Quantcast
Channel: Taliesin meets the vampires
Viewing all 2168 articles
Browse latest View live

Oh My Ghost! 2 – review

$
0
0
Director: Poj Arnon

Release Date: 2011

Contains spoilers

Please pay attention as this will get confusing. The Thai film, Oh My Ghost! 2 is also called Hor taew tak 3. Hor taew tak (the first film) was released in 2007 and called Haunting Me in the English speaking markets. The sequel Hor taew tak 2 was released in 2009 and entitled Oh My Ghost for the English-speaking market, so this volume is the third in the series. There is a fourth film (2012) Hor taew tak 4/Oh My Ghost 3. To make things more confusing there is a further film (from 2013) entitled Oh My Ghost that, from what I can tell, features one of the stars of the series as a different character.

Netflix UK has Hor taew tak 2-4 (and the later Oh My Ghost) available to watch and I realised that this volume has a vampire element. I watched Hor taew tak 2 (to try and get au fait with the series) and then this – it was still confusing (actually more so than film 2) as the vampire (and werewolf) elements seemed almost random.

arriving
The series itself is based in the katoey world. In Thailand katoey originally referred to an intersex individual but in its modern usage it might refer to a transgender woman or an effeminate gay man – this film is set around the transgender aspect but stretched out to the drag scene. Ru Paul has suggested that “Transgender people take identity very seriously – their identity is who they are”, quite rightly, whereas “Drag is really making fun of identity”. The films play entirely for comedy, and perhaps runs a drag aspect for that effect. As it starts the primary characters of Mod Dam (Ekkachai Srivichai), Cartoon (Yingsak Chonglertjetsadawong) and Taew (Jaturong Mokjok), along with Taew’s son Koy (Wiradit Srimalai) and a toilet, arrive at new lodgings.

Pharanyu Rojanawuthitham as Thaeng
They have the toilet because it was the place where Pancake (Kohtee Aramboy) was killed in the first film and now her spirit is tied to it. She was summoned in the second film to help them deal with a troublesome ghost. As they are shown through the grounds Taew spots a young athletic man by a pool, but he vanishes. Later Pancake comes across him swimming. He is Thaeng Thong (Pharanyu Rojanawuthitham) a ghost and the primary focus of the film (be that in terms of romantic rivalry between pancake and the others, in terms of vampirism or the focal point for the villains).

turned vampire
One issue I had was that I didn’t actually work out, at any given point, what the villains were actually after in this film. The primary plot seemed to be that Waew Sawat (Apaporn Nakornsawan) was some kind of witch (I think) who had stolen her identity and, with the help of Suan Sawat (Kachapa Toncharoen), killed the witnesses including Thaeng Thong (bar one witness who has amnesia and also the woman who has summoned the ladies to solve the mystery). So, for a reason I didn’t overly get, the villains are after a “savage mole” they implanted in Thaeng Thong. When retrieved it turns him into a savage persona and that persona is a vampire – actually a corporeal bloodsucking vampire.

crosses and garlic
Pancake presumably has no issues with this because she’s a ghost and they become romantically entwined. There is a little lore offered as we move through the film. There is an intention to destroy the vampire by destroying his corpse using a stake to the heart (in other words he is a vampiric ghost, able to achieve corporeality but separate and yet connected to his dead body), there is some use of garlic and crosses (the latter as hair pieces but the film offering no real clue as to the effectiveness of either apotropaic), there is also new lore that a strawberry (a magic one, that is), held in the mouth, will prevent a vampire attack!

werewolves with the vampire
There is also a pack of werewolves (brought along because vampires and werewolves are enemies – according to the mispronounced movie Twingelight). The werewolves (bar a bit of a CGI shapeshift at one point) are buff young men with pointed ears, light cropped beards and upper and lower fangs (rather than the vampire’s upper fangs only). In fact, the vampire and werewolves both owe more to David DeCoteau’s films than anything else.

rocket dong
The comedy is madcap and based around verbal sparring – as well as the obligatory bitchiness there is quite a bit around mispronunciation with a twist that it is a Chinese attempt to speak Thai – and slapstick. There is also a sexual element to the comedy, which culminates in Pancake riding a rocket dong to defeat a warlock. It is the characters who carry this and the living and ghostly primary characters are amusing in their own way. However, I think a layer of the comedy went over my head as well, steeped as it was in a specific Thai subculture.

Kohtee Aramboy as Pancake
However, the plot that was the primary vehicle for delivering this comedy was bitty and not well constructed – in fact, having watched the previous movie, this really didn’t try very hard at all. The previous film actually went out of its way to build a thorough backstory for the ghostly shenanigans, this seemed more of a plot sketched on the back of a cigarette packet. The acting was mostly histrionic, but that is what was called for, though the character of Pancake works really well thanks to both the presence and comic timing of Kohtee Aramboy. Many are going to find this hard work due to the flimsy plot and histrionics. 3.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

The Luke McQueen Pilots: Britain's Hidden Vampire Crisis – review

$
0
0
Director: Paul Taylor

First aired: 2018

Contains spoilers

I received a message that this was showing on the BBC and went onto iPlayer to have a look. Luke McQueen is a stand-up comedian known for pulling stunts or using conceits as a basis for his act. This episode was entirely based on the conceit that McQueen had been given the opportunity to make a pilot episode for a show by the BBC and aimed to make a documentary about a subject close to his heart. Throughout the show he repeats that he is making a documentary like Stacey Dooley or Reggie Yates.

montage
The subject close to his heart is Britain’s Hidden Vampire Crisis and he (at the insistence of his producers) interviews Dr Nick Groom as an expert. This moment of the show worked as McQueen played with an affected faux-naivety to spin his interview incorrectly. When asked how many vampires are in Britain, Groom responds that for lifestylers it is upwards of 15000, labouring the point that they are not really vampires. He explains that actual people who believe they need to drink blood is a much smaller number but McQueen ignores this, speaking over him and runs on a “15k vampires in Britain” message from there on in.

childhood view
McQueen’s obsession, we learn, comes from the fact that his dad (Mark Silcox) had told him that his mum had been taken by vampires – when she had just left. More could have been done with this and would have been a much better focus (though perhaps edging towards too sitcom for the programme makers). His thought that the NHS blood donation service is a Government front for vampires was lukewarm in a comedic sense and his accusation that Theresa May is a vampire ascribes her way too much personality and goth-cool to be funny.

stunt
There are stunts through the show – though how stage managed they are, and thus how much the “public” were in on the stunt, is unclear. Going into a Metal gig in faux-Count outfit and stripping naked on stage, offering himself to any vampires there, and pouring milk over himself in the street and calling for the age of consent to be lowered were both cringeworthy rather than funny, though the joke remains centred on himself. The lowering the age of consent moment comes from the thought that vampires prefer virgin blood so sex will protect them – comedy slasher horror film Cherry Falls played with the concept of promiscuity being apotropaic with more panache – and the programme steered repeatedly to child abuse when he poses as a 14-year-old boy online, to lure a vampire, and lures a sexual predator. The fact that he nearly misses realising what the man is becomes indicative of the faux-naivety he is displaying as a character.

Luke McQueen
All in all, I found this disappointing. The mocumentary aspect was thin, insipid and we know too little about the character to laugh along with or at him. If you think to a character like Alan Partridge, the character was built over time on the radio and, when transferred to TV, was a cameo part that allowed the joke to develop over time and ultimately to a point where the character could command a full series. The McQueen character didn’t command a single episode. The stunts weren’t funny, to me, but there were moments where he did shine. The aspect around his mother could have been brilliant, but was left dangling, and the abuse of expert opinion to the media’s agenda was inciteful. 4 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Souleater – review

$
0
0
Director: Michael Lang

Release date: 2017

Contains spoilers

So, the idea of a soul eater, a form of energy vampire, is fairly set. Then, when said creature turns out to be an overworldly creature (probably demonic) it still is a type of vampire film in my book, or at least vampiric. When the very same creature creates undead (albeit zombies) then, well it is a vampire film by hook or by crook.

Souleater was a strange beast in that it was clearly a budget effort but the cinematography had a chunky element that was perfectly pleasing. It added an anti-hero element that was great and had some interesting performances.

Loren Blackwell as Pike
It starts in thirteenth century Sicily, with a knight (Tony Armer) and a priest (Joe Davison). They are walking through the dark and carry a bag, which is getting heavier; due to the orb it contains that starts to glow. It indicates that the moon is near its zenith and the door (to Hell) is opening. The priest panics and the credits role. After the credits we are in New Orleans and a couple of “knights of the road”, Pike (Loren Blackwell) and Demon (Brian Kahrs), are with their bikes. A guy nearby slaps his gal and Pike intervenes with some controlled violence.

young love heading to the macabre
Off to Florida and Freddy (Gavin Roache) and Lindy (Kelly Sullivan) are wandering through the dark with a torch until they come across an abandoned house said to be haunted. They go inside and think they can hear something, they run and we pov see through the creature’s eyes (it is invisible, so we never see it until the climax of the film – despite characters saying it is large). They run but it grabs Freddy and drags him back in.

Peter Hooten as Talley
Sheriff Buford Talley (Peter Hooten) is trying to enjoy an Italian sub when dispatcher Gretchen (Kerri Stringer) radios him. A local resident has heard screaming coming from the abandoned house. Talley wants to send the deputy, Roy (Greg Wilson), but he’s on the other side of town and so, reluctantly, he takes the call. As he nears he sees Lindy running out, in a panic, and grabs her (and subsequently arrests her for assault on an officer and resisting arrest, holding her in custody). At the house he finds nothing – but we see a monster pov shot looking out at him.

Thomas Noel Smith as Dolan
The long and short is that Pike is Lindy’s dad and so comes to town looking for his daughter (who calls him with her one call). Meanwhile Talley has three disappearances in as many days. He discovers that there are a couple of odd blokes at the local motel who have been there for three days and decides they must be involved. They are Father Dolan (Thomas Noel Smith) and Spencer (Johnathan Ball), Dolan’s assistant. Dolan is an excommunicated priest and keeper of the orb.

victim vanishing
They track entry into our world by souleaters – who come through on the new moon and leave on the full. In the meantime they eat souls, and only by throwing the orb into the portal as it reopens can the creatures be defeated. The orb then returns to the hand of the chosen person, a man without fear. The film is confused as to whether the invisible creature can be killed or injured otherwise. It is suggested not (only becoming visible when the portal opens) but then they have a van full of weapons and do try and lure it out at one point. We end up with an uneasy alliance between priest, sheriff and the bikers.

corporeal form
The creature, when it appears, is an alien looking thing with tentacles (or mantis-like limbs). At one-point Dolan suggests it feeds on fear and it is also intimated that it takes the souls with it, back to hell, rather than feed on them straight away. When it takes the soul the body seems to disintegrate but it then deposits the body near the portal. Described as the living dead, the soulless are killed like a normal person but are snarling zombie-like creatures (called zombies in credit but reminiscent of deadites).

zombie victim
I mentioned the “chunky” cinematography and it really does have a thickness to it that works well. The POV from the creatures is filtered but there is little in the way of effects and those they attempt are aided by a dim lighting. Acting is a mixed bag but Loren Blackwell is suitably taciturn as anti-hero Pike and Peter Hooten is so wonderfully over the top as Talley that he almost makes it worthwhile on his own. The story is patchy – the cops only believe they have three missing persons but the hunters get there by looking at patterns of missing persons (that the police are apparently unaware of but the papers have reported on). One wonders how (or why) they hold Lindy so long – but then maybe that’s how things role in Florida. Despite some story issues this was quite fun, nothing stunning but fun nonetheless. 4.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

On Demand @ Amazon US

On Demand @ Amazon UK

Vamp or Not? The Dark

$
0
0
This is a 2018 film directed by Justin P. Lange and when I read its blurb it was suggested that it was The Lovely Bones meets Let the Right One In and whilst I haven’t seen the former, the latter drew my attention right away.

It is, as we will see, a film featuring a form of undead, but is that undead a vampire? That’s what we are here to find out.

So, the film starts with a road through the woods and, eventually, a car driving along it. The car stops at a gas station and the driver Josef (Karl Markovics) goes in and picks an armful of groceries. He goes to the register where the gas station owner has been stood, looking curiously at him. He takes a map, but the man says he’ll have to pay – something Josef confirms he’ll do. Then the man circles an area called Devil’s Den and says that it is what he’s looking for and then berates him for going there and suggesting that no good will happen there.

looking for inspiration
Suddenly the TV behind the counter mentions a manhunt and reward for the capture of an armed and dangerous fugitive. Josef’s face appears on the screen, a gun appears in his hand and he shoots the owner. He heads back to the car, clumsily dropping the gun at one point and having to pick it up, and drives off. After a while he stops – he’s left the map. He prays in German, looks up and sees he has stopped by a forest trail with a sign, “Devil’s Den”.

entering Devil's Den
He drives the path but blows a tyre, on inspection he sees he’s gone over a caltrop. The car limps along until he reaches a house. He goes out and tries the door, it is locked, but as he peers through a window the door opens as if under its own agency. The house is long abandoned but we notice the bath is full of clothes that have been shredded and the only room that looks used recently is a bedroom with dark themed drawings on the walls, and a bed with a teddy – clearly once a child’s room. Josef lies on the bed when he hears a knocking and notices a peep hole in the wall. He looks through and sees an eye. He falls backwards, discharging his gun as an axe breaches the wall from the other side.

Nadia Alexander as Mina
He runs but the door he got in through is now locked. He gets out through a utility area but stands on a piece of wood with nails deliberately embedded in it. A hooded figure, Mina (Nadia Alexander), carrying an axe, comes after him. He hides behind a tree, clutching a rock, but she appears to have lost him. Then he realises she is above him, on a branch, as the axe swings down. The film does not address how the door locked and unlocked (was it her, or a more non-corporeal supernatural agency?) nor how she silently got above him on the tree – we see some tree climbing later but this seemed particularly preternatural.

blood at mouth
She starts feeding on the body back at the house – so she has a strength (in that she could manhandle a full-grown man’s corpse despite the fact that she is a young teen). She looks pretty darn zombie, one eye (at least) milky, the skin drawn taught over her skull, old wounds forever etched in her flesh. In fact, my first thought (though the movie doesn’t mention it) was revenant. She gets in the car and tries the cereal that Josef bought but cannot stomach it. Suddenly there is movement in the back of the car. Under a cover is a young boy, Alex (Toby Nichols), and he has a mass of scars where his eyes should be.

Toby Nichols as Alex
For some reason Mina cannot bring herself to attack the boy – she tells him that Josef has gone and when he touches her hand he says that she should wear warmer clothes as the hand is freezing. The film then follows the two as the search for Alex draws in on them. We discover that he was abducted by Josef, abused physically (indeed his eyes are gone because he did not follow the rules and it seems Josef burnt them out) and is essentially very broken. Mina, of course, is broken too.

abuse
We get her story in flashbacks. We get a shorthand intimation that her father was dead, her mother’s new boyfriend was sexually abusing her and killed her when she fought back. He buried her in the woods but she came back (killing her mother as her first act). There is no explanation as to why – she suggests that the woods are cursed and its as good a rationale as anything – I did notice that her nails were long and sharp. So what is she?

corpse-like
As zombie as she looks, zombies tend to be locked in their corpse-like physical appearance – the fact that her nails grew into weapons is not particularly zombie (though her relationship with Alex will also have a physical impact ala Warm Bodies). She was raised from the grave, intimated in the narrative for the purpose of getting revenge on her murderer and drunken mother, but we are not told how this occurred and she has essentially just stuck around eating folk. That said she is intelligent (she set traps to take out cars and to stop people escaping) and can speak. She has been the same for a while – a person in the woods suggests that Mina went missing when he was a kid – but has kept up to date with things, she can use a smartphone she steals.

in the mirror
There is a moment with a dog (brought by a search party) where she growls at it and scares it off – but it is causing the animal to fear her, not controlling it. The film deliberately shows us her in a mirror and tracing the cross on Josef’s lighter. I think my gut reaction of revenant was on the money – but the movie never mentions that word and, if so, she is a revenant that consumes flesh. We don’t know if she needs to, but she certainly wants to (and with gusto, as she tucks into Josef she belches). I am also tempted to suggest that calling her Mina is a clue, after all the famous Mina is in Dracula.There is probably an argument for zompire, revenant or (with a more folklorish look) vampire. It is definitely of genre interest at the very least but I’m happy to list it. The imdb page is here.

On DVD @ Amazon UK

Dracul – review

$
0
0
Authors: Dacre Stoker & J D Barker

First Published: 2018

The Blurb: It is 1868, and a 22-year-old Bram Stoker has locked himself inside an abbey's tower to face off against a vile and ungodly beast. He is armed with mirrors and crucifixes and holy water and a gun - and is kept company by a bottle of plum brandy. His fervent prayer is that he will survive this one night - a night that will prove to be the longest of his life. Desperate to leave a record of what he has witnessed, the young man scribbles out the events that brought him to this point - and tells an extraordinary tale of childhood illness, a mysterious nanny, and stories once thought to be fables now proven true.

A riveting, heart-stoppingly scary novel of Gothic suspense, Dracul reveals not only the true origins of Dracula himself, but also of his creator, Bram Stoker . . . and of the elusive, enigmatic woman who connects them.

The Review: Is hosted at Vamped.

In Hardback @ Amazon US

In Hardback @ Amazon UK

The Ghost Busters: The Vampire's Apprentice – review

$
0
0

Director: Larry Peerce

First aired: 1975

Contains spoilers


The Ghost Busters was a short-lived live action children show that a decade later spawned an animated sequel series called Filmation’s Ghost Busters; the latter cashing in on the more famous motion picture of the same name and featuring the next generation of Ghost Busters. However, in its original form, it followed the misadventures of a company of paranormal detectives and, as far as I can remember, it never crossed the pond – so unfortunately I don’t have rose-tinted glasses to view it through.

Tracy and Kong
It was based on pantomime level absurdist slapstick and this is perhaps not the best type of comedy for me to watch. All in all I didn’t think it particularly good in any way but I recognise some of you might have fond memories of the show. The three ghost busters are leader Kong (Forrest Tucker), zoot suit wearing Spencer (Larry Storch, the Groovie Goolies) and the gorilla Tracy (Bob Burns, Lemon Grove Kids Meet the Monsters) a fairly hapless group who get their orders from the never seen Zero (Lou Scheimer).

Countess and Count
The formula of each episode went like this. There is a prologue with the ghosts appearing, opening credits (with the most God-awful theme song sang by the cast), some shenanigans in the office and off in a car to the store to get their new mission (the message contained in any old object, which then self-destructs ala Mission: Impossible) then off to catch the ghost and dematerialise it. The same limited sets for castle and graveyard were used in every episode. In this episode the ghosts that appear are Count Dracula (Billy Holms) and Countess Dracula (Dena Dietrich) – so they are ghosts of vampires but they are looking for blood and can change someone into a vampire (in the later cartoon Dracula appears but is not a ghost).

a baseball bat
Having arrived we get gags such as Dracula in bat form not flying well and crashing before turning back into human form, the discovery of a 'baseball bat', the Count going to the dentist and having his fangs extended and having corks put on his fang another time or getting them stuck in trees. The guys discover that the only things that will scare a vampire are a silver bullet or a wooden stake – cue a beef steak made out of wood gag. Being bitten turns you into a vampire but a second bite turns you back – that logic fails after Spencer is turned (calling Kong a flat-tooth, as he turns against his colleagues) but he bites the countess (or, at least, sucks a splinter out of her finger, as she did with him) and turns back into a human. At one-point Spencer wears a helmet from a suit of armour to protect his neck, a gag that would resurface in Young Dracula

Spencer as a vampire
However, this was not for me. Too silly, though Kong and Spencer could be personable enough, and too low budget I was left cold. 3 out of 10 (with the caveat that rose-tinted glasses might help). The imdb page is here.

On DVD @ Amazon US

On DVD @ Amazon UK

The New Girls – review

$
0
0
Director: Sonny Fernandez

Release date: 2009

Contains spoilers

So, I watched this for review on the same day as I watched the Vampire Symphony and what a difference, indeed one worth juxtaposing. One beautifully shot with a brilliant soundscape and (despite some issues through the film) some absolutely marvellous effects around the stakings and the other… this…

This really is a mess and I can’t overstate that. I will be fair, however, and suggest it is a mess that at least is redeemed somewhat by a couple of the performances (despite, and not because of, the dialogue). The first issue is absolutely noticeable from the first frame.

the girls
The cinematography – the quality of the photography, the print and the lighting – is atrocious. We start with three ne’er-do-wells and a woman, Svletlana (Liz Dockter), before them. They approach and a second woman, Lenore (Casey McMillian), grabs one from the back and attacks. Svletlana also attacks and the third man is picked off by Renai (Kim Haarman). Once the vampires have fed and dumped the bodies in a near-by garbage skip we hear that they are new in town, avoiding Europe; Svletlana has a house in town and they’ll go out that night.

Cody Tergesen as Ben
Ben (Cody Tergesen) goes into a diner to meet his friends, who have decided he is depressed (they really are correct, he might not look it stylistically but he is in full-tilt emo mode) and needs to get laid. They take the piss and the friends are drawn as anything but mature. One of them, Davis (Dan Sorenson), is throwing a party at the weekend. There is some bemoaning of the lack of new girls – so, guess what will happen next! Yup the new girls wander in and Renai is clearly, given her expressions, interested in Ben. Miles (Sam Ova) invites them to the party and Ben leaves for work.

Svletlana vamps out
Back home, and Renai really wants to go to the party but Svletlana is unsure. She eventually relents. At the party Ben and Renai end up outside, he goes home, she walks him home and by the end of the walk they are in the first blooms of love. Meanwhile Svletlana is hit on by Jack (Aaron Swenson) and is intensely irritated and offended by him. She takes him into the bathroom and attacks him. The attack reveals a vamp form that essentially involves fangs and pointed ears. You can see the fact that they are ear caps at certain angles.

Kim Haarman as Renai
Davis busts into the bathroom to see the attack. He tries to tell people that she killed Jack but they just think he is sloppy drunk. Svetlana puts Jack in the tub and turns the shower on him and cleans up. Generously we could suggest she does this in a practiced manner – given that we don’t see the mirror that she appears to be checking herself in and the fact that we later learn vampires don’t have reflections. She leaves the bathroom and the girls (including the just returned Renai) leave the party. Davis eventually gets Will (Justin Kavlie) to check Jack out. Jack is alive, his wound dismissed as cutting himself shaving and Will carries him to bed.

a melted vampire
So, Renai and Ben start on a budding romance, meanwhile Svletlana returns for Jack, turns him and then sends him after the paranoid Davis. Davis survives but can’t convince Will – until Will takes him to the girls’ house and sees for himself (and watches Svletlana rip Davis’ heart out, an act he later erroneously describes as breaking his neck). Will becomes our primary hero against the vampires and tries to rescue Ben who has been seduced by the night (as it were). This leads us to lore. These are standard vampires; sunlight kills (we assume, the windows are blacked out), stakes kill (and make them melt, badly as it happens, the sfx only shows us the papier mâché results, which are laughable), a blood exchange is needed to turn, although killing the vampire that turned you before dawn will turn you back, and they can turn into very crap bats.

bad staking sfx
So – I just alluded to the sfx. Okay, the girls’ fangs look quite good – as for the turned guys… oh they are bad. We get pink liquid for blood at times and a half ripped off face that looks just like papier mâché without oodles of blood. I have to mention one particular staking through the back where the stake at the back was at a different angle and (in the next shot) position from the stake at the front. A supposedly locked coffin was clearly made from cardboard and the lid wobbled as Ben pretended to jimmy it open. The sfx and props weren’t the only issues. The sound was terrible (closed captions to work out some dialogue were occasionally relied on) and I mentioned the filming at the head. The dialogue was poor but that brings us to redeeming factors.

Justin Kavlie as Will
Some of the performances… I wasn’t particularly struck by Cody Tergesen as Ben, he wasn’t the worst but he certainly wasn’t stellar. However, his interactions with Renai really worked well and the performance by Kim Haarman was very natural and expressive despite the dialogue. They had a chemistry and that helped keep viewer interest. I was also rather taken with the Will character who, despite being a dick, was portrayed as personable by Justin Kavlie. Finally Liz Dockter projected some presence at times.

This is one that comes across more as a hashed together friends’ film done for a bit of a laugh, than it does a feature, with all that entails and the expectations that come with that. 2 out of 10. The imdb page is here.

On Demand @ Amazon US

On Demand @ Amazon UK

Undead Memory: Vampires and Human Memory in Popular Culture – review

$
0
0

Editors: Simon Bacon & Katarzyna Bronk

First published: 2013


The Blurb: Vampires have never been as popular in Western culture as they are now: Twilight, True Blood, The Vampire Diaries and their fans have secured the vampire’s place in contemporary culture. Yet the role vampires play in how we remember our pasts and configure our futures has yet to be explored. The present volume fills this gap, addressing the many ways in which vampire narratives have been used to describe the tensions between memory and identity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

The first part of the volume considers the use of the vampire to deal with rapid cultural change, both to remember the past and to imagine possible futures. The second part examines vampire narratives as external cultural archives, a memory library allowing us to reference the past and understand how this underpins our present. Finally, the collection explores how the undead comes to embody memorial practice itself: an autonomous entity that gives form to traumatic, feminist, postcolonial and oral traditions and reveals the resilience of minority memory.

Ranging from actual reports of vampire activity to literary and cinematic interpretations of the blood-drinking revenant, this timely study investigates the ways in which the «undead memory» of the vampire throughout Western culture has helped us to remember more clearly who we were, who we are, and who we will/may become.

The review: Full disclosure, I class Simon Bacon as a friend and have even had work published in a volume he edited. I actually had this volume on my wishlist prior to meeting him but hadn’t purchased it due to the high cost of academic tomes. Then I spotted, one of the occasional Amazon mega-price drops and got hold of it. My first reaction was to not review it, due to my association with Simon, but I enjoyed it so much as a volume that I decided to do so – but with the disclosure contained in this paragraph.

The book looks at the vampire as a receptacle (or not) for memory and the highlight moments for me included the essay drawn around the 18th century panics by Leo Ruickbie and Constitutional Amnesia and Future Memory by Hadas Elber-Aviram, which focused on three favourite sci-fi pieces; I Am Legend, Fledgling and Blindsight. I felt a (minor) trick was missed Sorcha Ní Fhlainn whose essay“Old Things, Fine Things”: Of Vampires, Antique Dealers and Timelessness did touch on Blacula but could well have looked at Ganja and Hess as well. I was also disappointed that Hannah Priest didn’t touch on the conflation of werewolves and vampires in older literature. Simon’s essay, based on Let me In now perhaps serves as a hors d'oeuvre for his later volume Becoming Vampire.

Films this volume made me seek out were We Are What We Are (2010) and Breaking the Waves (1996), both of which will feature here in the future. 8 out of 10.

In Hardback @ Amazon US

In Hardback @ Amazon UK

The Baron – review

$
0
0

Director: Edgar Pêra

Release date: 2011

Contains spoilers


O Barão, in Portugese, this is a film based on a piece of Portuguese literature by Branquinho da Fonseca (which is by no means a vampire story) but it also owes a great debt both to Bram Stoker’s Dracula (or the opening Transylvania section at least) and, probably more importantly, to the legacy of films that Dracula spawned. The film is an intertextual delight and starts by making its own (false) historical narrative. I’d like to reproduce that and make some comments as I do.

one of the strange characters we meet
We begin with the following: “During the second world war, an American crew of B-Movies took refuge in Lisbon. In 1943, producer Valerie Lewton” perhaps a gender-swapped reference to American producer Val Lewton and the date corresponds to the publication of da Fonseca's story “married a Portuguese actor that read her "The Baron" by Branquinho da Fonseca. A story about a tyrant who ruled the Barroso’s Mountains. Valerie recognized potential in the text for a “Draculian” movie.” This is the direct tie, of course, with Dracula and the vampire genre. “They shot it secretly in a factory in Barreiro. During the day they shot the American version at night the Portuguese version.” This tied the film directly to the Tod Browning movie – which this apes to some degree – and we have to remember that Universal shot the English language version during the day and then the Spanish language version at night.

Miguel Sermão as the Guard
The text continues: The dictator heard about the movie and ordered the film to be destroyed.” And whilst this clearly refers to António de Oliveira Salazar, I couldn’t but help think that it also referred to Florence Stoker and her order, after winning her copyright case, that Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens be destroyed. “The crew was repatriated. The Portuguese actors were deported to Tarrafal's Concentration camp. They were tortured to death in the "skillet", a cubicle where humans were roasted..” Bringing the horrors of the dictatorship to the fore and projecting them into the present in the line: “In 2005, 2 reels and the screenplay were found in the archives of Barreiro's kino-club. During the next 5 years the film was restored and reshot. In 2011, was shown for the first time.

Marina Albuquerque as the teacher
Of course, vampire films and novels rely on intertextuality, reference upon reference – sometimes purposeful but sometimes the emergence of a “genre memory” and Edgar Pêra boxes very clever by both using the “genre memory” and by creating a false memory that adds to the reading of the film. More so as there is little vampiric within the film but we know we are watching a vampire film and it begins with a school inspector (Marcos Barbosa) travelling in a carriage towards his next appointment. In the story the Inspector begins the story at the town and this carriage journey is entirely invented for the film.

in the carriage
Comparing the two, Da Fonseca’s story gives a sense that the Inspector is unlike Jonathan Harker (from Stoker) as he is weary of and resents travel, which is a duty, whereas Harker is as much a wide-eyed tourist as on business. Harker makes specific mention of the "imaginative whirlpool" of the Carpathians condensing a mass of superstitions, as well as the various cultures he encounters, whereas the inspector dismisses folklore as he is not an ethnographer. In many respects, in this film, he becomes Renfield in the 1931 movie – who replaced Harker on the journey into the Carpathians and whom we first meet in a carriage. A group of children fight nosily over a rosary that their grandmother (Paula Só) never actually gives him (for his mother’s sake). One of the children is sick and he is less than impressed and calls the carriage to a halt, the grandmother states it is only food and points out that the sun is setting, urging the driver to go on.

boar's headed man
As the carriage goes on the Inspector dreams of being out in the wilds. He holds a pitchfork as a figure rushes towards him – a man with a boar’s head. It’s a foreshadowing but its also a surreal moment and I was reminded of the work of Guy Maddin, not just in this scene but often through the film. This came through both the surreality but also through the skill with which a period film was rendered by a modern filmmaker. It is also notable because the film itself is like a dream, a rendering of subconscious explorations.

Joana Loureiro as the old woman
As the Inspector reaches a village I was also reminded of another film. We see a man peering at the Inspector, and then he speaks to an old woman (Joana Loureiro) in the inn and I couldn’t help but think, as we looked at the glorious portraits, drawn on screen, of characterful faces, of the film Vampyr. Dreyer chose much of his cast from locals who looked the part, and it struck me that Pêra may well have done similar when choosing his supporting cast.

the Baron's special wine
However, when we meet the Baron (Nuno Melo), we see the perfection of the casting. The Baron is so imposing, his presence dominating the screen. At one point, when they get to the castle, he insists that the Inspector stay for a week, much as Dracula insisted Harker stayed (for a month). The Baron brings in a drinks trolley – making the hungry Inspector take a drink he doesn't want, but taking a select bottle for himself, the liquid inside suspiciously thick. This plays around the edges of “I do not drink… wine” actually going as far as the Baron declaring “I do not eat” (which is taken from the original story). Eventually the inspector accuses him of feeding on the past – part of that undead memory, and a reference to the intertextuality of the genre.

the orchestra
Another example is a pit, with a metal grate, in the primary room of the castle. We see dogs jumping at the grate at one-point snarling and barking. Later the Baron calls for his orchestra and the musicians emerge, like a pack of rogues, from that self-same area. The original story does have specific mentions of dogs in it, but not located in the same place, and features the orchestra, but there is no associating them directly with the dogs as the film does. Their music encourages he Baron and even the Inspector to dance but I couldn’t help but think of the line “...children of the night. What music they make!” One imagined that the dogs had become the musicians.

a moment of colour
One part I must mention is the ending, which is very different to that of the original story (and of course will be a massive spoiler). In the story the Baron is injured and the Inspector leaves but seeks to return at some point to meet the Baron again. In this the Inspector attends the Baron on his death bed, looking greatly aged though it is only the next day, but the Baron ensures, in a sense, that he will live on. When the Inspector accedes to the request the Baron draws his last breath and the scene becomes, momentarily, colour. As it fades back to black and white the Baron expires but, in a trick of photography, seems also to turn to stone.

Nuno Melo as O Barão
There is so much more that could be explored within the film but I will leave it there. It is most definitely an arthouse film and absolutely oneiric. As such it is not a casual watch, an easy watch or, even, a preferable watch if that sort of film is not your thing. It is a film that makes you think, especially if you have a knowledge of the genre (arguably that knowledge is almost a prerequisite of getting the most out of the film – as the Baron oft repeats, “I’m the one in charge”, and as a personification of the genre he certainly is). Beautifully composed with a magnificent performance by Nuno Melo. 8 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Classic Literature: Manor (1885)

$
0
0
This short story by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895) was originally published in a volume entitled Matrosengeschichten in 1885. Ulrichs is a fascinating person and is today seen as a pioneer of the gay rights movement. His writing and work on Uranism (the phrase he coined for gay sexuality) are interesting in and of themselves. However, what he did with vampire tropes makes Manor extremely exciting as far as I’m concerned.

The story takes place in the Faroe Islands and holds onto a Norse heritage, the setting feels as though it is contemporary to the writing – though that is not explicitly stated and follows the fate of Har, who at fifteen is at sea with his father when they capsize off the island of Wagoe. A sailor rescues Har and takes him back to Stroemore but Har’s father dies. The sailor, just a few years older than Har, is called Manor and they fall in love. The fact that, in 1885, the story was open about the young men’s sexuality is astounding. It is delicately handled with a sensitivity apparent in the writing.

Some time later Manor signs onto a whaling vessel and Har is going to do the same but his mother’s concern prevents it – Just as well as, when the ship returns, it shipwrecks losing its hands – including Manor. Those bodies that are recovered, including Manor’s, are swiftly buried in the Wagoe sand dunes. The night of the burial, however, Har receives a nocturnal visitor climbing through his bedroom window; Manor has returned. The coldness of his skin is described and he states “A yearning drove me here to you. I have found no peace in my grave.” The corporeal nature of the visitor is attested to as a fisherman sees his form swimming between the islands.

Whilst the first visitation was innocent enough, the second night Manor lays his head on Har’s chest and suckles. Now the idea of a vampire sucking the blood from the chest, often from directly above the heart, is common enough but this actually describes specifically suckling at the nipple until blood comes. It adds an erotic component and conjures an aspect of maternal nourishment (obviously gender queered in this) with the text describing the act as being “like an infant at its mother’s breast.”

An unusual aspect of the lore that Ulrichs gives us is the idea that Manor was brought back by Urda. Saying “it is an ancient belief that Urda, who possesses strange demonic powers, is responsible for the short span of life bestowed upon the living dead.” Urda is a form of Urðr, one of the norns or fates. In Norse mythology they do spin the thread of life and in this it is suggested that, “Urda is especially concerned with people whose life has been snatched away by a bitter death at an early age. It is said that an overwhelming need for life and warmth fills the hearts of those who return. They thrive on the blood of the living…

The nightly visitations continue until Har’s mother becomes concerned at the fact that her son has become deathly pale. She consults a wise woman who suggests he is being visited by the dead and, when confronted with this, he admits to Manor’s visitation. A group travel to Wagoe and tell the islanders there that one of the dead is restless. They dig up Manor’s corpse but he has not moved – the wise woman suggests he just goes back into the same position when he returns to the grave – but they do admit he almost looks better than when they buried him. Despite protestations from Har (who actually shields the corpse until he is bodily removed) they take a hefty pine stake and pin him to the grave. However that night Manor visits Har again, bleeding from the hole in his chest. It is worth noting that he is absolutely inactive during the day.

This, to me, was fascinating lore as we discover the reason he did not stay pinned was due to the fact that they had used a uniformly cut stake. When they unearth the body again he is no longer in the same position as the stake is in the way. They realise that he must have pulled himself up the sturdy stake – and make mention of the “inhuman strength” it would have taken to do so – a nice addition of vampires being unnaturally strong. To keep him in his grave they re-stake him but the stake this time thickens to twice its width – described as being like a nail. This does keep him in the grave. As for Har… well, I’ll let you read the story to discover his fate.

This was an exceptionally important story to my way of thinking – though possibly little known at the time – the lore used was fascinating and its position as a piece of LGBT literature is very important. Whilst there is the obvious connection of the gay lover with the vampiric monster it is handled sensitively and the reason Manor became a vampire was born entirely out of love. There really isn’t a negativity in the way this has been drawn, just a tragedy.

Part of a Kindle collection @ Amazon US

Part of a Kindle collection @ Amazon UK

Vidar the Vampire – review

$
0
0
Directors: Thomas Aske Berg & Fredrik Waldeland

Release date: 2018

Contains spoilers

Hailing from Norway, with the original title VampyrVidar, this is a deeply black comedy that is certain to offend some – so the warning is, if you are strongly Christian I’d turn away now… or perhaps not as there are a couple of readings of this film.

It also contains a particularly misogynist streak to the humour but, again, it all depends how you read the text. Far from celebrating that, I’d say it laments it but uses dark satire to do so. That said, there is certainly a feeling that there is no taboo too far.

in the pentagram
The film begins with a broadcast news. Animals on a farm have been killed and the farmer, Vidar (Thomas Aske Berg), woke up in a pentagram with dead sheep either side of him. We note the Band-Aid on his neck. There are interviews with a local policeman and his mother. We discover that it has rocked the community, which is made up of a conservative Christian group called the Children of Creation. The video stops and Vidar, dressed in a silver, flame retardant suit, is asked by the psychologist (Kim Sønderholm) why Vidar is showing him the video.

Kim Sønderholm as the psychologist
Vidar responds that it is to prepare him, that his story is unbelievable. When asked where to start, the psychologist suggests at the beginning and Vidar asks whether he means when he was born, or born into darkness… He starts the story with a cockcrow and explains he is not a morning person, a detriment when working a farm, and we see him as a child (Ruben Jonassen). One thing the film does is flip us between young and old, which could be memory or allegory, as could some of the more esoteric scenes. The psychologist clearly is working on it all being a delusion and some of the scenes might be symbolic but whether it is symbolic for Vidar (as in he perceives the scene as a character) or us as a viewer is all left to us to decipher. It is this clever use of story and symbolism that allows for multiple readings.

mocking Vidar
The film follows young Vidar as he gets up, sees his mother is unwell in bed, rolls cigarettes and set to work on the farm. Mucking out and feeding the pigs, feeding the chickens and gathering eggs – and taking a sneaky gander at a Playboy magazine he has secreted in the henhouse. When the day’s work is done, and he’s back in the farmhouse, the doorbell rings. It is a girl, Karin (Martha Kristine Kåstad) and her friend (Astrid Braut Øksnevad) and Vidar is asked whether he will go steady with Karin. He’s confused as she had a boyfriend, Jonas (Balder Scheen Jacobsen), but she says they have split up and so he agrees. They go for a walk, climb a large storage tank and Jonas is there – it was all a prank. Vidar runs home, with their laughter ringing in his ears, and when home his mother asks him to bring her water.

Vidar and the succubus
As it is handed over we see that it is adult Vidar and nothing has changed. He still works the farm, his mother is still ill but now he is 33 years old. She reminds him to say his prayers. His prayer asks Jesus (Brigt Skrettingland) to take him from the situation – he is sick of the farm, of being alone. He wants to fight and drink and fornicate. He goes to bed with a Playboy... We see him walking towards rocks with a lantern. A succubus (Isabelle Cau), naked bar her horns, leads him into a cave or cairn. A voice says, “ask and it will be given” but, at the sight of an opening coffin, Vidar runs, finds a ladder and climbs it into a barn where he sees himself suckling the carcass of a sheep – his feral-self scuttles towards him and he bolts awake banging his head.

vampire Jesus
He goes outside for air and a cigarette and suddenly the lights come on in the barn. He crosses the farm and enters but cannot see as the light is too bright. Suddenly we see Jesus reflected in Vidar’s all too black eyes. Jesus floats towards Vidar on a swirling, probing darkness and, speaking in biblical terms such as being the alpha and the omega, asks Vidar to accept him, to eat of his body and drink of his blood. The eating is entirely orally sexual… Cutting back to the psychologist mention is made of being violated and a blood covenant.

rising from the coffin
So the film then follows Vidar who becomes more and more ill, eventually pushed in a wheelchair by a Christian faith healer (Henrik Rafaelsen) into sunlight, where he badly burns and dies in hospital and then rises at his funeral – in a fantastic combination of imagery, his initial rising from the coffin is taken from the trope developed from Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens and then sees him levitate and stretch against a backdrop of the church’s cross, making him look like Christ himself. Running from the church he eventually kills a gas station attendant (Eileen Nesse Pedersen), actually shown to be Karin’s friend, and as he runs away from the scene we see Jesus takes the CCTV footage. Following his next death and resurrection we also get a cannibalistic Madonna and child tableau.

a sexual predator
Essentially Vidar’s life does not get better – though relocated to the city he continuously wears the farm overalls, which shows him tied to the drudgery of his mortal life. He is still awkward with girls, actually only really successful in any terms if it is with one of Jesus’ harem of prostitutes or as a (sexual) predator. Even then he is clumsy. He actually attends AA (as does Jesus) and states at one point that he wonders whether his maker is actually Jesus or Lucifer. Here you can have a multiple reading. If you read the film as portraying Jesus, then from a Judeo-Christian point of view this is blasphemous and probably not for you. If you read it as portraying Lucifer acting as Jesus then the film content might be strong but I’d suggest it isn’t blasphemous. If you read it as him being both, well that’s an interesting theological conundrum. From an atheist point of view the film has a very interesting take on Christian mythology and the impact of belief.

Thomas Aske Berg as Vidar
I’ll touch on the misogyny as well. Women, within this, are often looked upon as sexual objects but that is the point of view the characters carry forward. Even when he tries his hand at being a sexual predator, Vidar comes unstuck and is ultimately punished (in a scene that may be real or just within Vidar’s head). However, the film doesn’t celebrate this – as I say, it seems to lament this attitude if anything. Vidar himself is drawn sympathetically, but more so because he is so inept, he is mistreated by Jesus (kept as a vampiric dog at one point) and longs for an innocent relationship (though achieved, he actually pays for it, and it all comes back, again, to belief).

impact of sunlight
This film is deliberately shocking but plays beautifully with the vampiric tropes. Vidar burns in sunlight, needs blood (and blood and sex are drawn in parallel) and as you can see the religious aspect is deliberately played with. We get a fabulous wall crawl moment. It is a movie that will offend many but it is also a film that poses some interesting theological thoughts that can be read in several ways. The soundtrack features one particular artist throughout and made for an interesting (folk) thread through the film – juxtaposed against Jesus loving techno – and the acting is excellent throughout but it is Thomas Aske Berg who steals the show in his portrayal of a damaged young man. 7.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

On Demand @ Amazon US

Race in the Vampire Narrative – review

$
0
0
Editor: U. Melissa Anyiwo

First Published: 2015

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: Race in the Vampire Narrative unpacks the vampire through a collection of classroom ready original essays that explicitly connect this archetypal outsider to studies in race, ethnicity, and identity. Through essays about the first recorded vampire craze, television shows True Blood, and Being Human, movies like Blade Trinity and Underworld, to the presentation of vampires of colour in romance novels, graphic novels, on stage and beyond, this text will open doorways to discussions about Otherness in any setting, serving as an alternative way to explore marginality through a framework that welcomes all students into the conversation. Vampires began as terrors, nightmares, the most horrifying of creatures; now they are sparkly antiheroes more likely to kill your dog than drink you to death; commodified, absorbed, and defanged. Race in the Vampire Narrative demonstrates that the vampire serves as a core metaphor for the constructions of race, and the ways in which we identify, manufacture, and commodify marginalized groups. By drawing together disparate discussions of non-white vampires in popular culture, the collection illustrates the ways in which vampires can be used to explicitly help students understand ethnicity in the modern world making this the perfect companion text to any course from First Year Studies, Sociology, History, Cultural Studies, Women's Studies, Criminal Justice, and so much more.

The review: In the same range and a year older than Gender in the Vampire Narrative, this felt a slimmer volume but did much right. There were the odd little moments, such as when Á G Marín suggests that, “Before Bram Stoker and theDraculamythology, in fact, the stereotypical vampire was not the pale, elegant Central European aristocrat, but a plump, swollen, brownish-skinned Slavic peasant”, which is frankly poppycock. Stoker clearly continued a tradition common through that century of the vampire being a pale, sometimes elegant (sometimes not) European (not necessarily central) Aristocrat that was sparked by Polidori’s the Vampyre and was popularised on stage and through prose.

Be that as it may, this was a brief slip in an otherwise excellent volume – bar two larger issues. I felt Christi Cook, in “There’s No Place Like Home” did her own work a disservice as she concentrated on two Young Adult texts including Estrella’s Quinceañera. Whilst I have not read the text my understanding, and the impression I took from the article, is that it is not a vampire text, not even a supernatural text. As such, giving it prominence in a vampire reference work (as opposed to a work on Race in the Young Adult genre) seemed misplaced.

The other issue – and I guess it is one more of interpretation – was with David Magill’s “Racial Hybridity and the Reconstruction of White Masculinity in Underworld”. Magill drew a racial comparator between the vampires (white) and the lycans (black) and I can see the argument. For me, however, the first film (especially) is actually not a race narrative but a class narrative with the vampires being the bourgeoisie and the lycans the proletariat. The progression of the lower class from slaves/serfs to lower/working class and the eugenic/holocaust aspect drawn in the deathdealers can have a racial aspect, it is true. However, to make that the sole focus of the argument there are aspects that need to be addressed within the argument, namely that the weapon master of the deathdealers, Khan (Robbie Gee), is portrayed by a black actor and whilst the primary warrior of the Lycans, Raze (Kevin Grevioux), is black, the leader of the lycans, Lucian (Michael Sheen), is white. This, at the very least, should have been addressed in the argument.

That said, the writing was strong, the subject matter interesting and it is a valuable volume for the student of the genre. 8 out of 10.

In Paperback @ Amazon US

In Paperback @ Amazon UK

Pharisee – review

$
0
0
Director: Timothy Novotny

Release date: 2018

Contains spoilers

Feeling like an older film, Pharisee is a vampire movie where we could actually question if the vampire, Pharisee (Brad Slitt), is really a vampire. He is certainly a killer, he certainly drinks blood and he seems to have an unerring level of attractiveness. However, did he really become a creature of the night – the film leaves us guessing to a degree. It certainly leaves us guessing around his vampiric partner in crime, as I’ll explain.

The film references other genre vehicles but ultimately it fails due to length and pacing and, to some degree, point. That is not to say that it is totally awful, it isn’t, but tighter editing and writing/directing are definitely called for.

Zoe's interview
So, we start with Zoe Bennett (Jammie Miller) cuffed in an interview room and about to be interviewed by FBI Agent Johnson (Ian Cameron). She is actively cooperating and, when he mentions the number of deaths attributed to her and her partner, she corrects the figure up to 42. Why she is cooperating is one of the mysteries never answered in the film. The film is her confession – but it is strange as there are plenty of parts where she was just not present and one wonders at how she could testify to certain parts.

a boy, lost
Anyway, we get some bad ass dudes in an abandoned building, talking about rolling any homeless person they find and replaying the Lost Boys dialogue concerning rice and maggots. We even have a character called Marco and another called Michael (Jon Vokes). Michael hears a noise, investigates and is got by person unseen – the others see him dragged off and run. Marco appears with a wound to his throat and the assailant shoots another of the bad ass dudes. We see he is a blond rocker type.

bar pickup
He is, of course, Pharisee. Later we discover that he was given his name in a Catholic orphanage. We see him go into a bar and a guy bumps into him. He sits at the bar and a woman immediately comes onto him. He mentions being thirsty and suggests going for a smoke. First he nips into the loo and (off camera) silently murders the guy who bumped him. They go for a smoke and she offers to take him home, he goes with her, gets it on down an alley and rips her throat open.

not a God fan
What becomes a tad confusing is why Pharisee, who claims to be addicted to blood, both drinks it and draws it out via a syringe and then injects it? Anyway he is a one man wrecking crew. At one point he picks up a hooker, Riggs (Theresa Byron), who offers to sleep with him for free, rips her throat out during sex and then continues to have sex with her corpse. In this case it seems he was triggered when she said, “Oh God” and disdainfully throws a crucifix onto her body when he leaves. Our Pharisee has an issue with God.

arty shot?
Through flashbacks we see that his very Christian wife died due to an overdose and he blames Jesus (shouting at a statue at one point). He certainly has played with the occult and it appears he has sold himself into the life of a vampire for a glimpse of his wife (or so it seemed). He certainly sees her from time to time, imploring him to stop, we also see him with some of the women he killed. It doesn’t appear that he turned them, perhaps he was haunted by them or it was just an arty shot in a montage sequence? He apparently cannot go out in daylight – which is about the only lore we get.

Zoe and Pharisee
After about an hour of this he and Zoe get together. Their first ‘meeting’ is when she is going to be raped and he shoots the rapist and then wanders off. She then sees him pick up a woman, follows them and finds the woman’s body. He grabs Zoe, carries her off and when she comes around he claims that he has killed and turned her – because she is like him, broken inside but beautiful outside. She gets him to rob a blood bank, to prevent him from constantly killing, but doesn’t bat an eyelid when he kills the security guard and then a biker to steal his hog. She doesn’t seem to have his addiction, but she does drink blood and joins in his murder spree/feeding frenzy. We see her in daylight, but that turns out to be a flashback to a murder she committed when a trick talked nasty to her. She tells the Agent that Pharisee was not human, like her and him, distancing herself from the vampire identity. So whether she is a vampire is debatable and, to be honest, Pharisee may as well be a simple serial killer.

Zoe attacks her friend
Eventually a gangster type called Lacroix (Octavious Maximus) – I assume a tribute to Forever Knight – is called in by police to hunt Pharisee down as they would rather not catch him as they want him dead and not on trial. However, the film has dragged and dragged to get to that point. It comes in at just under 2 hours and at least 30 minutes needs shaving off the time. The pacing was also terrible, to be honest. The other thing it desperately needed was a point – or perhaps not, if it had been shorter and paced faster it might have got away with being a murder-fest. Moments like Zoe luring her (only, if what we see in the film is accurate) friend off to simply kill her didn’t necessarily ring true.

UK?
The acting is generally average at best, sometimes poor, but Brad Slitt looks marvellous as Pharisee, having an eighties feel that fits with the feel of the filming. I didn’t buy the women throwing themselves at him as soon as he walked into a room but let’s put it down to vampiric attraction. Jammie Miller is engaging as Zoe. There is some stock footage used, it appears, for establishing shots and this can jar as it has a different texture to the film. There is a newscast that highlights LA but then the city is referred to as Nocturne City and a stock footage used of a CSI van would appear to be in the UK. Little things like that knock you out of the film.

I find it disappointing that I can only give this 3.5 out of 10. However if the filmmakers go back, tighten the pacing and editing and shave a massive amount off the running time I’d happily re-evaluate.

The imdb page is here.

On Demand @ Amazon US

Playing with Tropes: We are What we Are

$
0
0

We Are What We Are, or Somos lo que Hay in the original Spanish, was a 2010 Mexican film directed by Jorge Michel Grau. It would be remade in 2013 by Jim Mickle, the director behind Stakeland and is ostensibly about cannibalism. In the case of the Mexican original, however, there is some definite playing with vampire tropes and it definitely plays homage to one vampire film and maybe a second also.

The film is mentioned in Undead Memory, in which Enrique Ajuria Ibarra recognises both the vampire and zombie tropes that underscore the film. To me this was richer in the former but the opening shots of the film actually drew to mind the latter.

the father
The referencing of the zombie genre is there as we see the patriarch (Humberto Yáñez) of the family the film details coming through a mall and up the escalator. The shuffling gait of the man is almost zombie like and the mall therefore reminds the viewer of Dawn of the Dead (1978). He becomes fascinated with a shop display – be it the dummies in the window or his own reflection that draws his attention is hard to tell. But he then dies – quickly his body is dragged away and the area cleaned.

at the market
The father was a watch repairer/seller on a market and as he has not come home the mother, Patricia (Carmen Beato), sends her sons – the elder Alfredo (Francisco Barreiro) and younger Julián (Alan Chávez) – to the market in his stead. Once there, a man demands his watch, saying its repair is overdue, and Julián attacks him, beating the man. The market manager comes over and says that the rent is three weeks late and kicks them off the market – Alfredo tries to cover for his brother with Patricia but she’ll hear none of it.

Paulina Gaitán as Sabina
Just then the sister, Sabina (Paulina Gaitán) comes in – clearly in shock – and states that their dad is dead (she has picked this up from the word around the mall). Patricia explodes in anger at hearing this, and later blames his addiction to whores for his death. There is a conversation between the children about “carrying on” and that they must get something for the next day. They search the house (for something but later we realise it was stocks of human flesh) but there is nothing left and Alfredo is told it is down to him. During the exchange Julián calls Alfredo a faggot. It is the next scene that directly references the vampire genre.

the Director and Tito
We cut to a morgue or funeral home. Working on the father’s corpse is Tito (Daniel Giménez Cacho) who speaks to the funeral director (Juan Carlos Colombo). These two characters are the same funeral director and mortician who appear in Guillermo Del Torro’s Cronos, indeed it is the same actors reprising the roles and the opening dialogue is the same as that used in Del Torro's film. This positions the film towards the genre, letting us know that it is playing with tropes (though there is nothing overtly supernatural about the film). The scene veers off from Cronos as two cops arrive, Detectives Owen (Jorge Zárate) and Octavio (Esteban Soberanes). Tito has performed an autopsy and found a finger with a painted nail in the father’s stomach. The cops take it but seem disinterested.

collecting blood
So, there is division amongst the family. Sabina is convinced that they must continue and Alfredo should take up the mantle of leader. Continue with what? A ritual slaughtering of a person, the butchering thereof and consumption. What this ritual consists of is left silent through the film but the family fear their end if they do not continue (as a family or individuals isn’t clear) and there is an indication that blessings will be bestowed upon them should they continue. This consumption of flesh for continuance is, of course, a vampiric trope.

the dead whore
Patricia seems to have an issue with Alfredo – whether it is to do with his sexuality or not isn’t clear. Julián does display homophobia and refuses to eat a gay guy, Gustavo (Miguel Ángel Hoppe), when Alfredo brings him home. Likewise, Patricia refuses to consume a prostitute the boys kidnap and beat, killing her instead and dumping her with the other whores as a warning to stay away from her boys. It is within the nuclear family that I saw overtones of another film, the Hamiltons.

insinuated incest
Whilst this does not have the coming of age character and the mother in this family is still alive, we do have the gay elder brother and then the brother and sister who are in (or, due to the subtlety of that part of the narrative, seem to be in) an incestuous relationship (whether this mirroring of the older film was deliberate or not I am not sure). The trope of sexuality that deviates from the heteronormative is one that the genre does often play with. So be it homosexuality, sex addiction (with the whores), casual sex with strangers (used by Patricia to lure a victim) or incest – the whole family queers the nuclear family and the hetro-monogamous view of sex.

a victim
There is a motif of time as well – beyond the time limit for the ritual, the house is full of clocks (which Sabina is expected to caretake) and at one point the soundtrack is dominated by a host of clocks ticking. This felt, immediately, like another homage to del Toro who does have a clockwork motif through some of his work and, of course, the cronos device was clockwork with a living creature at its heart. Chronos is the personification of time and the cronos device allowed its wearer/victim to step out of time and become physically frozen in time as a vampire.

bathing
We Are What We Are is not what you would call a ray of sunshine but it is a fascinating film. It is also one that embeds vampiric tropes at its heart (where the remake was a fairly straight cannibal text). Yes, these are cannibals (as far as we can see) but there is a compulsion to consume, a need that sits at the heart of the family. And, after all, if they drank blood rather than consumed flesh… well, what is blood drinking but a form of cannibalism. The imdb page is here.

On DVD @ Amazon US

On DVD @ Amazon UK

Short Film: Daywalker: Blade Origins

$
0
0
This is a 33-minute-long fan film directed by Markiss McFadden and released in 2017. It really is one of those fan films that begs the question, why are they often superior to a lot of the cheap-end straight to stream/dvd/video films that haunt the horror genre in particular. I mean, it isn’t perfect, and whilst you’d expect a fan film to display a lot of love for the subject it also displays a lot more technical competence than many a film I look at on TMtV.

It starts with a trumpet and a kid, young Eric Brooks (Kal-El Smith), watches the musician, Jamal (Michael Monteiro) through the window of the bar. At the end of the night Jamal leaves by the rear door but is approached by a group of ne’er-do-wells who are, as you might guess, vampires. They have been searching for Jamal, a retired vampire hunter, and as a fight ensues Eric runs out of the shadows and tears the throat out of one of the vampires.

Eric blooded
Jamal takes the young lad under his wing and trains him. Through the film we cut back often to the training, the words of wisdom and (in a more contemporary scene) Jamal’s eventual fate. We see him find Eric feeding on an animal (perhaps a goat) and bringing him a serum to take away the thirst the child feels. Whilst brief through the film the scenes help build the character, juxtapose nicely with the modern scenes and help build an emotional resonance with Blade (Byron Smith).

Byron Smith as Blade
Of course, Blade hasn't earned the moniker as of yet, this being an origin story, and at the beginning it might seem that perhaps he has gone rogue somewhat as he is with a vampire gang, the Blood Shadows (remembering that there was a legacy of being on the wrong side of the tracks explored in Blade the Series). On the other hand we see that whilst he has a connection to a vampire named Glory (Lamorae Siggal), who trains him in sparring matches that are as much flirt as combat, there is a mutual tension with Blood Shadow leader Cyrus (Markiss McFadden). The vampires are also unaware that he is a daywalker.

Blade and Wolverine
The photography works really well and Blade fans will enjoy the brief appearance of Deacon Frost (Michael Tushaus), whilst Marvel fans generally will like the cameo by Wolverine (James Lee Hawkins). Byron Smith is perhaps less stoic than Blade appears in other, official, vehicles but we have to remember that this is young Blade and there is at least some level of stoicism. The fighting seemed a tad on the choreographed side but not distractingly so and the entire thing was clearly a labour of love as I mentioned.

The imdb page is here.


Vamp or Not? Breaking the Waves

$
0
0
This is a 1996 film by auteur Lars von Trier, which was nominated for the Cannes Palme d’Or and won the Grand prize of the Jury. So why look at it here? In a foot note to “André Gide, Nosferatu and the Hydraulics of Youth and Age” Naomi Segal suggests that, “An unusual version of the vampire myth can be found in Lars Von Trier’s Breaking the Waves”. (Undead Memory, P86) Good enough for a look-see.

The film is set in a remote Scottish village in the 1970s and focuses on Bess (Emily Watson, Happy Family). As the film is starting she is talking to the (male) elders of her church and explains that his name is Jan (Stellan Skarsgård) but the elders have not heard of him. He is not from there and they suggest that they do not encourage matrimony with outsiders and ask her to name one good thing the outsiders have brought them. Music she replies.

Jan and Bess
Jan and Bess get married and we discover that Jan works on the oil rigs and Bess is overly innocent it seems. She is prone to childish outbursts (for instance she hits out at him when the helicopter bringing him and his wedding guests is late – though the action is less spoilt and more naïve – Segal suggests she is Sancta simplicitas) and a virgin. Jan is her first love and she has prayed for love (we’ll come back to that). As things develop we find out that when her brother died she ended up being sectioned (involuntarily incarcerated in a mental health hospital) – her sister-in-law Dodo (Katrin Cartlidge) is a Sister at the nearest hospital and, despite being an outsider, remained in the village after her husband’s death for Bess’ sake.

an elder
Again, as things develop we discover that Bess has conversations with God and God replies – at least Bess replies for God, changing her voice. It seems to the viewer that she is delusional to some extent, perhaps even schizophrenic (and giving vocalisation to the voices). Perhaps it is down to the oppressive religion, which is patriarchal and certainly misogynistic – women may not speak in services and may not attend funerals. At said funerals the priest (Jonathan Hackett) condemns sinners to Hell and those who transgress the morality of the church might be cast out of the church and be dead to the locals.

Jan injured
Bess’ bliss is broken when Jan has to return to the rig. During his absence she is criticised for being overly emotional about him being away and eventually she asks God to return him to her. She asks herself (in God’s voice) whether she is sure. At sea there is an accident on the rig and Jan is injured. He is brought back and operated on and does survive but is paralysed. He asks Bess to sleep with other men and tell him about it – an act of love that Bess believes can heal him even though she does not like the idea.

searching out encounters
Her sexual encounters are distressing for her and her actions come to the attention of the elders, Dodo and a doctor (Adrian Rawlins) who has fallen for Bess. He believes Jan is essentially abusing her (possibly due to his condition) and eventually attempts to have her sectioned again. Yet from Bess’ point of view when Jan relapses and she does as he wishes it brings him back to some level of health – hence the fact that, at first, she lies about the encounters (making them up) and eventually actually goes through with them; in turn they become more and more dangerous. Is it really making him better though?

Emily Watson as Bess
MASSIVE SPOILERS– Jan refuses further treatment and it is thought he will die until Bess’ terminal sexual encounter with a sadistic sailor (Udo Kier) from whom she had barely escaped previously and who she goes to willingly. She dies but we then see Jan actually ambulatory again, looking to bury his wife. It seems that he has recovered. The community had turned her away and at her (fake, as Jan steals her body and puts stones in the coffin) burial she is condemned to Hell and yet the Doctor suggests, at the inquest into her death, that rather than calling her neurotic or psychotic – as he had written in his report – he should have written good – for that is why she acted as she did, because she was intrinsically good.

attacked by the local kids
So, a vampire? We know that in the basic model, drawn from Stoker and expanded in many of the films based upon Dracula, the male vampire feeds upon a female victim and in that act of penetration/bloodletting ultimately hyper-sexualises her. In this Jan penetrates Bess on their wedding day (in the toilets at the reception) and leaves a stain of blood on her wedding dress. After his injury his encouragement/manipulation causes her to become a sexual creature (called a tart by stone throwing village children). However, Bess says of her encounters “I don't make love with them, I make love with Jan and I save him from dying.” We can also quote Taylor (2012, The Urge Towards Love is an Urge Towards (Un)death: Romance, masochistic desire and postfeminism in the Twilight novels, quoted in Race in the Vampire Narrative) who says that for vampires “Sexual hunger becomes conflated with literal hunger.”

landscape
The results of her sacrifice can’t actually be argued with and the film ends with a truly supernatural/spiritual happening that underlines her ultimate goodness and suggests that she might truly have been speaking to God. But if she is the vector, then it is Jan who would be the vampire, feeding of her goodness and perverting it (or at least trying to, arguably she maintains her innocence in the face of her encounters). Ultimately her death gives him life (and more, he can walk again, can even return to the rig, though he uses a crutch). So, whether he is a sexual vampire – perhaps even an incubus who feeds/heals through her sacrifice, made for love – or not depends on your view. I think there is a case for saying so. Certainly, however, the film plays with a trope that is out of the genre and at the very least is of genre interest.

The imdb page is here.

On DVD @ Amazon US

On DVD @ Amazon UK

Vamp Bikers – review

$
0
0
Director: Eric Spade Rivas

Release date: 2013

Contains spoilers

Oh my word, what did I just watch? Normally I watch a film and take notes, perhaps go over scenes again that I want to clarify or simply check out again, and then let the film settle in my mind before writing the review. This time around I’m straight on the keyboard because no amount of reflection is likely to make this film make any more sense than: wtf.

This is the first of three in a series and I’ll admit that the cinematography was better than I expected, at least in parts, but I came away feeling that I had just watched a few films spliced together (though I don’t believe that’s the case) and that any narrative had vanished in the splice.

Jets and Sharks... oops, wrong film 
It starts with a loud-mouthed biker sounding off against a bunch of people that the occasional flash of fang reveal to be vampires. Essentially, he’s saying that he’s the top dog and they’d better get out of town. One suggests he gives her a ride and then they’ll leave, to which (inexplicably) he agrees despite a fellow biker mentioning her eyes – which are milky (they don’t mention the fangs). He gives her a ride and she bites him.

Yvette
We cut to day time and a biker is spray painting a portrait on a wall. A girl, Yvette, greets him as her father. He asks about her dress and lambasts her about boys and how she needs a career guy and not a biker. This is observed by a couple of (wrapped up against the sun) vampires on a rooftop. We then cut to a scene where a police captain chews out a couple of cops. One of them, Hutch (Philip Di Maria), believes in vampires. The space they filmed in doesn’t feel like a police station.

suddenly a vampire
After a moment were the biker from the beginning is all wrapped up, has fangs and is turning on other bikers, we get a scene in a club. This ends up in attacks (and the question ‘what do you want’ answered with ‘souls’) but this seems to go on forever with washed out photography, dance music and occasional feeds. The word interminable springs to mind. After meeting a caged vampire treated like a dog (!), who is then taken on a ride by vampire AC -Gwynplaine (Eric Spade Rivas), there is a random at home scene involving Hutch and a pair of rainbow speedos.

dad-napped
The spray-painting biker is at his wife’s grave when he is dragged to a car by the leather mask wearing AC and is questioned about what makes life worth living (his daughter) and is then let go – and I am no wiser about an actual plot. We got odd snippets about the queen rising, something waited for 100 years. We get a vampire takeover of the neighbourhood from the bikers (I did some research and saw that writer/star/director Rivas saw the vampires as a simile of gentrification, especially by hipsters). We get a flash back 5 years with AC dating a blind girl, refusing to turn her and other vampires doing the job – she is the one with milky eyes at the head of the film. Also in that flashback is Hutch firebombing a vampire lair. We get a much older flashback of AC, a blind wife and a daughter he’s forgotten about, all at the funfair at Coney Island.

some vampires
I’m still none the wiser. Perhaps I’m missing the point. With an overuse of filters and some arthouse pretensions, perhaps this is all it was meant to be. I don’t know. I think it was just badly edited, badly scripted with no sense of how to make a narrative work (either visually or in dialogue). There is a random moment partway through where a priest is interviewed on news about the Oscars and he suggests that the Razzie that year was going to go to the Vamp Bikers trilogy and that knowingness actually undermines the idea that the mess was accidental. It at least shows a self-effacing aspect, admitting that what they did was fundamentally flawed. Or ironically, it might have been meant to be ironic. 2 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

On Demand @ Amazon US

On Demand @ Amazon UK

The Vampire: a New History – review

$
0
0
Author: Nick Groom

First published: 2018

Contains spoilers

The blurb: An authoritative new history of the vampire, two hundred years after it first appeared on the literary scene Published to mark the bicentenary of John Polidori's publication of The Vampyre, Nick Groom's detailed new account illuminates the complex history of the iconic creature. The vampire first came to public prominence in the early eighteenth century, when Enlightenment science collided with Eastern European folklore and apparently verified outbreaks of vampirism, capturing the attention of medical researchers, political commentators, social theorists, theologians, and philosophers. Groom accordingly traces the vampire from its role as a monster embodying humankind's fears, to that of an unlikely hero for the marginalized and excluded in the twenty-first century. Drawing on literary and artistic representations, as well as medical, forensic, empirical, and sociopolitical perspectives, this rich and eerie history presents the vampire as a strikingly complex being that has been used to express the traumas and contradictions of the human condition.

The review: I came across Nick Groom as the beset expert in The Luke McQueen Pilots: Britain's Hidden Vampire Crisis, however I had also read an essay in the Cambridge Companion to Dracula and, unfortunately, I found that the weakest of the chapters. However, one piece of work does not cover a body of work and – free of the confines of a chapter – Groom’s work here excels.

Groom explores the vampire from the 18th Century panics – arguing that these were the first vampires, and that revenants, spectres etc. are not vampires as emerged in the panics, indeed cutting the vampires from other blood drinking mythological creatures. It is a position that I can accept as an argument basis (as much as I can recognise the folkloric tropes that are common). He then draws a thorough socio-political history that allows us to see the context.

He carries this through the panics into the 19th century literature that developed (and I must say I always appreciate finding new pieces, and Groom covers pieces I’d not considered before). He skirts around Christabel suggesting that she appears vampiric, if not actually a vampire (I subscribe to it not being a vampire piece but, again, Groom dealt with this even-handedly.

The final chapter then moves on to Dracula (a brief view beyond Dracula is found in the conclusion but Dracula is seen as the loci between the developing vampire from the panics into the modern phenomena). To concentrate on this, for a moment, as it was where I was less positive about his previous essay; where the author drew a direct line between Ţepeş and the Count previously, in this it is less concreate a connection that is drawn (and then only briefly). I perhaps would still want a recognition that there is a strong view against the connection but it felt less “In Search of Dracula”.

One thing I did enjoy was how he drew the view of female hysteria with the figure of Lucy (and her subsequent healing, through the stake). There was mileage to connect this back to Varney the Vampire and Clara Crofton. Another thing I enjoyed was his vampire/vampiric reading of Frankenstein and I will, at some point, look to explore that here – with all due credit, of course.

But it is the historical context… the politics, the religious contentions, the societal views that he explores and ties into the development of the vampire as a figure up to, and including, Dracula that makes this such an important book. Highly recommended. 9 out of 10.

In Hardback @ Amazon US

In Hardback @ Amazon UK

Ken Russell’s Dracula – review

$
0
0
Author: Ken Russell

Published: 2017 (3rd ed)

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: Written between Tommy and Altered States, Ken Russell’s screenplay for Dracula was one of Hollwood’s best kept secrets. It has been used to inspire two hit films and an internationally successful ballet. Ken Russell’s partially autobiographical re-imagining of Dracula is ready to inspire a whole new generation of artists.

The review: I do like a bit of Ken Russell, the auteur director made some magnificent films and some that might not be magnificent but are certainly memorable and fun. Here at TMtV we remember Russell for his content that touched into the vampire genre (and the history thereof). Gothic explored the party at Villa Diodati, which led to Polidori’s the Vampyre: a Tale. Lair of the White Worm was a vampiric renditioning of Bram Stoker’s novel and, according to Paul Sutton’s introduction in this book, was partially made because the production company couldn’t afford to make this treatment of Dracula. Lisztomania was one of Russell’s classical music orientated films (he was an expert on classical composers) that transforms Wagner into a vampire. Finally, his segment in Trapped Ashes featured vampiric boobs.

How I wish, however, that the list I have just given included his take on Dracula because, if this screenplay is anything to go by, it would have been magnificent (caveated, of course, that it would have changed shape during production and filming). Transposed to the 1920s this is a Dracula who is an artist (indeed he has been many of the great artists and has preserved many others as vampires) and, as such, his motivation has changed from Stoker’s Count but the story begins, as with Stoker, with Harker travelling to Transylvania.

However his coach trip is so very different; gypsies offering blood sacrifices, women fed on by vampire bats and a tussle with a werewolf coachman… or just a trick played upon an unwary traveller?

Dracula is aware of Lucy as she is a world-famous opera singer, dying of leukaemia, and so the motivation of both Dracula in vampirising her and her accepting him changes dramatically from the book. This is a telling of Dracula like no other and is all done with panache. The internal logic changes work so very well. We will never have Ken’s vision unfortunately (even if someone else made it as per this script, it wouldn’t be the vision Ken would have given us) but we do have his treatment and it’s a joy for Dracula and Russell fans alike. Necessary 10 out of 10.

In Paperback @ Amazon US

In Paperback @ Amazon UK

Vampire Films of the 1970s: Dracula to Blacula and Every Fang Between – review

$
0
0
Author: Gary A Smith

First published: 2016

Contains spoilers

The blurb: The 1970s were turbulent times and the films made then reflected the fact. Vampire movies-always a cinema staple-were no exception. Spurred by the surprise worldwide success of Hammer Film's Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1969 (sic)), vampire movies filled theaters for the next ten years-from the truly awful to bonafide classics. Audiences took the good with the bad and came back for more. Providing a critical review of the genre's overlooked Golden Age, this book explores a mixed bag from around the world, including The Vampire Lovers (1970), Dracula Versus Frankenstein (1971), Scream, Blacula, Scream (1973), Salem's Lot (1975 (sic)), Dracula Sucks (1978) and Love at First Bite (1979).

The review: If I am given pause to thought on this volume it is around the subtitle “Dracula to Blacula and Every Fang Between” because, whilst this is a valiant effort, there are plenty of 1970 vampire genre pieces missing. Now, to be fair, of the roughly 100 entries on this blog (not including films I haven’t covered yet) that don’t appear in the book many are cartoons and TV episodes – not texts that the book looks to cover. However, there are some films absent, often obscure or films in which the vampiric element could be debated or is a fleeting visitation. Sometimes not so obscure given some of the entries in the volume.

I was heartened when the first line of the books opening “The Rules About Vampires” stated “The rules about vampires are that there are no rules.” But Smith often didn’t look to the more borderline films, those films that are vampire despite not being the traditional undead. He did mention Alucarda but suggested it was not a vampire movie, I disagree, but in the main borderline movies do not appear. Then, strangely, he includes Chosen Survivors in which it is vampire bats (with no supernatural element), something I would not look to cover. Chinese films that included vampires pre-1980 were missed (as not existing) though there are a couple of examples where they were a fleeting visitation or it was not a standard vampire type.

The book is chatty and it is an overview, so the plot summaries are mostly quickfire with a few factoids laid out before, but this made the book readable. Where it failed was when personal prejudice came into it. I’m not talking about opinion – and it is clear to me that the author and I radically differ on our opinions of several films – but using Jess Franco as a prime example, the maverick director did receive his own chapter but it is clear that Smith did not care for the director’s work to the point that several of his better known films were glossed over and not given the format prominence of other work and A Virgin Among the Living Dead (one of his superior films) was missed altogether. In one of the (in this case, glaring) omissions I mentioned, though not directed by Franco, I would have expected to see Cuadecuc Vampir mentioned, if not covered fully.

That said the book did touch into the obscure and also covered things like (briefly) vampire porn – something I deliberately haven’t covered here. I was pleased to see Los vampiros de Coyoacán covered, a film I do have a couple of times on DVD but have failed to find a subtitle set for it. All in all, it’s a brave stab and very readable 7 out of 10.

In Paperback @ Amazon US

In Paperback @ Amazon UK
Viewing all 2168 articles
Browse latest View live