Quote:
Originally Posted by Straker
That was a fun.... was good chatting with you both. Shame we didn't get a bigger turn out. I'll try and make the Tuesday night Dracula too, its been a few years since I've watched it, and absolutely love that flick, so might have to pull a late one. Need to sort out why my mic wasn't working tonight too.  |
Yes, I agree. It was very enjoyable, it's always cool to discuss with others that have the same passion as I for horror. Hope to see you then (which is today). I am glad to find someone else who really enjoys Bram Stoker's Dracula. By the way, I was curious where do you live? I was curious because I know that your time zone was off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoGrl
Yes, that was a blast! I think the biggest turnouts so far have been:
- Frankenstein '31 (with you, Mett, HF, Villain, & my friend Mike)
- American Werewolf in London (four friends at my place plus HF & Mett online)
I think that Sundays are hard with American football and I know that Tuesdays and Thursdays are difficult too - But that's OK! I'm pleased that folks are showing up at all.
SO - I've updated this week's poster...
We started with Vampyr (1932) and, in short, I need to watch it again.
I decided to rent it streaming from Amazon and it was not a very good version at all (Mett had his webcam on and the version that I could watch on his computer was MUCH BETTER than what I had in my home. I think I'll have to buy the Criterion version because this movie was amazing. The images were striking and quite horrifying - A couple of things stand out to me:
- The coffin POV as his body is being carried (dizzying and horrifying!)
- And Léone's face when she wakes up and stares around the room
- The shadow play throughout
- The Vampyr book itself.
Really really compelling but I was ultimately distracted by the version I was watching (which had odd occasional dubbing) and messaging with Mett & Straker (that's on me; I should hold off on that until the end of the movie).
The POV shot I especially found incredible and ahead of its time.
I'd really love to hear other folk's thoughts - Thoughts on Vampyr... Thoughts on Nosferatu... Thoughts on early vampire flicks -
If you had three vampire movies to watch this week, what would you watch and why? |
Yeah, sometimes these things have good turnout, sometimes they don't. It's still cool that at least some people will be able to show up. I will probably be one of the more faithful watchers. And, I absolutely detest football and really most any sport.
As for Vampyr, I was literally so distracted by everything going on at my house at the time, that I cannot really comment on it. The only thing I really remember was the POV shots at the end. They were very well done. Definitely need to watch it again this week. Yeah, my version was really good, like we discussed, Criterion releases usually are. They don't have a blu-ray release yet of this film strangely.
It has been a while since I have seen the original Nosferatu, so I cannot go into great detail on that, but I remember being highly impressed by it. It had a beautiful atmosphere and Count Orlok was quite creepy even by today's standards. Both the acting by Max Schrek and the direction by Murneau were high-quality. Definitely a must-watch and it is on Netflix Instant.
If I had to choose three vampire films to watch this week they would be, Dracula (1931), Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), and Near Dark (1987). The first two chosen because of my love of them, the last chosen because it is a different take on vampires that is still high-quality. It's hard to go wrong with Henrikson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
The shots in Vampyr are quite good. I see why it's notable. But I think it's not easy to watch - ya have to be wide awake, can be hard to get into and follow. A bad copy can jump around a bit too.
I was looking forward to Interview. Only saw it once, and maybe only part of it (wasn't my video).
With Bram Stoker... I really like all the Neo in the Drac' castle scenes. Coppola does a masterful job with those -- such amazing lighting, colors, shots and effects. I got really excited about the film there.
It's like two different films.
Everything else in the film really misses for me. I really don't like anything in England, nor do I like the entire ending. Drac is so different in England, & the two characterizations just don't link up at all for me. I even rather disliked all the interactions between Rider, her redheaded friend and Drac. I know he's the undead, but there was no life there for me. Besides the castle scenes, the story & heart just really seems to get lost.
The Brood
Interview with a Vampire
Martin
Salem's Lot
If you haven't seen this, I highly recommend:
Daybreakers - modern day, Ethan Hawke, good quality, bit sci-fi
|
Yeah, Interview with the Vampire is certainly a quality film, though there are certainly better films. I do love the living through time idea that features prominently in the film. In addition, I like how the film meaningfully explores the idea of the vampire perspective.
I love all the castle scenes as well, they are not only stunning, they are also appropriately creepy and atmospheric. I completely disagree with the rest of what you said though, I feel the film worked quite well. I have always loved the London scenes and the contrast of old Dracula versus young Dracula. Oldman plays that very well. The film is also pretty faithful to the original novel, while also taking it in its own direction. I really liked that.
I still have not seen Martin or Salem's Lot. I really need to. I actually own Salem's Lot.
Never heard of Daybreakers. Will have to watch that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straker
@ Sculpt: Unless you're talking about a different 'The Brood' then its not a vampire flick, did you mean 'Rabid'?
Anyway as for Vampyr I really like it. I think you need a good quality copy to appreciate it though, as its really all visual. The narrative is very disjointed and awkward to follow at times, but I think that just helps create that dream like flow. It all works together really well. But, its such a visual story that you really need a good copy to take it all in. I watched it on youtube last night and while it wasn't that bad, I would've much preferred to be watching Mett's version myself. |
Yes, it was certainly a good version. Like I said earlier, I really need to watch it again with no distractions. I still need to see Rabid, by the way. I should probably order it soon. I do love Cronenberg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
That's right, I mean Rabid, not The Brood. They're both 'symbolic social commentary', but Rabid is one I meant for vampire.
|
Yeah, I was a little confused when I saw the Brood. I was like, I would not really call that a vampire movie. That makes more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoGrl
Yeah, I recall Neo DEFINITELY being the weakest part of Dracula (then again, I think I was too busy drooling over Gary Oldman - true story)... It'll be interesting to see it again. I remember it definitely having different tones from humorous to overdramatic - Either way, should be fun!
I have Interview on my queue, so hopefully I can check it out either Wednesday or next weekend (I also want to get Magic to participate with Villain).
I haven't seen Martin but I've been meaning to for a LONG time... And as for Salem's Lot I really loved the book - I'd actually like to read it again before seeing the movie.
Daybreakers was good, but uneven - I more liked the world they lived in than the actual story (and what the heck was Willem Dafoe doing there and what was he wearing???)
Those are solid choices! I'll toast you a bucket of popcorn!!
|
I know many people say that Keanu Reeves was especially bad in this, but I did not really think he was all that bad. Yeah, he was a little overdramtic, but it was not too bad. A number of people also mentioned that they did not like his English accent. Maybe I don't know what an English accent is supposed to sound like, but it sounded English to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straker
Reeves acting is shockingly bad in Dracula. The most hammy, over the top acting performance of his career. It's a thing of beauty. The whole movie is just filled with excess. Acting, colours, camera work, set design, costumes. Every single detail is a step too far and really shouldn't work, but when you put it together its absolute class. It can go from being genuinely creepy to laugh out loud funny without missing a beat. The love story blends beauty and tragedy with something that you could barely get away with in a cheap midmorning melodrama. The whole movie is a contradiction and that's part of what makes it so special.... Looking forward to watching it.  |
I really did not think his acting was all that bad. Sure, it was far from his best performance, but it did not really bother me. It certainly did not seem that out of place. The only place that it really came out to me was when he first sees Dracula in London. I can definitely see that, in fact, Mel Brooks spoofs that in his film Dracula: Dead and Loving It. I suppose that is part of the film's charm. That is very true, I especially enjoy the scenes with Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. That one scene with the vampire women near the end of the film really creeps me out. I hate the sounds that they make. I totally agree though, it does sometimes seem that the film should not really work when it actually works quite well. It did have to grow on me though. It took a few viewings before I could really appreciate it.