FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3: THE HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER

Out of the three FROM DUSK TILL DAWN films HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER is my least favorite.  That should come as some surprise to those who know me because I love the concept of a vampire western and part 3 takes that concept literally.  HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER is a prequel to the first film with the setting in the late 1800's or early 1900's when real westerns take place.  I have two big issues with part 3.  The first is that the story is more of a repeat of the first film with it starting out like a real western and ending as a horror movie.  Say what you will about TEXAS BLOOD MONEY at least it was an original story.  How many movies are out there about vampires robbing a bank?  None as far as I know.  My second problem is with how weird and uncomfortable the film gets when the vampire carnage begins.  This movie gets weird, folks and I mean not in a good way.

Ambrose Bierce is a writer and former solider looking for Pancho Villa  to help with the Mexican Revolution.  Johnny Madrid is an outlaw who has just escaped the Hangman and has taken his daughter, Esmeralda as a willing hostage.  After Johnny and his gang rob Ambrose's stage coach and leave him out in the middle of nowhere with two missionaries he finds a bar and brothel out in the middle of the desert.  Johnny and his bandits also find the bar along with the Hangman and his posse looking for him and his daughter, Esmeralda.  Esmeralda discovers that she has a strange connection to the bar.  Of course we all know the bar is run by vampires.  As the vampires attack, the survivors escape by wandering aimlessly in the back tunnels of the bar until they magically end up where they first started so the movie can be over soon.  Yeah, you can kind of tell they didn't know exactly how to bring the characters back full circle to reach the climax of the movie.

There is a lot to like in HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER.  The cast is strong with Michael Parks as the often drunk Ambrose Bierce and Marco Leonardi as the cutthroat with a sense of skewed morals Johnny Madrid.  These two are the film's foundation.  There are some great moments too that you wouldn't find in any other movie.  For instance the stage coach robbery scene is a standout simply because the coach's drivers are a mute and a blind man.  The two work together as one to fight off with desperadoes the best they can with the mute driving and the blind man using his sense of hearing to shoot.  I also like the idea of Ambrose being haunted by his future death.  The movie starts off with a dream sequence showing Bierce getting shot from a firing squad.  Throughout the film he is haunted by strange visions of that moment.  At least I think his future death is being foretold.  What the heck do I know.

With all the great moments, bats on strings fun and red and green goo thrown about the movie still somehow manages to screw things up with the vampires.  In particular the head mistress of the bar/brothel.  The camera lingers way too long on her as if we are suppose to find her extremely seductive and sexual.  I hate to say it.  She isn't.  There is nothing worse than a movie trying to pass someone off as "hot" when they clearly are not.  Anyone see CLERKS 2?  She has this tendency to lick blood from time to time and at one point regurgitates blood so another vampire can taste it.  It makes for some uncomfortable watching.  Too much tongue action.  The first thing the head mistress does when she meets Esmeralda is lick the wounds on her back.  Really?  How is that for a 'Hello'?  She really doesn't pose much of a threat.  She just looms about making everything weird for everyone.  The head mistress turns Esmeralda into Santanico Pandemonium with some bizarre ritual at the end of the movie that involves a naked vampire grandma.  We get to see grandma's "down there parts" if you know what I mean.  Another thing to mention is how do vampires age?  I thought it was implied that vampires never age since Danny Trejo is back playing the same character he played in the first FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.  Maybe she was a grandma when she turned but I doubt it.  Oh, well.  Who cares?

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3: HANGMAN'S DAUGHTER has many things that work in it's favor.  It is a somewhat creative film with some strong characters and violence.  There is enough here to entertain.  The problem is that the few problems the movie does have hurts the overall feel of the movie.  In the end we really didn't need to see the story of how Santanico Pandemonium came to be head B-Word of the Titty Twister.  Still like part 2, HANGMAN"S DAUGHTER is a mostly enjoyable monster movie even if it is not nearly as good as the first one.

Jason

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2: TEXAS BLOOD MONEY

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2: TEXAS BLOOD MONEY probably should have just been titled TEXAS BLOOD MONEY.  I think that way no one could compare it with ridicule to the far superior FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.  If it wasn't for being a sequel, I think TEXAS would be more accepted as the fun bloody romp this horror film sets out to be.  The production value of the sequel is a bit crude compared to the original which can be a huge turn off to those who think special effects have to look immaculately realistic no matter what.  Good luck finding that in the horror genre.  TEXAS stands on its own merit by itself despite the painfully bad computer effects.

Robert Patrick is awesome.  We cannot get enough Robert Patrick in our lives.  We never really get to see him in a badass lead role.  TEXAS was wise to cast Mr. Patrick as Buck the film's cool tough guy bank robber lead.  Mr. Patrick doesn't miss a beat and makes the most of the unique opportunity given to him.  Even though he is a thief he is very likable.  Not a violent man he does his best to protect his pals when all Hell breaks loose.  He and his fellow bad guys rob a bank in Mexico but one of them has become a vampire.  Throughout the robbery one by one Buck's crew fall victim to the vampire and become one of the undead themselves.  Outside the police have surrounded the bank making escape for Buck almost impossible.  The premise of the movie is thrilling when you think about it.  It screams B-Movie fun.  Fun is what you should have when watching it.

Danny Trejo and the infamous Titty Twister bar return to confound the audience but I wasn't left confused.  I don't think Trejo's character is suppose to be the same guy in the the first one nor is the new Titty Twister the same bar.  I could be wrong though.  I didn't write the bloody thing.

I know TEXAS is not a perfect film but I appreciate what it is trying to do.  There is some respect for classic westerns integrated into the look of the film.  There is a big nod to Sam Peckinpah's greatest work THE WILD BUNCH.   At the end the death march from the classic western's finale is re staged at the end of TEXAS with Buck teaming up with a Texas sheriff played by Bo Hopkins (Who was actually one of the Wild Bunch!) to face off with Buck's former bandits now turned greedy bloodsuckers.  It is a great little moment that few seem to notice and when I say "few" I mean none.

I find there is a lot to like in this movie.  Some of the dialogue is cool and original and some of the camera angles are strange and disorienting giving the impression that you are watching EVIL DEAD 2 instead of a FROM DUSK TILL DAWN sequel.  I guess that is because the director of TEXAS is Scott Spiegel who helped write EVIL DEAD 2.  There is a weird angle that is what I call Vampire Tongue P.O.V. as it bites down on a person's neck.  From inside the mouth you see fangs sink into the neck with blood freely flowing out.  No one has seen that point of view before.  Watch it for yourself and see if you find TEXAS BLOOD MONEY abhorrent like most do or a quirky fun bank heist gone way wrong western.  I feel that TEXAS BLOOD MONEY deserves more than a pathetic 3.9 rating on the IMDB.  I shudder to think what it was rated on Rotten Tomatoes.  All I can say is that FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2: TEXAS BLOOD MONEY is BAT POOP crazy.  Whether that is a good thing or not is up to you.  I apparently just happen to like bat poop.

Also I like how at the end this modern day vampire western the survivors question why vampires would rob a bank as if to let the audience know that the makers recognize the silly premise the film presents.  Clever.

Jason

BRIDES OF DRACULA

Well let me be the first to warn everybody that there is no Dracula and there is sure as heck no brides of Dracula anywhere near this movie.  However, even though the title has nothing to do with the move, BRIDES OF DRACULA is a superb film and if not the best film produced by Hammer Studios.  The title just sounds cool, I guess.  If you use your imagination one can surmise that even though Dracula is dead any woman who is a vampire maybe called his bride simply because he started all this vampire stuff.  Despite the absence of Christopher Lee I have to say that BRIDES is one of my favorite films of all time.

I believe BRIDES OF DRACULA is a sequel to THE HORROR OF DRACULA (Or just plain DRACULA if you live in the U.K.) which has a young woman named Marianne going to an all girl school to become a teacher.  After she is invited by the mysterious Baroness Meinster to stay at her castle the young teacher discovers that mystery lady has a son, the Baraon Meinster, who is chained to his room.  Figuring the lady of the house is mad, Marianne helps the Baron escape.  Of course he is a dracula.  The newly freed vampire wastes no time going out and turning a couple of women in the village into vampires including a friend of the young naive teacher.  Finally Van Helsing shows up and figures there is a dracula on the loose and takes it upon himself to kill the unholy creature.

Director Terence Fischer has a way of bringing out so much bold color and detail to his sets and characters.  His horror films are quite beautiful to look at.  While the bulk of BRIDES is full of polite talk and proper manners one can't help but get drawn in by Cushing's straight forward but warm Van Helsing.  He is charming and courteous but when someone pops out them fangs he has no problem shoving a crucifix down their undead throat.  I remember when I was a kid and first watched BRIDES on TBS back in the day that I was disappointed in the new vampire played by David Peel simply because he was not Christopher Lee.  I wanted Christopher Lee.  Nowadays though I think David Peel's Baron Meinster is wonderfully horrifying with his maddening blood crazed eyes and uncharacteristic to his proper self vampire fangs.  His death at the end is one for the ages and my favorite part of the film.  The Baron is making his escape with what is left of his face after Van Helsing splashed him with holy water.  The Baron had made it out of the now burning windmill he had been using for his lair.  He is totally free with Van Helsing up at the top of the windmill.  If I was Van Helsing I would have been like "Crap...Oh, well I bet I get him in the sequel." and quit the chase.  But not Peter Cushing's Van Helsing.  He wasn't going to have this guy show up in some sequel.  Using his brain Helsing jumps on one of the wings of the windmill and drags it down with his weight converting the windmill into a giant cross which kills the Baron instantly.  Brilliant!  I love that so much.  We also get to see how Van Helsing handles being bit by a vampire too.  He burns the wound with a hot poker and splashes it with holy water like a real man.  That is the perfect cure for vampirism and naughty thoughts.  I probably would have just succumbed to being undead.  Man, it is a good thing I wasn't Van Helsing.  We all would have been screwed.

I think it is kind of funny in the HORROR OF DRACULA Van Helsing says vampires do not turn into bats.  At least if I remember correctly he does.  In BRIDES they turn into bats all the time.  So the good doctor isn't right all the time.  Big deal.  Maybe he meant realistic looking bats since these bats are the hanging from a string variety.  I always love a good "bats dangling on a string" horror movie.  They are good fun and cheesy.  I think that is another reason why BRIDES is so good though.  Even though the bat special effects are not so special it doesn't detract from the genuine sense of horror the movie provides.  I think a lot of that credit goes to Cushing and Peel playing their parts with straight faced determined gusto especially when the two face off against each other.  You can't help but get drawn into the two of them fighting over Marianne's soul.

THE BRIDES OF DRACULA is an excellent example of the greatness of Hammer Studios horror movies from back in the old days.  They made a whole bunch and I try my best to collect them all especially the ones with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.  They weren't all perfect and not without an exploitative nature but I think those of us who want to make scary movies with a real story to tell should watch these along with the Universal Monsters horror collection to culture ourselves on what truly makes horror movies work.  I fear that too many of the old movies have been forgotten and replaced with THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.  I think horror fanatics should go back further than the seventies to learn the basics of HORROR 101.  Maybe then we can get better story driven horror movies in the future even if they are low budget.


Jason

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN

Do you want to know what my favorite film of all time is?  Well I am going to tell you anyway.  Obviously from the title of this post it is the truly great FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.  This horror masterpiece combines multiple genres perfectly to create something original, bloody and fun.  The film showcases George Clooney's greatest role ever.  We get to see Tarantino actually do some great acting which hadn't happen since his good acting RESERVOIR DOGS.  There are monsters, blood and guts galore and Tom Savini in a badass role killing vampires like a freakin pro.  Everything could be explained in hyperbole and you would not even come close to describing how amazing and over the top this film is.  Its a crazy good time but it is full of classic film nods celebrating horror movies and westerns of the past.  My two favorite genres by the way.  You have to love a movie that makes reference to Peter Cushing killing vampires.

How great is this story?  Two bandits fresh off a bank heist and prison break are running from the law trying to cross the border.  After taking a family hostage they cross safely into freedom and go to the predetermined meeting place at a strip club out in the middle of nowhere waiting for their ride.  Suddenly vampires happen.  Good stuff.  Wish I thought of that story.

FROM DUSK TILL DAWN subverts audience expectations in a couple of ways.  An unsuspecting audience member might come into the film thinking they are watching a modern day gangster movie.  Vampire stuff isn't even remotely alluded to until people start finding bat-faced strippers gorging on their necks.  I am sure that would be shocking and exciting to someone out of the know.  Our heroes are two killers, Seth and Richard Gecko.  The closest thing to a real hero is an old sheriff who gets shot right away at the beginning of the film and John Saxon who is too busy being on t.v. and miles away to do any to stop our two villains/heroes.  I know there is the preacher and his two kids but they are supporting cast and are not as interesting as Seth and Richard.

George Clooney as Seth Gecko is a powerhouse, domineering in your face force throughout the film.  You just know he is going to make it out of all this heck without a scratch.  He is a thief we end up sympathizing with because he doesn't want to kill anyone and actually shows some discomfort when he threatens a bank teller the two brothers have take hostage.  He is one of those guys that kills when he has too.  It is not something he enjoys doing.  Richard on the other hand is a complete psychopath who finds any excuse he can to kill.  He comes across as an awkward geek but he is anything but.  He is a killer through and through yet we still kind of like him.  It is their bond as brothers that gets them through this life with Seth doing what he can to keep his brother from murder just short of committing Richard to a psychiatric hospital or prison.  He ignorantly expects him and his brother to live a normal life when they cross the border.  Even if vampires hadn't shown up eventually Seth would have to "Of Mice and Men" his brother for not being able to stop killing and steering unwanted attention their way.  That would be a great movie too.

Once the vampires start feasting on bikers and truck drivers all heck-ola breaks loose.  A whole other film emerges.  Gone is the sunny dry dusty modern day western replaced with the gross out splatter action horror movie.  The screen is doused over and over again with blood, gore and rubbery body parts.  The special effects range from excellent make-ups and mechanical creatures to out of place C.G.I. morphs and cheap stiff exploding mannequins.  The good with the bad effects actually makes the film visuals look better and add variety to the artistry of the production value on display.  Special effects do not have to look perfectly real to be good.  Bad special effects add to the art of film.  A great example of this is the EVIL DEAD trilogy.  Also bad special effects let us know that we can have fun with this film just like the makers had fun when creating this movie.

There is a lot going on in this film and director Robert Rodriguez has full control of the material.  Balancing two different kinds of movies in the same film he shows how energetic and crafty he can be in different ways.  The beginning of the film is slow and steady like a western allowing the camera to take in the cool and collected (sometimes) Seth Gecko.  The second half is turbulent with a lot a quick but not too quick cuts going around the bloody bar making sure we the audience can see every bit of carnage going on.  No one else could have made this film.  

Never a dull moment FROM DUSK TILL DAWN is a hard movie to top on my top ten list.  That reminds me.  One of these days I should make a top ten list.

Jason

Mario Bava's BLACK SABBATH

Mario Bava's BLACK SABBATH is a beautiful and strangely effective horror film for its time.  It has 'classic' written all over it with a few images that will get stuck in your head and keep you up at night.  The film is a collection of three short stories hosted by Boris Karloff who jokes it up a bit keeping the in between segments light hearted.  The film is dark and shadowy with touches of psychedelic colors splashed in just the right places to add a certain dreamlike quality to the whole production.  Even if you are bored with the stories you cannot help but be impressed by the elaborate sets and engaging camera work.

The first story is the strongest and quiet frankly the scariest.  This one will give you nightmares, folks.  The story is about an elderly woman who has died during a seance and her caretaker is called in to prepare the body during the night for the coroner in the morning.  The caretaker in a moment of weakness steals a ring from the dead woman.  It goes without saying that the dead woman wants her ring back.  Great atmosphere and use of sound makes this one the best of the bunch.

The second story titled "The Telephone" is confusing and not as successful as the first or third story.  A woman gets harassing phone calls from a dead man named Frank who she dated but turned into the police when she found out he was a criminal.  This one left me confused and bored.  By the end I had no idea what just happened or if it happened at all.  It is almost as if they had two different stories that they tried to make one.  Was the woman really harassed by real phone calls from the dead or was it all in her head?  The movie seems to say that both are correct which makes no sense.  Things not making sense seems to be a common occurrence in Italian horror which is why I have a love hate relationship with the genre.

The third story concerning a family in the mountains waiting for their father to return who they fear may have become a vampire is incredibly good.  The atmosphere is laid on thick with sets strangled by barren trees with noodling branches that spread about with no end in sight.  Fog is everywhere.  The story is very dark.  Boris Karloff plays the father who has returned from killing a bandit who was a plague on the countryside a little on the undead side.  One by one he turns his family into vampires too.  Mark Damon plays a traveler who has taken refuge in the family's home before the horror comes.  He tries to save the daughter whom he has fallen in love with.  Finally Mark Damon and Boris Karloff in a film together!  Who would have thought it?  The story is a little more deep concerning the strength of family bonds keeping them together even in death.  The story could have been it's own movie.  Boris Karloff is frightful and menacing as the vampire.  Apparently this is the only film he played a vampire.

After the third story is over the film just ends.  There is no end segment with Boris Karloff wishing us safe travels and to beware of any vampires, mummies or Frankenstein monsters that may be living in our neighborhoods.  I was a little disappointed by that.  Since this is an Italian film I wonder if there are alternate cuts of the film that do not have such an abrupt ending.  Still it is cool that Boris Karloff is in an Italian horror film.  Bava has fun with him but also makes Karloff scary again.  This is a must watch for horror fans.


Jason

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES is a mixed bag.  It has one of the best representations of vampirism put to screen and an extremely strong out going lead in James Wood's character.  But the story or lack there of and a rushed finale really hurt the film.  Yet despite having some major issues this is one of my favorite John Carpenter films simply because I like the basic concept.  What Carpenter has created is THE WILD BUNCH vs. a bunch of vampires.  I love that idea.

James Woods is a vampire hunter whose team is wiped out by a single vampire.  Discovering this vampire is looking for a black cross that can make it possible for vampires to walk in the light James goes after the vampire to stop him.  There is a little more to it but we all know the story with movies like this.  You don't need me to type it out for you.  It always has to be about saving the world.

The execution of the story is a little weak.  It seems like the writers didn't know which direction to take the story so we the audience find ourselves watching people talk in hotel room for a good chunk of the film's running time.  I never timed it so maybe they aren't in there too long but it sure does feel like it.  The plot of getting the black cross and stopping vampires from walking in the daylight is mentioned at least three times throughout the film adding nothing but redundancy to the plot.  The end itself is a rush job with little in the way of action and conflict.  Apparently they ran out of money which is sad because this film could have used a more violent and elaborate ending.  Instead we get this weird montage of vampires running into an old prison to avoid sunlight with some priest and one of the Baldwins shooting at them with worthless guns.  Big whoop.  They might as well have used harsh language to fight off the vampires by that point.  The result would have been the same.

VAMPIRES is unique though for it's use of the sun.  Vampires do not like the sun but so much of the film takes place in the open sunlight.  Most vampire movies take place at night unless they are really low budget.  Besides the fact that the movie takes place in the geographic west having most of the movie take place during the day adds to the Western movie formula.  Everything shot through a red filter helps with the dry arid desert look as well.  You got these Gothic looking vampires strutting their stuff in the wild west which you don't see too much in vampire movies.

These vampires kill to kill not just to drink blood.  In fact I am not sure if there is much blood drinking in this movie.  They are killing machines as John Carpenter puts it.  These baddies seek power and the cross is going to help them get it.  I particularly like how the vampires ignite and explode in the sun.  If you notice our vampire hunters have a tendency to overkill them.  They stake them, burn the corpses in the sun and then take their heads.  I think they do that because like in the book, VAMPIRE$, they are discovering what will and what won't kill them.  They make sure these vampires have no chance of coming back.  I always liked that concept.  Usually someone has all the answers on how to deal with the undead.  I think it is a little more realistic and exciting if nobody knows for sure.

The gadgets, weapons and outfits our vampire hunters were wearing at the beginning of the film are super cool.  These costume dressings are the kind of badass style we want to see more of.  The vampire hunters themselves would have made the movie better if the writers hadn't killed them all off ten minutes into the film.  Our "Wild Bunch" sadly do not last long.  These guys live the fast  lifestyle.  They know they can die at anytime so they live it up the best they can drinking, smoking and tearing up hotel rooms to impress their whores.  I would have liked the movie to explore that aspect instead of giving us a film with the standard save the world and revenge dead parents plot.  There was definitely a missed opportunity here.  Still James Woods is enough to keep the film interesting.

Maybe VAMPIRES isn't the best in John Carpenter's career but it struck a cord with me with some of it's concepts.  I recommend it but this is one of those movies that has a lot to forgive.  This is one of those rare occasions where I wouldn't mind seeing a remake but with the same director.  Read the book there is a great movie you can make out of that.


Jason

VAMP! Grace Jones is the scariest vampire ever.

People often ask me why I don't go to strip clubs.  I always answer the same.  I grab them by the collar and pull them real close and give them my own Clint Eastwood gleaming stare and matter of factly say "Vampires".  If Hollywood has taught us one thing its that most strip clubs are ran by vampires that want to suck blood and tear peoples' faces off.  It is just a simple fact.  I have seen it happen time and time again.  FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, THE DEVIL'S DEN, FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 2, DEADCERT, FROM DUSK TILL DAWN 3 and VAMP are all classic examples of vampires dabbling in the skin trade to suck peoples' blood.  No, thanks.  I like to keep my blood on the inside of my body.  That is where I keep most of my organs.

Anyhoo Keith and A.J. are a couple of college students who are trying to get into a fraternity.  After making the fraternity they were pledging to look bad they promise to get the fraternity anything they want.  That anything turns out to be a stripper.  So they decide to drive hundreds of miles away to a big city where they find a club called AFTER DARK.  I think its called AFTER DARK.  I could be wrong.  I don't quite remember.  You get the point though.  The club's name is some kind of vampire joke. Hilarious I'm sure if I was undead.  There they find Grace Jones performing.........Yea, its kind of weird.  I will leave it at that.  This is the eighties though and our two heroes for some odd reason find Grace to be the hottest woman alive.  A.J. goes back to see if she will be their stripper where he is immediately sucked dry.  I could have warned him but I was like ten back then.  My G.I. Joes weren't going to play by themselves.  (Though that would be awesome.)  The rest of the movie is Keith and this girl who knows him from back in the day running around being chased by vampires,  I guess they decided not to follow up on the whole getting a stripper for the college party.  That is a shame.  I say why can't they do both?

Remember that kid from MEATBALLS that looked like he could be a boy or a girl but we couldn't tell because we were like ten when that movie came out?  Well he is Keith and he was actually a boy.  Now he looks like the son of Mel Gibson.  The actors name is Chris Makepeace and he does a good job playing the film's lead.  He is not too dorky but he is not too handsome either.  I can relate to him.  Actually now that I think about it, Mel Gibson is a pretty good looking fellow.  I can't relate to that.  Now I don't like him.  His friend A.J. is played by that guy from NIGHTMARE OF ELM ST.  part 2 FREDDY DOESN'T LIKE GAY PEOPLE who gets killed in his tighty-whiteys.  He is a good personality.  Hip and charming he steals the show tricking you into thinking he is the main lead.  But then he dies.  Now usually when this happens the movie would become less interesting but it doesn't.  MEATBALLS BOY takes the reins and guides us through the green and pink lighted back alleys and sewers of vampire central.  Don't worry folks, ol' A.J. comes back as a vampire.  The good kind I assure you.  Well, not at first but A.J. is too cool to dine on the blood of his best friend.  What a great guy.  We could all take a lesson in friendship from A.J.  Not me though.  If I was a vampire your ass is grass.

VAMP is surprisingly good.  It has a lot of interesting scenes and characters and the film doesn't slow or get boring.  Plus a lot of vampires die too.  That is very important in a vampire film.  Kill more vampires.  Two best characters are of course the non talking Grace Jones that freaks out into vampire form and an albino gang leader played by the awesome Billy Drago.  If anything see it for them. 


Jason

PRIEST 3D! NOT REALLY IN 3D!

I haven't seen PRIEST 1D or 2D but PRIEST 3D is actually pretty good.  I know the reviews haven't been kind but I found this movie to be a fun badass alternate universe comic book western that completely rips off JUDGE DREDD.  Heck, the freakin poster looks like UNDERWORLD!

Priests are vampire hunters that have somewhat super human powers to combat the undead.  The vampires were defeated in some war by the Priests and placed into "reservations" for some reason.  I guess the movie history is some kind of analogy with America's past with the Native Americans and putting them in reservations.  How inappropriate.  No longer useful the Priests are integrated back into society to lead normal boring lives just like in THE INCREDIBLES.  Vampires buffalo through and kill Paul Bettany's brother and wife and steal their daughter.  Though the Church will not allow Paul Bettany to go after her, he does.  That's the bare bones synopsis of PRIEST 3D.  I could go on into more detail but that would be too boring.  I'm not writing the book.

The strengths of this film are in the acting and characters along with a simple fast paced story and unique look to the film.  Bettany is excellent as the badass Priest, Carl Urban is a terrific somewhat scary villain, and Maggie Q is hot.  These three characters give the film some weight keeping it from being just another mediocre film from the guy who did LEGION.  I like the grey desert landscape.  I like the fact that everyone dresses like its 1865.  I love westerns.  What can I say?  I will say this.  This isn't a movie made for 3D.  The glasses make the film already darker than it needs to be.  There are many scenes that take place in dark caves and crypts.  Its hard to see what is going on in these scenes because of the glasses.   The 3D is nothing more than a gimmick to trick people into seeing a movie that the studio has very little faith in.  There is not one damn thing that "pops" out at you.

PRIEST 3D goes the HIGHLANDER route when it comes to explaining the rules of this universe.  There is almost no explanation as to why the priests have super human abilities.  They just do or they were trained really well or something.  In other words its vague as hell.  It perplexes me to no end as to why the Church would keep vampires on reservations.  Why not kill the bastards?  No one seems to question this logic.  At first I figured the Church kept them around to bring them out as a way to control the people when they lose their faith like some kind of obvious cliched plot twist.  But no they just figure a few guards will keep them in check.  It doesn't make sense.  It also doesn't make sense when Bettany tries to convince the Church that vampires are on the loose and they don't believe him.  Why would they not believe him?  Its totally plausible that vamps over powered the guards and escaped since THEY ARE FREAKIN VAMPIRES AND THEY DO THIS KIND OF CRAP ALL THE TIME!  And another thing.  Why not use the Priests as guards over the reservations instead of giving them remedial work that is below their skill level like garbage men and coal shovellers (the city runs on coal)?    This movie doesn't make any sense at all!  But I digress.

The biggest problem is the lack of impact the violence has on the audience.  The movie seems to cut around the hits and punches.  When someone gets punched I want to see the punch make contact quickly, not shake the camera and cut away before the hit lands.  There should have been single shot takes of Bettany taking down bad guys quickly as if he were a six shot revolver being fired by the Man with No Name.  PRIEST 3D feels a little unfocused.  The movie rushes forward too quickly not allowing for the tenser moments to sink in.  This is evident at the beginning where the Priests walk into a trap and have to escape quickly.  Its an important scene since this moment sparks the conflict of two Priests that must eventually fight each other at the end.  Good Priest vs. a vamped out bad Priest.  Pretty cool.  But the scene is done so fast its almost unnoticed.  It just kind of happens in about three or four shots and then its done. 

I think this movie is a little better than mediocre.  I put it in the "Good Movie" column but I know this movie isn't going to impress many.  I will say as a positive that for a PG-13 this movie is pretty violent.  The beginning is told through animation that is extremely bloody.  Cartoon people are torn in half with blood spray everywhere.  Its pretty cool.  They should have gone balls out and made the whole damn thing R.  Gives us what we want not what 13 year olds want.  What the heck would they know?  They're 13!  Its their fault that everything is in 3D nowadays.  Morons.

Jason

LOST BOYS part 3: THE THIRST

LOST BOYS part 2:  THE TRIBE tries to recapture the same youthful but dark and dreamlike atmosphere of the original.  The story about a brother and sister dealing with the undead is so similar that it might as well be a remake except Corey Feldman returns as Edgar Frog a self appointed vampire killer.  The son of Kiefer Sutherland plays the head vampire which his father played in the first LOST BOYS.  Its an important film because you learn an extremely important scientific fact.  Acting is not an inherited gene.  In other words Kiefer Sutherland's son sucked.  And no I am not using the word "SUCK" as some kind of lame vampire joke just because I am reviewing a vampire movie.  I would like to think I am a little more original than that.  This isn't an episode of FULL HOUSE is all I am saying.  The whole movie sucked.  What a terrible, terrible movie.  The vampires are a bunch of young "JACKASS" wannabes, they aren't scary and Edgar Frog only kills one freakin vampire.  WHY DO I LIKE IT!?!  I guess I love the two Coreys.  That is my excuse and I am sticking with it.

What?  Oh, yea. I am suppose to be reviewing LOST BOYS part 3: THE THIRST.  Here I am talking about part 2 and you guys are freakin out because you are dieing to know if part 3 is worth the price of purchase.  Yes, LOST BOYS part 3 is good.  No, not a good well made movie that has a smart story and defines the current youth culture in a dark but fun filled horror movie.  Its my kind of "good".  Like part 2, LB3 is a terrible movie.  The vampires are "hip-Euro-trash".  They try so hard to be cool and menacing but instead they look like bad actors imitating vampires they saw on t.v.  Every time they say anything I want to bury my head in shame for buying this movie on the release day.  They present almost no threat whatsoever because anyone apparently can kill them.  The movie tries hard to be funny and clever but rarely does it succeed.  There are a lot of bad lines.  Why are there samurai swords in this movie?  Also Feldman gets this laser sighted grenade launcher that shoots holy water.  It's really cool but of course he shoots a wall with it and that's about all you get to see of it being used.  Kind of disappointing since they build it up a bit.  But I can't help it.  I loved this movie.  Why?

Part of it is because of the nostalgia factor.  The recently deceased Corey Haim is shown in flashbacks and there is a scene where Feldman is at Haim's grave where he says good-bye.  This is art imitating life.  Haim and Feldman were best friends in real life. It's strangely sad and gives the movie a small sense of depth that goes beyond the simple horror movie.  Also because the movie tries hard to be funny there are a few clever moments that made me laugh and eased me into ignoring Feldman's craptacular acting and truly loving this movie.  There are good moments in this film.  The movie follows rule #1 in making a great vampire movie.  KILL LOTS OF VAMPIRES!  A lot of vamps die in part 3.  I think my favorite is the way the last vampire died.  I won't spoil it but I have never seen a vampire die like that before.  Sort of.  Of course there is a reference to TWILIGHT.  It was almost a smart comparison between romantic sexy vampires of TWILIGHT and the murderous bloody vampires of the LOST BOYS.  But the next scene though showed hot sexy chick vampires getting it on in hot sexy ways.  Whoops.

If you can tolerate part 2 then you should really enjoy part 3.  Unlike THE TRIBE, THE THIRST features Corey Feldman as the main character.  He is the hero. He kills a few vamps and at times he is really funny.  It may take about twenty minutes to actually like the movie but give it a chance.  It will disappoint unless you like really bad movies that have heart.  I do.


Jason

                             Killing vampires is so easy even a caveman can do it.

                                                     

Twilight part 2: New Moon!

Spoiler alert!!!! I didn't hate it. I found myself actually enjoying this one.......To poop on! Nah, I'm just messing with ya. It wasn't too bad. I won't bore you with the details of the story since you have already read the books and watched the movies like a hundred times and probably written volumes of books and screenplays of your own Twilight fan fiction, you sick sick person you. Instead I will write in a hilarious fashion my own thoughts of the film and why its better than the first one. OR IS IT!!!!....Yes it is.

The first Twilight was just plain boring. I hope you like grey and rain and people walking and sitting and looking sick and playing baseball and going to school. Why would hundred year old vamps still go to high school? I think sometime in the 1980's they saw 21 Jump Street and decided to spend their undead lives un-living (HA-ha?) out their youthful looking undercover cop fantasies. I wonder who Edward thinks he is? Bella and Edward hold little chemistry between the both of them. Their love seems empty and paint by the numbers. This is how the book goes so this is how the movie goes. Bella loves Edward because he is rock hard handsome and can run really fast and climb trees. Vampires are shown as fun loving, baseball playing, My Chemical Romance wannabes. Vampires don't melt in sunlight, they can't be killed by crosses or stakes through the heart, they can be psychic or mind readers or other cool stuff. Wow! Being dead looks great! Wish I was dead! There is no real downside to being a vampire. Why not make everyone a vampire? The villain vamps are non-threatening and show up at the end of the movie. Movie's over morons I guess we will have to wait till part 2 to see something happen.

It does. Part 2 shows the dark side of vampires. Somewhere in Europe there is a council of really old, super powerful vampires that have no problem killing hundreds of tourists to satisfy their thirst. These guys are not to be messed with. They bring a sense of looming danger to the film and I hope to see more of them in the future. Its better than seeing Bella screaming in her pillow at night. Awkward. How many times do we really need to see that? Werewolves make an appearance finally and they too are not to be messed with. One of them got really pissed at his girlfriend so he took her face and smashed it into blender..NAH, I'm just messing with ya. No, he wolfed out too close to her and accidentally cut off half her face. I wonder how he explained that one to the authorities? The wolves fighting the vamps keep things interesting because there is something actually happening on the screen. The movie isn't one long commercial for depression medication even though it tries with it's sad Bella scenes.

I don't know where the council of the vampires is. I don't remember. I will say its probably in Transylvania somewhere. They live in a city where during the movie the citizens are celebrating the elimination of vampires. Apparently a long time ago vampires were a serious issue in Transylvania and some guy kicked them all out and to mark the occasion the city puts on a big festival to honor the event. But as we see in New Moon the vampire council kill a bunch of tourists in one day as if they were merely having a simple lunch. I'm sure they do that often. Wouldn't a city that is notorious for dealing with vampires get suspicious about a bunch of tourists going missing in their city everyday? Would there not be people looking for them? I am sure there would be one detective in town that would say " Hey, Johnny. Doesn't it seem strange to you that Los Angeles has three hundred missing person cases every year and we have three hundred missing person cases everyday?" It just doesn't make sense. But then again Twilight is about feelings. Not logic.

New Moon can't go five minutes without showing Edward in some strange spooky way. I get it. Girls see Twilight for the pale creaminess of Edward. I get it. But what about story. This movie is about the relationship between Bella and Jacob. Edward left. Its Jacobs turn. Yet according to the Twilight movies a vampire can turn into a ghost and visit people while they are doing something dangerous. Bella wants to ride a bike with some jerk and here comes the ghost of Edward appearing out of thin air telling her to turn around. I know what you are going to say. "Jason, you magnificent man you. That wasn't a ghost. That was Bella's conscience  manifesting itself in the form of the one who hurt her most. Thus giving her reason to rebel and be dangerous." To that I would respond. "Then why is she arguing with it when she is about to cliff dive?" How often do you argue out loud to a non-entity of yourself? Answer. You don't. Twilight focuses too much on the star power of Edward. What if they did that in other movies? What if Star Wars: A New Hope banked too much on the star power of Alec Guiness? What if George felt that the audience would lose interest after Obi-Wan is dead and decided to put him back in during a pivotal moment in Star Wars? I think it would go something like this......

"Tugging a dead R-2 unit Luke Skywalker's X-Wing nears the exhaust port ready to fire. He ignores the booms and blasts of exploding Tie-Fighters and X-Wings all around him. He needs to focus. He is the only one left. He is the last hope. Within firing range he presses a button and summons the targeting computer that extends into his immediate view. Suddenly the blue ghost of Obi-Wan appears before our hero just outside the cockpit window.

"Luke, use the force." The blue Obi-Wan speaks with assurance.

Luke screams. "HOLY SHIT! GHOSTS ARE REAL!!!"

The X-Wing jerks to the right and explodes in the trenches of the Death Star.

The End."

Pretty scary stuff, huh.? Almost as scary as going to school with hundred year old teenage vampires that could go blood crazy at the slightest hint of a bloody nose. Why do they go to school again? To not be noticed? Heck one of them tried to kill Bella on her birthday because she cut her finger. Think about it, folks. Anyway I still like New Moon and do plan on seeing the next one in the theater. I am not going to say I am a fan because the love story which is the main focus of Twilight does not interest me in the slightest. Its the conflict of Edward and Jacob that I look forward too. Boy on Dog action. GO TEAM JACOB!....Nah, I'm just kidding. I am an Edward fan. He looks just like me.

Message to VAN HELSING - I WANT MY TWO YEARS BACK!!!!

I like Steven Sommers. I like him alot. DEEPRISING. Awesome! The first MUMMY. Super! VAN HELSING. BALLS IN MY MOUTH TERRIBLE!!!!! The Universal Horror Monster movies of long ago are some of my favorite movies. As a kid these are the only horror movies I would watch because as a kid I was a wuss with an X-Men like special ability to poop my pants anytime FRIDAY the 13 came on KDEB (local fox station back in the 80's). Eighties horror was too gory but monsters are awesome so I had to depend on the safe horrors of old black and white Dracula and Frankenstein. When the studio ran out of ideas for an original horror movie they simply packed a film with Dracula and Wolfman and Frankenstein and some mad scientist and Igor and Abbot and Costello. Those films aren't so great. But what if they made a Universal monster movie with all the classic great villains together mixed with today's special effects and a hero that is super badass who has all these cool weapons that are suppose to kill lots of creatures? Well, instead of getting one of my favorite movies of all time I got MOULON ROUGE 2: HERES SOME CRAP!!!

When production on VAN HELSING was announced I was excited. Yea, Steven Sommers is way too heavy on the CGI but he made great action monster movies that delivered on their promise. Kill lots of monsters. The MUMMY part 2 sucked but everyone makes a mistake, right? I anticipated every headline on the internet hoping to get a small glimpse of the visual direction and tone Van Helsing was going for. The sneak peak posters with all the monsters and the hero in silhouette were exciting because the look of Van Helsing was similar to VAMPIRE HUNTER D so you knew this movie was going to be BADASS despite knowing it was going to be PG-13. Seeing the trailer I was even more convinced this was going to be one the best monster movies ever. I couldn't wait. Finally in the theater the movie began........From the very beginning everything sucked. The acting was way too over the top and nothing looked real. I'm a pretty forgiving guy so I let it slide when the Frankenstein monster tries to start an opera right before the flaming windmill he is standing on gives way and he falls screaming "WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?" . At least that is what I assumed was happening. Twenty minutes later I gave up. That was the worst part because I knew I still had two hours to go before the movie was over.

Like MOULON ROUGE tried to bring back the classic 50's musical, VAN HELSING attempts to capture a classic style of acting and production values that are iconic in the traditional Universal creature feature. MOULON ROUGE didn't understand the Broadway style acting so every performance is over the top and greatly exaggerated to cartoonish proportions. Also MOULON ROUGE was lazy and didn't want to write its own music so it said "Here's a bunch of Madonna songs. She is still A-list, right?" VAN HELSING does the exact same thing except the Madonna songs thingy. Every line is delivered as awkwardly as possible with a emphasis on whaling and screaming and moaning. I couldn't understand what anybody was saying half the time. But that's how they talked in the classics, right? Nope.

The plot is about the worst Dracula ever, who wants to harness the life force that keeps Frankenstein alive. Dracula wants to bring to life the still born children he has had with his three wives. That sounds kind of creative. But his children are millions of snot-dwarf-bat-thingys that are cocooned in snot sacks. Lame. Van Helsing shows up with his cool gadgets to stop him. Unfortunately he can't hit anything with his fully automatic crossbow and Dracula can't be killed by traditional means so all his cool stuff means nothing. That's right wooden stakes, sunlight, universal health-care, none of that can stop him. Brilliantly (sarcasm) the only way to defeat Dracula is to turn into a werewolf and bite out his throat. Only a five year old would think that was cool. Here's another great idea. Lets take Frankenstein and make him really smart and deep. He is going to be a good guy. Lets give him a lot of dialogue but let us make him look retarded so everyone will laugh when he speaks. Also turn his head into an aquarium and give him a beat box for a left leg. For a finale lets have Frankenstein swing around like Tarzan, that would be cool. Nothing makes sense. Nothing comes together. Everything is blue and incredibly boring despite being packed with monsters and action and horny friars. I wasted two years waiting for this sucker. I want my two years back.........Never mind I would just waste them anyway.

As always love to all especially the two people who actually read this crap,

Jason

I AM LEGEND: A Movie You Like But Really You Don't

I know you think this movie is great. It has Will Smith who is a good actor with a strong screen presence. It has special effects and a dog. The idea of being the last person alive on the planet is intriguing. But deep down inside in your heart of hearts something doesn't feel right, does it? There is a part of you that feels unfulfilled. Why? It has Will Smith fighting vampires. There's your money's worth, right? At least that is what happens in the book. But why doesn't anything happen in the movie? If you were truly honest with yourself you would strongly dislike this movie. If you were me you would hate it, and probably kill yourself because of your raging manic depression.

Do not get I AM LEGEND the movie confused with I AM LEGEND the book. The two are completely unrelated except for maybe a name or two. The book is about the last man on earth, Robert Neville, who is just a regular guy that happens to be immune to a virus that killed everyone and brought them back as blood sucking vampires. Also known as Democrats. (HA! HA! That's a joke. I am wildly political in my reviews. That's cool, right?.......Whoops. Sorry won't happen again.) He spends his days in his neighborhood somewhere in California pissed off, killing sleeping vampires and simply surviving. The guy has a real attitude problem when it comes to vamps. At night he defends his home from the thousands of monsters that surround his fortified home. The irony of the book is that Robert Neville is the monster to the vampires. They are afraid of him. Its a simple concept yet intelligent. The ending really makes you think. The book delivers on the vampire killing which is why you read a book like this in the first place. Great stuff.

The movie however is about an actor named Will Smith who is in a movie that tries to be a statement about 9-11. Will is in New York because that is "ground zero" of the virus outbreak. Wouldn't it be better to live in an area where there isn't so many things trying to kill you? I don't think anybody will care about your 9-11 metaphor. Everybody is dead. He is a scientist that is trying to find a cure for the virus that I think he created but isn't there a interview with someone else who is credited for curing cancer? Isn't that what caused all this in the first place? I don't remember I only saw this sucker once in the theater. Apparently the virus didn't turn people into vampires. Instead everyone changed into Harry Potter Special Effects cartoons. He calls them "Dark Seekers".(Or something similar to that.) I guess he thinks that is a more scientific name because calling them vampires is too stupid. Everyone knows vampires don't exist. DuH!

The movie starts off well enough with the t.v. interview at the beginning letting everyone know what caused the outbreak followed by Will Smith driving fast and ignoring the rules of the road in downtown New York just like the Fresh Prince would have done if he were the last homey on Earth. He is hunting a deer. In New York!?! That's Crazy,Yo! His dog chases one into a building and Will has to go in and get him. This is the only time any sense of tension or horror is established in the movie. Shortly after we see a "Dark Seeker" all rules of reality are thrown out the window. Its a cartoon eating a deer. This is where all the craptacularness begins. This movie has more to do with Who Framed Roger Rabbit? than it does I Am Legend. Actually they look more like left over mummies they couldn't use in the MUMMY movies. Why are there mummies in my vampire movie? What the heckola would a mummy do to Will Smith anyway? Maybe they can teach him how to "wrap". Get it? "Wrap"..........Really? I got nothing from that?

Nothing happens in this movie. That means its "smart". If you notice most films that are considered "smart" are boring and plot less. See Raging Bull as an example. I don't care what anybody says. That movie sucked. In the book Neville is pissed off all the time and really horny. In the movie Neville cries alot (That means there is "Drama") and wanders the city hitting on dummies he set up in stores to pretend he is living in a normal human populated world. He needs something to do to keep himself from going crazy. Uh, here is a suggestion. Maybe instead of wasting precious minutes of screen time renting Shrek for the billionth time, maybe you should kill some vampires so we the audience can be entertained. I didn't pay eight bucks to see you "get it on" with a mannequin. I don't need to see my porn collection re-enacted on the big screen.

As a whole the film is a mish-mash of watered down bad ideas. When the two humans show up the horror of being the last man on earth is DJJAZZYJEFFed out the door. The fact that there is a cure betrays all the bleakness and impending doom the setting is suppose to inspire. The story is not suppose to be about finding a cure. Read the freakin book! But that's Hollywood for you. It needs a plot people can related to. The ending cannot be smart. It needs big special cartoon effects like a summer blockbuster. It needs explosions. Nothing comes together well or makes any sense. There is a scene where Neville captures a female mummy and a male mummy jumps out into the sun and gets his face fried a little. The audience sees the anger in his face. We see that the mummy has human emotions like love and is willing to die trying to rescue his companion. Neville the scientist, the smart guy sees MUMMY=STUPID. That's clearly not the intent of the scene. Even when they set up a trap for him and out smart him he seems not to notice their intelligence.

In conclusion I Am Legend the movie is an A-List, boring, soulless studio project that tries to cry itself into the admiration of the uptight film critic. By making it less about vampires and more about standing and talking I Am Legend seems to be about winning an Academy Award. That would also explain why it was released in December where a lot of films that are in the running for the Academy's are shown. Its not scary. It has nothing to do with the book. So why call it I Am Legend? I would have called it THE FRESH PRINCE MEETS THE MUMMIES.

I think you guys should be proud of me for in this day and age not mentioning Twilight in this review. Also I know that by bringing that up I have voided the previous sentence I just wrote before this one.

As always love to all especially you,

Jason