Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Vampire Resurrection – review

Director: Mark Morris

Release date: 2016

Contains spoilers


This is in no way related to the 2001 Vampire Resurrection and I really hoped that I was going to get something out of this UK low budget release – at least more than I did its earlier US namesake.

I repeated in my head, “please be good” emulating Dorothy in her plea to get back home but, unlike Dorothy who got back to Kansas, the film never improved in quality – if anything it dropped lower and lower, and, as I say, this is not what I hoped for.

The Angel
It starts with a girl in the woods, Anne (played younger by Eden Quine Taylor), being held by Nick (Gareth Lawrence). She calls for Wraith (Paul Van Beaumont) and Nick shouts for Wraith to come and get her or he knows what he’ll do. They (Wraith and Nick) fight and Wraith (the vampire slayer) is staked and defeated. The dying Wraith calls for Anne to be spared and Nick refuses and so Anne stakes him from behind. He murmurs “Vengeance will be mine” and some likely occult mumblings as Anne enters into some poorly acted histrionics and Wraith dies – until an Angel resurrects him. The acting all round was poor, to be fair, but I hoped – as we jump forward 27 years – that it might improve.

Anna and Jack
So, cutting forward and Anne (played older by Amanda Lara Kay) is telling her teenage son Nathan (Alan Harding) about her time with Wraith as a vampire slayer. Meanwhile husband Jack (Mark Morris) is bringing daughter Jenny (Rachel Pooley) home. Their relationship is clearly sour and she had packed camping gear in his car to sneak off to a music festival. The entire premise of the family dynamic is this – Nathan is the studious son and Jenny the truanting daughter. Jack puts pressure on Nathan to do well, despairs of Jenny and does not believe Anne about her past and dislikes her filling the kids’ heads with nonsense. One questions how they developed a relationship in the first place?

finding the grave
So, the kids sneak off during a family row, stealing Jack's car keys, and go driving off to Lanes End Heath and the woods where Anne killed Nick. They clearly don’t believe their mum and when they see a hooded figure appear and disappear they investigate, finding the grave of the vampire (which is said can never be found) and then leg it. They get home, hammering on the door in fear, with Nathan suggesting that *it* talks to him in his head. Jack’s reaction is to take him to the doctor’s, whilst Anne does nothing, it appears, to intervene on behalf of her son.

into the grave
Nathan starts getting messages on the most inauthentic PC messaging service I think I have seen for some time. He is in conversation with Josh (Adam Lezemore) – a young man who can cure Nathan, he claims. Josh takes him back to the grave, where he slits Nathan’s throat. The vegetation, as well as a hand (clearly in a black glove with bones to look like a skeletal hand), drags him into the earth. We cut to Nathan’s funeral, as viewers we intrude on the parental grief, and then their anguish is intruded on even more by the police, specifically by DCI Woods (David J Biscoe), who takes the parents in for questioning.

mourning Nathan
This leads to a series of questions for the viewer. Firstly, why do the police get involved after the funeral – the body (throat slit and drained of blood) would be held pending investigation and not released for immediate burial? How was the body found? Surely it was in the (apparently hidden) vampire’s grave? We see later that there is an almost immediate bite and turn aspect to the lore (at least when killed, those not killed turn the next nightfall), so how was there a body to bury as he should have turned by then? Why does DCI Woods hate Jack? We know that there is something in their past but the dialogue doesn’t tell us what. Oh and Woods is, apparently, Josh’s dad.

awful looking fangs
There is a quick attack on the family at this point. Anne gets some retired commandos she used to know involved (who have dealt with vampires in Bolivia but are absolutely inept in England) and tries to find Wraith. The focus of the film is Jack who does not believe in vampires. Even when his murdered son returns from the grave and turns his sister (giving her awful looking fangs) Jack refuses to believe and suggests a virus. Again, when off with the commandos, he suggests virus, despite them being armed to the teeth. Even when he is infected and then cured (I won’t spoil how) he only seems to begrudgingly believe. The character’s attitude would lead one to believe that this is a comedy – except everyone appears to be the straight-person and the only laughs are (potentially) unintentional.

makeup
I say potentially because, to be honest, one has to assume that the vampire makeup was made intentionally funny… though, with the rest of the tone not being comedic, one worries it was not so. It really is sub-par Halloween party. I have watched other films that have makeup as bad (or worse) and, sometimes, you can zone it out. Suspend disbelief despite it. In this case, however, there was just too much of it. As for the vampire lore – sunlight kills, staking is the way forward along with beheading, and the "experienced" commandos use automatic weapons and are slaughtered for their trouble.

Nick and Wraith
I like to say something positive and some of the night photography was really well done. I’m not too sure about the shot composition but the lighting and actual photography worked really well. The acting was generally atrocious – some of the more stereotyped performances, such as Justin Hayward as the leader of the commandos, worked well enough but other performances fell very short. Mark Morris as the dad worked until the sublime (of his constant denial) transmogrified into the ridiculous, and as the director Morris focused on himself and let the rest of the cast languish. The narrative had gaping holes and character reactions were unrealistic. This needed to be deliberately a comedy, it wasn’t – or if it was meant to be it failed to identify itself as such. 2.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Cryptic – review

Directors: Freddie Hutton-Mills & Bart Ruspoli

Release date: 2014

Contains spoilers

It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Cryptic had its roots on the stage – its one-set format would lend itself to that and the fact that the filmmakers worked perfectly well within that constraint said much. It also wouldn’t surprise me to discover that writers/directors Hutton-Mills and Ruspoli were fans of Tarantino and Rodriguez – there was an oblique reference to Reservoir Dogs (the characters can’t remember the film’s name) but more so I was often reminded of the output of Troublemaker Studios.

What we have in this film is a thriller rather than a horror and it is one that is predicated on both the dialogue and acting. It is also a black comedy, reliant somewhat more on character than situation.

Vas Blackwood as Meat
It starts with a crypt and a man, Steve Stevens (Ed Stoppard, the Little Vampire). He is, as we will discover, the money man for local crime kingpin Gordon (Jerry Anderson). Gordon is indisposed and has sent Steve to watch over a coffin. He tries to push the lid off a sarcophagus but it won’t budge. He texts Gordon but gets no signal. There is a clatter as another gangster drops his gun before stepping out of an annex. He is Meat (Vas Blackwood), and he is in charge of weapon acquisition for Gordon. There is some banter, which more than anything gives us a feel for Steve’s character. During the conversation Steve suggests he is a ghost, but Meat is uncomfortable with the use of the word; as though the word could summon the entity. Between them they open the sarcophagus but it is empty.

the Jonas Brothers
Next into the crypt come the Jonas brothers, Jim (Daniel Feuerriegel) and John (Philip Barantini), and whilst there is clearly no loved lost between them and the other two, they also work for Gordon distributing drugs. As things progress we discover that John is known to have raped and killed a seventeen-year-old girl and, beyond anything else, this makes him a figure of scorn for Stevens. The four look for the coffin but can’t find it. Again there is some time spent, allowing the characters to coalesce and then another character enters. This time, however, it is not one of Gordon’s lieutenants but a junky, Walter (Ben Shafik), who claims to have left his stash in the crypt. He opens a panel on the sarcophagus and reveals the metal coffin under the false bottom.

the coffin
Dialogue has revealed to us that there is a lot of rumour in the underworld (such as the rumour that John Jonas has had his private parts removed and been forced to eat them – something he fervently denies) and the mystery of what is happening to the various Lieutenants’ men. Apparently someone or something is killing them, rumour has it that bodies are bitten and drained of blood but in truth the bodies seem to be vanishing. It is eventually revealed that the rumour mill suggests that it is a vampire killing the crews. One rumour is that sex trafficker Cochise (Ray Panthaki) has been wasted – an exaggeration we discover when he enters the crypt with Alberta (Sally Leonard).

neck wound
It is revealed that Meat is the one that ordered the contents of the coffin – though he isn’t sure what it contains except it is a V__ slaying kit. He won’t say the word and becomes agitated when others do – to the point of discharging his weapon to stop it being said – in case the v___ is summoned. The final person to enter is Robert (Robert Glenister), unrecognised by all (except Steve who finds him familiar), he is revealed to be the organisations lawyer. He tells Steve that Gordon has left him a voicemail and Steve steps outside to listen. The message suggests that one of the lieutenants is the one they are after and he should lock the crypt door and push the key through a vent for Gordon to get when he arrives. The coffin contains something that will sort the situation once and for all. However, a freaked-out Meat, who was praying in an annex, is found dead with punctures in his neck. It appears Gordon was right... and there is a timer on the locked coffin... and something seems to be inside…

Ed Stoppard as Steve Stevens
As I said at the head, what carries this are the characters and all the actors do well… mostly. The one aspect of the acting I wasn’t sold on was Alberta’s Eastern European accent (it just didn’t do it for me). That’s not to say that the rest of Sally Leonard’s performance was poor, it wasn’t, just the accent seemed poor. The show is stolen, however, by Ed Stoppard who is absolutely superb as “Sexy” Steve Stevens. To be fair he was the lynchpin character and the writers gave him the very best lines.

a staking
As we are in a locked-room mystery I really don’t want to spoil anymore. This seemed to sneak out and stay under the radar and it’s a shame because it was a great fun film. The fact that there was only a single set didn’t become stale as the characters and dialogue drove us forward. The set was suitably Gothic to counterpoint against the obvious modern gangster genre that underpinned the film. There was a couple of cgi blood splatter moments that jarred a little, but not as much as some as they seemed to be combined with physical effects. The idea that it is eminently rewatchable whilst being exclusively a whodunit (and so once you’ve seen it the raison d'être is spoiled) says much. 7 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Stake Land II – review

Director: Dan Berk & Robert Olsen

Release date: 2016

Contains spoilers

Though I know many who dislike the film, I really do rate the original Stake land, indeed I predicted in its review that it was “Definitely a film I will return to again and again.” That prediction has proven true and I am never disappointed by the film.

The fact that it has spawned a sequel actually came as a bit of a shock, I missed it until it was already out and available in various markets. Written by star Nick Damici, I suppose this was always going to struggle against its predecessor… and it does. However there is a worthwhile film here. Like the first film it features a special vampire – one that shows cognitive functioning – but the majority of the vampires in the film are feeding machines and could, properly, gain the name zompire.

Connor Paolo as Martin
The last film saw older vampire hunter Mister (Nick Damici) slip away into the night, leaving young prodigy Martin (Connor Paolo) with Peggy (Bonnie Dennison). They headed North, over the Canadian border to New Eden – a human outpost far enough North that the vampires wouldn’t bother them – due to the cold presumably. This film starts with martin telling the story to his and Peggy’s daughter (Taylor Zelionka). There is an alarm and New Eden is under attack by the religious fanatics the Brotherhood, fighting alongside berserker vampires led by a female vampire, the Mother (Kristina Hughes).

Kristina Hughes as Mother
Peggy and the daughter are captured, New Eden falls and Martin watches the Mother stab his wife and child – before the attacking forces retreat South again. Later we see that Martin fired an arrow at the Mother, who plucked it out of the air, in flight, and it was his arrow that was used to stab his wife and child. Martin is also astounded that the brotherhood and feral vampires were able to fight as a cohesive unit and rightly surmises that the Mother has some method of control of the vampires. He heads South to find Mister and to kill the creature that killed his family.

desperate for blood
As he travels South we see him attacked by a couple of slow vampires, so desperate for blood that they attack in daylight; burning slowly as they attack, their physical condition poor. With the second one he comes into contact with a ma (Kathryn Bracht) and pa (Blaine Hart) and just survives being drugged so that they can use him for meat. In this new post-apocalyptic world the humans are just as dangerous as the vampires and perhaps it was due to his brief peaceful sojourn in New Eden, but this older Martin seems more naïve than his younger self.

Mother's palanquin
Eventually he finds Mister (being held as a gladiator in a sub-Mad Max set up), who subsequently gets captured by the Brotherhood and has to be rescued again before Martin and he make a last stand with some friendly survivors in (apparently) the last lockdown, against the Mother and her worshippers. For the Brotherhood (who were an apocalyptic Christian-derived group, or so it appeared in the first film) now worship her as their dark messiah – carrying her in a heavily draped palanquin adorned with a bovine head.

left for the vampires
The religious symbolism is, of course, rife – Mister, for instance, is crucified and left for the vampires. The Brotherhood are far from pious. Not only do they murder in the name of the Mother but they aren’t above a spot of rape and are willing to become suicide bombers. Perhaps the religious commentary is delivered with a lack of subtlety but then the first film wasn’t particularly subtle either.

Mister's compadres
Acting and character wise, Damici is as good as expected as the taciturn Mister and we get some more background to him. As a character his background is expanded on when we meet two of his old compadres, who are more forthcoming about the past than he is. There is a feel that he is getting too old and long in the tooth for his private crusade against the vampires and wants to prevent Martin from losing himself to revenge like he did. Martin is perhaps less rounded as a character, despite us knowing more about him, he is portrayed less taciturn and more shell-shocked.

desperate for blood 2
As for the Mother – beyond controlling vampires we discover that she has a trait not before seen in the films (though I won’t spoil it) but as an antagonist is less visible in the film than Jebediah was in the previous film and thus rather shallow as an enemy. Larry Fessenden cameos in a short speaking role – though whether he is the same character that he played in the first film is unclear. So, compared to the first film this felt lacking and perhaps a tad restricted on a budgetary level – however it was nice to see the characters return. 6 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Essential Literature: Powers of Darkness

Authors: Bram Stoker (original Novel) & Valdimar Ásmundsson (adaptation)

Translator: Hans Corneel de Roos

First Published: 1900 (serialised), 1901 (novel), 2017 (English translation)

Makt Myrkranna – or Powers of Darkness – was the name of the Icelandic adaptation of Dracula. I say adaptation as it is significantly different to Dracula – as we shall see, in turns fascinatingly and frustratingly. It was adapted and serialised by Valdimar Ásmundsson and, for some time, the English speaking world only knew the content of the preface – seemingly written by Stoker and, if dated correctly, provided some time before the adaptation was published (August 1898). The original translation of that preface revealed a tantalising Ripper connection – however de Roos argues that there were translation errors and makes a good case that Stoker (if indeed it was he who wrote the preface) directed us to the Thames Torso Murders of 1887–1889 and, indeed, the text of the story seems to underpin this.

It is, however, the radically different text that makes this so interesting and I think that for me it is for different reasons to the reason conveyed by the translator. I have classed this as essential literature because, whichever way you fall in the debate as to the origin of the changes, it is still a necessity for the student of Dracula and the media vampire. I must however note the cover states this to be “the Lost Version of Dracula”. It is not – for it was never lost to the people of Iceland, to start off with, it was republished in 1950 and 2011. The suggestion it is a lost version is based, however, on the idea that Ásmundsson had access to an early (radically different) draft of Dracula. Though I do not dismiss the notion entirely, I am far from convinced.

The writing style and tempo does not feel like Stoker at all, though whether this is due to Ásmundsson’s rendering or de Roos translation I do not know, and the “similarities” between story elements and unused aspects of Stoker’s notes do not seem definitive to me (indeed many points can and have been critically discussed by other articles and I do not wish to labour them here, as my interest in this is slightly different). But what we have – one way or another – is the first example of Dracula being altered radically in adaptation. This is a tradition that likely did not flow from this volume (given that it was generally unknown outside Iceland) but continued through Nosferatu (1922), the Hamilton Deane play (1924), Ali Riza Seyfi's novel adaptation Kaziki Voyvoda (1928 – and something I’d love to see translated into English), and then through countless movies and books.

So what is different within the book? The first part is Thomas (rather than Jonathan) Harker’s trip to Transylvania – as well as changing Harker's name we should also note that Ásmundsson changes Mina to Wilma. This section is epistolary, like the original, made up from Thomas’ diary and goes from approximately 22,700 words in the original novel to around 37,200 words in this. The changes are manifold. There are servants in the castle – including a deaf/mute old housekeeper. The Count is said to have had three wives; possibly referencing the vampire women from the original novel, they are unseen in this. Perhaps… There is one vampire woman in the castle whom the Count claims to be his cousin. However she bears an uncanny resemblance to a painting of a Countess in the portrait gallery, and apparently believes she is the woman in the picture.

The Count tells the story of the Countess from the painting; a sorry tail of love and betrayal. Did she betray this Count and suffer his punishment of having her trapped with her lover until that lover went mad and killed himself? We do not know for sure whether the contemporary woman is the original Countess or not (I suspect so, of course). Her interactions with Harker are numerous and she casts a fascination over him that seems like a charm or a hypnotic control. As I read the first part of the book the presence of the solitary vampire woman, who says to Thomas “—tell him nothing, but come! And beware, beware, beware”, drew my mind to Hammer and specifically the Horror of Dracula and Scars of Dracula where, years later, solitary vampire women would try to seduce the hero and have their role expanded compared to the original story.

There are secret passages, and ledges on the outside of the castle on which people can pass. It is a lackey of the Count who takes Harker’s clothes (and papers) rather than the Count himself. Beneath the castle is a Satanic temple, where ape-like men (possibly a racial slur, though the Count is also described as half-man and half-animal later in the book) attend rites and human vampiric sacrifices conducted by the Count himself. Taking this pseudo-religious aspect, along with (under drawn) aspects in Part Two, I again thought of Hammer and their cult of vampirism – in fact an annotation suggests the “Count’s vision might be understood as a satanic counterpoint to the Christian expectation of a Last Judgement”. Perhaps we can go one step further and liken this Count to the antichrist, just as Hammer did with their Count especially in Satanic Rites of Dracula. At the very least, this Count seems intent on introducing a New World Order and political commentary, flavoured by Ásmundsson’s political interests, are found within the text

During Part One we get a wonderful scene where the body of a peasant girl (a probable sacrificial victim) is spotted outside the castle by Harker. He cannot find a way out to the body but then sees peasants come to the body and stake it before removing it. I should note that, in an annotation, it is suggested that “the intentions of both the Count and his cousin remain obscure—for nowhere are they caught with their fangs in someone’s neck”, with a preceding passage that also points out that Lucia (Lucy) has no fangmarks on her neck. This may be true but the vampire woman certainly kisses Harker’s neck (a kiss being a euphemism in the original Dracula for a bite) the ape-like men bite their sacrificial victims and suck their blood and, indeed, it appears one of them bites Harker’s neck for he finds a bite mark on his neck just after being attacked in a secret passage by one (and assumes the rosary he wears has protected him). It is true that the term vampire is only used once in book and in reference to London fog.

If Part One is fascinating and a rip-roaring tale then Part Two is frustrating (at the very least) and in fact I found it to be a bitter disappointment. The serialisation of the novel had been going on for over a year at this point and it feels as though Ásmundsson just wanted to wrap things up. The story drops from 137,860 words in the original to only 9100 in this and the epistolary style is abandoned for a narrator. The story is changed again and one of the most notable changes is that Van Helsing does not seem to recognise the vampirism, or even suspect it, until he reads Harker’s journal – indeed, Arthur reports seeing Lucia rising from her coffin (prior to internment) and in response the Professor sits vigil in case she has been mistakenly declared dead and awakens.

One thing I found interesting was the explanation given for the soil the Count ships to England. Stoker’s lore can be confusing but is centred around the fact that the Count must rest in hallowed earth as “in soil barren of holy memories it cannot rest.” In this it is specifically, “the hallowed earth in which it had once been buried”. This makes it specifically the vampire’s grave dirt (and the boxes of earth were also used to carry riches to England, it is suggested).

So, all in all, this is absolutely necessary as the first example of Dracula being reproduced in an altered form. Whether this was with either the blessing or the aid of Stoker is unclear to me – I have doubts that he actually had his hand in the process, but do not entirely dismiss the possibility. Whilst I might not be convinced, I am certainly very grateful to Hans de Roos for making this available to us and the time and effort he has taken to do so. The first part is a fantastic read in its own right, though the style and tempo do not feel like the novel so many of us love and the details are certainly very different. The second part is totally disappointing – possibly more so as the story is again changed significantly but the prose feels less a novel and more an extended synopsis and so does not exploit those changes in a satisfying way.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Fledgling – review

Author: Octavia E. Butler

First published: 2005

Contains spoilers

The blurb: Shori is a mystery. Found alone in the woods, she appears to be a little black girl with traumatic amnesia and near fatal wounds. But Shori is a fifty-three-year-old vampire with a ravenous hunger for blood, the lost child of an ancient species of near-immortals who live in dark symbiosis with humanity. Genetically modified to be able to walk in daylight, Shori now becomes the target of a vast plot to destroy her and her kind. And in the final apocalyptic battle, her survival will depend on whether all humans are bigots—or all bigots are human…

The review: Blurbs, you’ve got to love them. Whilst there is undoubtedly a race aspect to this novel, indeed the book is an exploration of racial bigotry at heart, for the plot the last line, “whether all humans are bigots—or all bigots are human” is totally misleading.

The book centres on Shori who, at the beginning awakens broken, scarred and without memory. An unlucky animal (later revealed to be a human) finds her and is, over time, eaten – allowing her to heal. Eventually she stumbles through the woods, onto the highway and into the life of Wright Hamlin. He wants to take the little girl (he reckons her to be around 10 years old) to the police or hospital until she bites his hand. Suddenly taking her anywhere bar home seems wrong. This opening allows Butler to make us uncomfortable and push us off kilter as a reader. Wright realises that his feelings are wrong, even when he and Shori sleep together and we are uncomfortable with the suggestion. The fact that it is revealed that she is a fifty-three-year-old and such relationships with human lovers are quite normal in her society (she isn’t sexually mature in respect of mating with her own kind but is described as sexually mature in respects of sex for pleasure).

As the novel develops we discover that she is an Ina – a parallel species with humanity. They are the source of the vampire myth, their saliva can allow them to control humans and a single Ina will live in a symbiotic relationship with (no less than) seven symbionts as their humans are called. Shori, as a juvenile, lived with her mother in a female settlement as Ina live separately by gender, coming together to breed (the female saliva bonds the male Ina to them permanently as sexual partners). She discovers this when she finds her father but his encampment is also attacked. The attackers are human but they are controlled by Ina.

All of this orbits around the fact that Shori is the result of a genetic breeding programme by her family. They have introduced human DNA so that she has melanin (all the other Ina are blanche white, burn in sunlight and are comatose during the day – Shori can function during the day, is still very sensitive to sunlight but can stand some exposure and is black).

The book could be said to look at speciesism rather than racism (although the very jealous Wright displays racial discomfort when Shori chooses a black man, Joel, as a further symbiont) but in doing so Butler has allowed herself the ability to discuss racism. When I mentioned the blurb it was because the bigotry is within the Ina primarily, though they claim to be above such petty human intolerances. It explores the myth of racial purity and shows that Shori’s hybrid nature, her diversity if you like, is an evolutional advantage. All in all an interesting book that challenges bigotry – and underpins the fact that the vampire is a versatile figure when used allegorically. 7.5 out of 10.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Sangue del mio Sangue – review


Director: Marco Bellocchio

Release date: 2015

Contains spoilers


Many thanks to blog reader Alberto who has emailed me with a couple of suggestions of films for the blog – in both cases films I hadn’t come across. This one Sangue del mio Sangue, or Blood of My Blood, is a film that perhaps falls into the more arthouse end of the vampire genre.

It is available on DVD and Blu-ray but, as far as I can find, only in Italian currently. However there are fansubs out there in English.

Federico (modern) with Ivan
The film is strange in its structure. Essentially split into two stories both centred on a building in Bobbio – in the first story it is a convent and it is disused in the second story but referred to as a prison. The two stories have some of the same actors and one of the primary characters within both tales is called Federico Mai (Pier Giorgio Bellocchio), in the first tale he is the brother of a priest (whom he looks uncannily like) who committed suicide and in the second he is a tax inspector who looks to sell the Bobbio prison to a Russian oligarch (Ivan Franek).

trial by ordeal
The first film sees the interrogation and trials of Benedetta (Lidiya Liberman) as the priest Cacciapuoti (Fausto Russo Alesi) looks to prove that she bewitched and seduced Federico and thus allow him to be buried in hallowed grounds (and open the way for him to eventually enter heaven). However she seems capable of passing the trials and Federico has fallen for her just as his brother did. One thing that struck me was the use of tracks by Scala & Kolacny Brothers, a haunting version of Nothing Else Matters and their sublime piece Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, itself used in We are the Night.

Patrizia Bettini as the Count's wife
The vampire aspect is in the second story however. Although the prison is reported empty it is actually the residence of the Count Basta (Roberto Herlitzka). We meet his estranged wife (Patrizia Bettini), who describes the Count – missing, as far as she is concerned, for years – as a vampire but that is allegorical surely? The Count has a toothache and goes to his dentist (Toni Bertorelli) and it becomes clear that they class themselves as vampires – they are not immortal, as the Count says, and the blood no longer does anything for him.

not in photo
He also, that evening, spots a waitress, Elena (Elena Bellocchio), who stirs within the old vampire feelings (of a romantic nature) that he has not felt for some time. She happens to be the sister of Federico. If we were in doubt of the Count’s nature it is dismissed, perhaps, when a photograph is taken of him with Elena and her friends that fails to capture him – there is, instead, a glow where he should be… that said his wife does have an older picture of him on her phone.

Roberto Herlitzka as Count Basta
The film is perhaps more mood than substance within the story, leading us and leaving us to search for the meaning ourselves. However it is beautifully shot, well acted and, as mentioned, has some sublime moments on the soundtrack. For those seeking a defined plot this is not for you, however there is a gothic tone lying with the sense of mystery. I liked it. 7 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Friday, February 17, 2017

After the Blood Rush – review

Director: Pete Trudgeon

Release date: 2009

Contains spoilers


On a double disc with the Vampire bitches – which was reviewed here as Marty Jenkins and the Vampire Bitches - this is definitely the weaker of the two products. The cut price nature of the DVD (at time of review) and the fact that the companion film has merit may lead you to get this.

It is a shame, as well, as the filmmakers clearly had some ideas but didn’t have the budget, the actors or the technical know-how to pull them off.

a Blood Junky
The film is set in Hamtramck, Michigan and intertitles tell us of a virus being released that has decimated the vampire population, turning most of the survivors into blood junkies and (we discover later) stripping the powers of many of those not so impacted. We also see a conversation between two gentlemen where it is confessed that the virus was man made and a cure does exist.

George Pogacich as jack
Two federally backed vampire hunters, Wally Wood (John Anton) and Jack Cole (George Pogacich), question their blood junky snitch Dwayne (Johnny Gel). He gives them the location of a nest of blood junkies that they raid. Wally uses a sword, whereas Jack uses an assault rifle that is unusually quiet and splatters targets with unfortunately cgi bullet wounds – budget filmmakers take note, it is rare that things like cgi blood or bullet wounds actually work effectively. A cop is the blood junkies’ meal – Wally kills him, presumably because he’d turn otherwise.

victim
Cut in to the scenes of the raid are scenes of two drunk guys wandering down an alleyway. They see three girls who have “missed the bus” … the girls end up doing ring-a-ring-of-roses round them before attacking them – these are vampires as opposed to blood junkies. We also get scenes of a man called Andrew Milligan (Gary Freeman) who blindfolds himself and is met by the three girls. They hand the man a disc and put a phone to his ear to allow a woman called Zandora to speak to him. Milligan is a disgraced journalist.

Michael Clark as Prince Mumawalde 
So, the two hunters are introduced by the mayor (Karen Majewski) to a wealthy businessman, Wilkenson (Billy Whitehouse), whose daughter, Elizabeth (Taylor Ariel), is a blood junky. She has been taken by Zandora and is being held. She wants the hunters and Wilkenson is willing to pay them to get her back (and Milligan wants a scoop). The story is convoluted and not well drawn out. Zandora has a fully powered vampire working with her, Prince Mumawalde (Michael Clark) – a homage, of course, to Blacula. His presence in the film became pointless, unfortunately.

poor framing
So the dialogue was poor, the acting didn’t help and the sound was poor so dialogue became lost (possibly a fault of the DVD, rather than the sound editing). The effects were poor, especially when cgi was used, lighting was too. But the worst thing was the cinematography and direction. There was no proper framing and the film reeked amateur. Now, all that might be forgiven but, whilst earnest, the story was convoluted but buried beneath the dialogue. It was all a shame because of that word – earnest. One really did think the film was the product of an earnest attempt to do something good. It just failed. 2.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.