adore with all of my little goth heart, but one for which nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm. I am, of course, referring to Queen Of The Damned, which shockingly enough, is ten years old next year. Damn, that makes me feel old. I became obsessed with this film pretty much instantaneously. There were two main reasons why - the incredible soundtrack, created by Richard Gibbs and Jonathan Davis, and the delicious Stuart Townsend, in the role of vampire turned rockstar, Lestat. My tastes have developed somewhat over the years, thankfully, so I decided to do a so-called "nostalgia check" on this, one of my favourite films, and try to discover what my 23-year-old self really thinks of it, while being as objective as possible. 

Anne Rice has written a lot of silly, sexy vampire fiction. And Queen Of The Damned, by extension, is a silly, sexy vampire film. It's worth noting that it's aged significantly since its original release. The fact there's no Twitter or Facebook, or even Google, is strangely off-putting throughout, especially since, I feel, if this were set nowadays, there would've been less people who believed Lestat's story about being a vampire. And the fact his band are only playing one gig ever because, as he puts it, "I don't like repeating myself" is laughable. Being a vampire is a gimmick, but not enough of a gimmick to justify only playing one show for one's entire musical career. Isn't that Dir En Grey dude supposedly a vampire? Lucky his band are so shit.

The acting is pretty dreadful across the board. The vampires all speak in that ridiculously over the top Transylvanian tongue, especially the late Aaliyah, as the titular Queen, who is actually supposed to be from Egypt. Stuart Townsend, one of our countrymen, had a special dialect coach for the film, and also learned to play the fiddle. Although he does a very good job of being sexy throughout, and faily scary at times too, him being a rock star doesn't really come off - especially when it's Jon Davis's iconic, one-of-a-kind voice that's coming out of his mouth when he sings. A flashback to his creation does nothing to move the story along, although his maker, Marius, seems to be the only one having any fun throughout the film. Lestat is an incredibly miserable character, whining about being alone for eternity. For fuck's sake, he's a vampire! He can kill anyone he wants! 

 

 Whoever made this, thank you

Despite the title, this is very much Townsend's movie. He struts around in leather pants like Colin Farrell only wishes he could, and he does give genuine (forgive me) bite to the role. But the film is forgettable, and the story is fairly stupid. And, as previously stated, he is fairly emo at times. The character of Jessie is ridiculously needy and desperate, despite her ties to the strong, immortal vampire family. She stalks Lestat throughout the film and then lets him kill her - all to prove that she's...what, exactly? Strong? Independent? She also has no idea how to dress to go to a vampire club, or a rock show, despite the fact Lestat refers to her as a "London goth". Shame on you, producers! You're making a vampire movie!

As much as I hate to say it, Queen Of The Damned really does not hold up. It feels incredibly dated, which I wasn't expecting, and although the soundtrack is still fantastic, it's about the only truly interesting thing about the film. The story is fairly silly, especially ten years later in the digital age, and the acting is poor at best. That's not to say I won't watch it again, because I most definitely will, but let's just say that the Jon Davis cameo, as a ticket tout, is about the only thing that truly gets me excited about watching this these days. And Stuart Townsend in leather pants.

Next time....more vampire stuff! And, will I finally see Final Destination 5?  

Fright Night (2011)

And, to the vault of unnecessary remakes, we add Fright Night, the 2011 reboot of the 1985 vampire film of the same name.The original is a camp, silly, funny, frightfest, scored with silly, plodding 80s beats, and starring a vampire who dresses like he's been pilfering from Jared Leto's stage wardrobe. The remake stars Colin Farrell. 


I don't mean to be a traitor to my country. Farrell is a very fine actor, and he showed real range in In Bruges and Intermission. But when I think of Colin Farrell, I don't think scary, I don't think vampire. I think skanger, or wise-cracking Irishman, possibly a Hollywood leading man, at a stretch (dreamy bad boy anyone? I don't get the appeal to be honest). The fact that I was forced to see this in 3D, a format which I have yet to be properly impressed by (Toy Story 3 came close, but was perfect without it) did not bode well with me, nor did the constant complaints from the dude who is forced week upon week to watch bad horror with me, hereafter referred to as Randall, since we have been compared to Dante and Randall from the universe of Kevin Smith movies. He also happens, like Randall, to hate everyone, and everything seems stupid to him. And he is terribly, stomach-achingly funny. Anyway, the point is, he was not excited, and the glasses were hurting his eyes before the film even began. 

"Can we fuck now?"     "Hush, he's doing something totally normal for a human being"

The film starts promisingly enough, with a fairly scary vampire attack. A kid hides under a bed, a bloodied body is dragged around, there's a blood-curdling scream  and a rockin' tune launches us off to the desert suburbs of Las Vegas, where people work nights and sleep during the day...or something. It's an interesting setting for a vampire film, although not quite as interesting as that of Frostbite, a fantastic Swedish outing set in an isolated town which gets a month of solid darkness per year. We meet Charlie Brewster, but not as we know him. This poor man's Elijah Wood reminds me a lot of the kids from Superbad, if one of them had decided the others weren't worth his time and that he ought to go hunt for pussy before it's too late. 

And to that end, Mc Lovin turns up, only this time he's paranoid and swears a lot more. It turns out he's "Evil" Ed, which is an odd casting choice, but since Christopher Mintz-Plasse is a fairly gifted actor, I wasn't annoyed at his presence. Moreover, I was delighted to see Imogen Poots - Brit actress and star of the excellent Chatroom turn up as Brewster's hot, popular chick girlfriend. Other than those three, the other teens on the sidelines are irritating as hell. One of them speaks with a permanent stoner tongue, which is absolutely infuriating. Luckily, he only has a few lines. Speaking of which, the clunky dialogue doesn't help. It's so bad it's like it was stolen from the "Understanding Teen Lingo" handbook for out-of-touch adults. The teens themselves look pained even delivering their lines. 

For those who don't know the story, it's very simple. A handsome, mysterious man moves in next door to Brewster, and then kids start disappearing. Ed tries to warn him, but he ignores him because he's an asshole and only wants to get laid. Then Ed disappears and somehow that makes Charlie give a shit again, and he starts stalking his neighbour to the point of madness, till the neighbour flips the shit and comes after him with a vengeance. The plot to the original film was perfect, so why the makers of this reboot felt the need to update it for modern audiences by making Charlie into an arsehole, who abandons his friends for a chick, is beyond me. It makes it near-impossible for us to care whether he lives or dies.

He's not mourning her passing, despite what it looks like

As for Farrell; he's definitely a handsome, charming man, but a bloodthirsty vampire he is not. Even when he's chowing down, it's so easy to just roll one's eyes and imagine him making fun of Brendan Gleeson. It's not that he isn't a good actor, because he is. And it's not that he hasn't got the ability to be scary, because as the scumbag, Le Hiff, in Intermission, he was totally believable, as a heartless arsehole who punched a girl in the face, just to rob the till. But, as a vampire, he doesn't quite get there.

It doesn't help that Stuart Townsend, a fellow countryman, played a far superior, sexier and scarier vampire in Queen Of The Damned. I spent most of that film lusting after him, but when he fed, I believed it, and it was scary (I still wanted him, but that's part of my perversion, as opposed to his acting). Farrell does a good job of being an asshole, but he's not a believable vampire. He's got some funny lines, and he is suitably suave and attractive, but the show is stolen from him by the excellent David Tennant, who is criminally underused here, as Peter Vincent. 

Much like Roddy Mc Dowall in the original, Tennant steals every scene he's in, playing a deliciously wretched, modern version of Peter Vincent, who stars in his own vampire-themed Vegas show, complete with wig, leather pants (have mercy!) and fake tattoos. Some critics have claimed the role would've been better suited to Russell Brand, or even that Tennant is playing him somewhat, but I completely disagree. Tennant brings a sexiness and a mischief to the role that Brand could only dream of, although he is a talented actor and comic, I must admit. Tennant chews the scenery as usual, and does go a little Doctor Who towards the end, but mostly he just struts around, clad in leather, drinking constantly and swearing like a sailor - all cynicism and with eyes that have seen too much. He gets all of the best lines and provides a running commentary for the audience, complete with "Holy shit!" moments and with laugh-out-loud disbelief at whatever is happening to him at the time. He is an absolute joy to behold and, although it is Charlie who eventually defeats Vampire Colin Farrell (spoiler!), sadly it is David Tennant I remembered most fondly. 

He goes a little Doctor Who for a moment, but it's rather enjoyable

It must be said that there's not a lot to like here. David Tennant is without a doubt the best part of the film, and he's not in it nearly enough. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is funny and competent, but is done away with far too early. Colin Farrell does not convince as anything more than a suave ladies man. And the teenagers, besides Imogen Poots, plod through their lines with not nearly enough self-referential humour (the best line coming from Mintz-Plasse, "I'm so fucking mad that you think I read Twilight"). Where the kids in the original Fright Night were freaked out but determined to fight back, those in the remake are all slack-jawed disbelief, laced with over-the-top paranoia. Whenever I watch a horror movie, I try to imagine how my mates and I would react, were we to end up in the same situation. We certainly wouldn't have acted like the kids in this. However, going to Peter Vincent is a great idea.

How dare you waste the time of firemen with your Satanic burning of crosses!? 

As pointed out by Randall before the film even began, the 3D really doesn't make sense here. Vampire films, by their very nature, are dark. 3D, by its very nature, makes everything darker, so why use it in a vampire film? The unfortunate result of this is that much of Fright Night is too dark and murky for the viewer to decipher what the hell is going on, or who's onscreen. I took off my glasses several times, just to check if it was Colin Farrell I was looking at. If the story were good enough, or funny, or properly scary, the 3D would add another element to it. And, although there are moments when the effects are used properly, e.g. when a vampire explodes in the sun and the blood and guts fly towards the audience, for the most part it's all just a bit murky and bland. 

As for being genuinely scary, there are some moments of dread and tension. However, for the most part, this a fairly family-friendly affair, which only earned its 15A certificate due to swearing and sexual references (I'm guessing).  A scene in an all-white corridor, where Colin Farrell has his victims imprisoned, is fairly creepy. But I spent most of the running time waiting for the big battle to come at the end, and even that fell slightly flat. The sight of newborn vampires crawling out of the soil should've been scary, but it was just strange. Furthermore, Colin Farrell's admission that he killed Peter Vincent's parents made me and Randall roll our eyes so far back into our heads, I worried they'd never return to the other side. 

It's difficult to make a horror comedy, because both elements have to be right. And, to echo the sentiment of the fantastic Mark Kermode, Fright Night just isn't scary or funny enough to be vert memorable. It's enjoyable but bland, funny but boring, creepy but not scary. Overall, a poor effort to redo a film that did not need to be remade. There was one great element to it, with which I will leave you.

 

Fright Night (1985)

I'm a sucker for cheesy 80s movies. I'm a sucker for cheesy 80s anything. If I had've been a teenager in the 80s, I would've been an awesome little Goth kid, like Winona Ryder's character in Beetlejuice. And, when it comes to classic 80s horror movies, you can't go wrong with the hammy, cheesy, totally great Fright Night. This weekend was my first time seeing it, and I only did so because the remake has just come out, and I wanted to form some sort of comparison prior to viewing it. 

I'm a total vampire nerd, but let's face it, vampires have been royally fucked with over the past few years, and not in a good way. In fact, the only decent vampire movies, which present the creatures as properly scary, of recent times, are 30 Days Of Night and the superb, Let The Right One In. Unfortunately, because of the pure tripe that is the Twilight series, vampires have become a bit cuddly and romantic (the hilariously cutting Vampire Money by My Chemical Romance says it perfectly). Everybody seems to have forgotten that they are bloodthirsty creatures of the night, who drink blood and dispose of carcasses like we would chicken bones. So it was interesting to see how my favourite creatures of the night were dealt with twenty years ago, before the Twilight generation stole them and made them sparkle.

Sparkle sparkle

Fright Night tells the story of cute, nerdy, everykid, Charlie Brewster (what an American name!). He lives in a typical suburban neighbourhood, with his mother, and has a cute girlfriend who wears dungarees pretty much constantly. Everything is going well for him in school and everywhere else, even despite the fact his best bud, who has major ADD, "Evil" Ed, keeps spouting nonsense non-stop. But then everything changes, when a suave, sophisticated, mysterious gentleman moves in next door and, all of a sudden, strange things start happening.


The whole vampire angle has been totally overdone at this stage, so it's interesting to see how it was handled back in the 80s. Jerry, the vampire (better vampire name than Emmett?), is handsome and charming in his human form, but transforms into a toothy, hideous, creature of the night in his vampire form, which is refreshing to see after all of the "sexy" vampires I've been rolling my eyes at lately (not Stuart Townsend as Lestat, he's exempt). I wasn't particularly afraid of him, but he was still an effective villain. The house he lives in is wonderfully gothic, and the way in which he lures women into his evil clutches is admirably skilled. One scene, in a nightclub, where he seduces Charlie's girlfriend, is very well played, and involves lots of cringy, lingering looks and vampire bum-grabbing.

He makes this face for most of the film, oddly enough

Of course, the best thing about this film is, without a doubt, the superb Roddy Mc Dowall, as vampire hunter and star of TV's "Fright Night", Peter Vincent. Although he dismisses Charlie's claims at first, when he does come around and turn up for the final battle in the end, it's difficult to not cheer him on. A truly gifted actor, with a stunning voice and presence, he steals centre stage from Charlie, or even Jerry, and is a delight to behold. When he snipes that nobody cares about vampires anymore because "All they want is madmen running around in ski masks, hacking up virgins", I wanted to worship at his feet - never were truer words spoken in a horror movie. 


The "Evil" Ed character is also fantastic. The best bud with all the answers, who of course nobody believes, he remains crazy-eyed and loud for the duration of the film. His cackle and taunts of "You think you're so cool, Brewster!" are hilarious, and I was really rooting for him to survive, even after he'd been turned. As for Jerry, he is so suave and fancy that he never really comes across as threatening, but there's something shining behind his eyes that lets the viewer know that not everything is as it seems, which is just as scary as in-your-face madness.

He is the MAN

Tension is ratched up with news reports of murders and missing persons, a blood-curdling scream followed by the lights shutting off, etc. It's simple, but effective. The effects are fairly impressive for the time, and the final struggle is not as predictable as I'd thought. All of the characters are likeable and easy to root for, while the situation, although it never feels dire, is just frightening enough to create a real sense of impending doom.

Fright Night has real charm in its silliness, and it's no surprise that it spawned sequels and a TV series (and, this year, a proper Hollywood remake). It hadn't occurred to me before, but the age-old tale of mysterious goings-on next door will always resonate, no matter how technologically advanced we are, or how safe we feel, shacked up in our rooms with the curtains closed and garlic hanging above our heads.