"Sharon Hinnendael stars as Charlotte, a timid and sheltered teen who has just left an all-girls Catholic school for a new life at a co-ed university. But an ancient evil has followed her here, tormenting her with disturbing nightmares and tempting her with forbidden desires."
Not so much a remake of "Embrace of the Vampire" (1995) as it is a remix of scenes from "The Initiation of Sarah" (1978), "Carrie" (1976), and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (1992) with more boobs, at least this version has a better plot and some decent horror moments. It's still mainly an excuse to be sexy as Hell though, and it plays out as a typical exploitation movie, so trust me, you won't be disappointed!
Sharon Hinnendael does a fantastic job in the lead role and is certainly not ashamed to be kissed and fondled by nearly everyone she meets, no matter what their gender, age, or state of monsterdom might be. In this way, "Embrace of the Vampire" stays true to the original in terms of its softcore porn elements. The usual clique of hypocritical prudes will probably hate the female nudity because nothing is toned-down, and the infamous lesbian sex scene is even more explicit and engorging, but the target audience will be grabbing their box of tissues in delight!
For those who care about the story, many details have been added and fleshed-out (no pun intended) including Charlotte's convent school upbringing, the courses she's taking at University, her part-time job in a coffee shop, and a genetic blood disorder which causes her to have hallucinations. Although this Charlotte is more modern and less of an easy lay than Alyssa Milano's version, Sharon Hinnendael repeats some of her predecessor's annoying mannerisms such as avoiding eye-contact and looking at something more interesting on the ground either through shyness or a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome. Obviously, that's just the character and a homage because there's no way that Sharon Hinnendael is shy about anything!
Further plot changes include a creepy fortune-teller type who seems to have escaped from a Val Lewton movie, a ton of bitchiness from the snobby/jealous members of the fencing club, a sorority-style hazing, and a camping trip in the woods which ends badly for Charlotte's friends. Fortunately, these clichés aren't as annoying as you might think, and there are no bizarre orgies in nightclubs or gender-changing shenanigans to spoil things either.
I am not Buffy! I just look like her and do Buffy things.
The vampiric moments are beautifully violent and gory, and to give credit where it's most certainly due, Victor Webster (channelling a mixture of Chris Sarandon and Billy Zane) is a much better vampire than Martin "Spandau Ballet" Kemp. His cover as a University professor isn't a million miles away from the new Gerri Dandridge in "Fright Night 2: New Blood" however, but as the latter's desire for a virgin victim also borrows from the original "Embrace of the Vampire", it's only fair. Nothing is ever original in the vampire genre anyway, but it does make you wonder what awful experiences the filmmakers must have had with their teachers to perpetuate this trend of undead academics.
As with most Canadian movies, there's some obvious typecasting to compete with American productions. Kaniehtiio Horn (yes, that really is her name) looks and sounds a lot like Tiffany Shepis (complete with horrible L.A. affectations), and I've always thought that Ryan Kennedy (the new Chris) looks amazingly like a younger version of fellow Canadian Joshua Jackson (from "Fringe"). Somebody really needs to put Ryan Kennedy in a movie as Joshua Jackson's younger brother or earlier self one day! Other lookalikes such as Robert Moloney who plays the University's bursar as a Bob Newhart type, and Olivia Cheng who reminds me of one of the "Star Trek" girls whose name I can't remember, are surrounded by further stereotypical characters for padding.
Maybe it was because I was tired and easily pleased when I watched it, but I actually enjoyed "Embrace of the Vampire" considerably more than I thought I would. It's nicely filmed and paced, but it loses points for the rushed ending which goes in a different direction than the more interesting and happier one that I expected. Thus, I'm going to rate it as "average" for a horror movie, but the sexiness makes it worth purchasing for purely sinister reasons.
"An 18-year-old college freshman is seduced by a handsome vampire lover who introduces her to a dark world of carnal desires."
Since "Embrace of the Vampire" is just an excuse to see Alyssa Milano get her boobs out several times and laugh at Martin Kemp licking a door (the only thing more wooden than his performance), I'm not going to go into any depth about this awful movie. "Embrace of the Vampire" is little more than softcore porn with "Mills & Boon" dialogue, and everybody already knows that it stinks.
The only reason I've brought it up on my blog is because there's now a remake which I'll be reviewing later, and I needed to reaquaint myself with the story (such as it is) to be able to compare and contrast the two. I know some people erroneously think that I'm dead set against remakes, but in the case of "Embrace of the Vampire" anything would be an improvement. A ten-minute YouTube video of a toilet roll being unspooled by a puppy would be more horrific!
If you're not familiar with "Embrace of the Vampire, firstly, good on you for skipping it. Secondly, you'd be wise to keep things that way. There's hardly any story here apart from the blatant homages to "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) and, in particular, the saucier bits. Bisexuality is the name of the game with lots of girl-on-girl, boy-on-girl/girl-on-boy, and even a bit of "The Rocky Horror Show" gender-impersonation action. At one point, there's a full blown orgy going on in a nightclub! So don't even try to argue that is supposed to be a horror movie!
Martin Kemp is terrible as a lonely vampire who needs his re-incarnated lost love to survive and is, quite frankly, embarrassing. He pops up occasionally with his shirt off, but mercifully, he has less than five minutes of screen time overall. Similarly, sexy Jennifer Tilly has a small role with some of the most cringeworthy lines she has ever been asked to deliver. I'm not going to say anything worse about Jennifer Tilly though, because she's still uber hot in spite of her character's not very well hidden identity.
The late Harold Pruett and Alyssa Milano.
As far as Alyssa Milano's performance goes, well, it's all about gazing into space, looking at the floor shyly, and not needing much prompting to get naked or succumb to any other character's sexual advances. Some of her scenes are admittedly erotic, but the pacing is all wrong for "Embrace of the Vampire" to be a truly erotic movie. There's no sexual tension, no chemistry, and the novelty factor of seeing Alyssa Milano topless gets boring pretty quickly unless you're a megafan of "Charmed".
Because this is a very '90s production, the late Harold Pruet plays Alyssa Milano's boyfriend, and there are small roles for Jordan Ladd and Rachel True who have both gone on to better things. None of them stand out in either a good or bad way, but it's mildly interesting to see such a gathering of "teen" stars in one place. The fact that none of them were actually teens at the time is just the way things are in the movies, and it's not worth making a fuss over.
I don't have anything good to say about "Embrace of the Vampire", and I've noted all the important bits, so now I can move on to the remake. Apparently, it's produced by the same people behind "I Spit on Your Grave" (2010), and there's supposed to be a more coherent story to go with all the boobs and blood. We shall see.
Don't you just hate it when they put the wrong names above the heads?
Whether the scene was inspired by Cathy's ghost from Emily Brontë's "Wuthering Heights" (1847) or the little girl in "Kill, Baby, Kill" (1966), Ralphie Glick (Ronnie Scribner) returning to his brother in "Salem's Lot" (1979) is still one of the most terrifying vampire attacks ever filmed.
To this day, I can't watch the scene without covering my eyes with my hands and peeking through my fingers at it. I'm not sure how exactly that is meant to protect me, but it's just something I do. I've also never been able to sleep in any bed that faces a window especially if the curtains are open.
Some might say that "Salem's Lot" traumatised me as a child, but I prefer to think of the experience as a valuable lesson about letting vampires in. Thanks to Stephen King and Tobe Hooper, I have yet to be bitten by a floating vampire child so the cautionary tale worked.
According to the Wikipedia article (which cites Cinefantastique magazine vol. 9 #2 as the source):
The vampire levitations were accomplished by placing the actors on a boom crane instead of traditional wires, "We didn't fly our vampires in on wires, because even in the best of films you can see them," producer Richard Korbitz explained. "We wanted to get a feeling of floating. And the effect is horrific, because you know there are no wires. It has a very spooky, eerie quality to it." The levitation sequences were also shot-in-reverse to make the scenes more eerie.
As much as I would like to embed the scene from YouTube, I really can't bear to look at it or the later one with Danny Glick (Brad Savage). I know it's on YouTube somewhere so you will just have to find it for yourself.
Instead, here's a video of Kate Bush singing "Wuthering Heights" in 1978. She's still ghostly but kind of hot too. Actually, I probably would let her in my window, but that's another story.
"Heathcliff, it's me, Cathy, I've come home. I'm so cold, let me in your window."
Okay, Kate, just let me change my underwear, and I'll be right with you. Please be gentle with me.
"An imprisoned vampire, Barnabas Collins, is set free and returns to his ancestral home, where his dysfunctional descendants are in need of his protection."
There are some films which you have to be bored out of your mind to watch, and, unfortunately, I was that bored enough today to see if I could find anything enjoyable in Tim Burton's version of "Dark Shadows".
I'm glad that I have no sense of humour because "Dark Shadows" failed completely as a comedy. It also failed to be anything other than an all-star cast playing dress-up. If the intention was simply to destroy any nostalgic admiration anyone could have for the original Dan Curtis series with a load of silliness and superficiality, it certainly succeeded there.
I've only ever seen a few episodes of the TV series and one of the films (I forget which one), but they were a lot more entertaining than this hack job. Although Johnny Depp was slightly comical, Eva Green was sexy as Hell, and I now know what happened to Jonny Lee Miller, it was just a lot of high production values layered over a weak script.
Having watched a lot of these over-produced and under-written movies this week, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the thing now. Nobody seems to care about providing any kind of engrossing or cohesive story as long as they can stick a few big name actors in costumes up on screen and grab some quick cash from the kids who don't know any better.
Even if I was the right age to be part of the targeted PG-13 audience, I'm sure I would still have been disappointed with "Dark Shadows". It started off too fast, then wasted a lot of time on unnecessary details and characters who didn't really do anything, while, at the same time, it badly mixed fish-out-of-water, "Austin Powers"-style humour with a feeble attempt at a Gothic love story.
After sitting through nearly two hours of this dreck, I really don't want to waste any more time talking about it. "Dark Shadows" looked extremely good, the 1970's music was better, the couple of surprise cameos were okay, but it was a whole load of nothing really.
"A vengeful witch and her fiendish servant return from the grave and begin a bloody campaign to possess the body of the witch's beautiful look-alike descendant."
I remember when BBC2 first showed "Black Sunday" (or "The Mask of Satan" as it was known in Britain) back in the early '90s. I also remember how it was kind of a big deal for this film to actually be shown uncut on television since it had once been banned.
After the hyped-up introduction suggesting that this was the most terrifying movie ever made, I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who was a little bit disappointed by what really amounted to little more than a black and white Italian version of a Hammer horror.
I would like to say that my opinion of "Black Sunday" has changed over the years and through repeated viewings but, alas, it hasn't. As much as I can appreciate how controversial it must have been in 1960, it just doesn't have enough scares to satisfy me.
Also, as much as I've always wanted to find something attractive about Barbara Steele, I can't. Finding one still image where she looks pretty rather than harsh or intimidating seems to be impossible. The best I could come up with is the one below and, if you look at it long enough, she still looks as if she's crazy.
Of course, it was Barbara Steele's iconic looks which gave her such a successful career in Italian horror movies. She even proved that she could act in most of them although, outside of today's $1 bargain DVDs, none of the movies she starred in were ever as famous (or infamous) as "Black Sunday".
So what made "Black Sunday" so special? I'd guess that it was the level of violence in the opening scene which went way beyond what anyone was used to. Although people knew about all the horrific tortures and brutal deaths of witches in the history books, nobody until Mario Bava actually dared to show one in a theatrical experience that you could almost feel.
Possibly, it was a combination of the gruesome make-up effects and eroticism which also had the more timid audiences of the time complaining right, left and centre until some kind of action had to be taken. Seeing Christopher Lee bloodlessly biting pretty girls on the neck was one thing even in "technicolor" but letting re-animated female corpses do the same thing in monochrome was far too much.
Unfortunately, with the British laws about witchcraft having only been repealed in 1951, the overly moral "powers that were" must have found the rest of the film so Satanic and blasphemous that they banned it from cinemas until 1968. By this time, the make-up effects had become a little bit dated, and Hammer had beaten the vampire genre to death.
"Black Sunday" is a weird movie to place in a horror subgenre though because it's not a straightforward vampire story. To me, it's very much about the revenge of a witch, a family curse, and a lot of contrived coincidences designed to straddle as many other subgenres as possible. It has everything from gothic romance to zombies, and, to give it even more credit, it looks fantastic.
But, as I said at the beginning, where "Black Sunday" fails for a modern audience is that it just isn't scary anymore. In fact, it's so borderline "hammy" (because I loathe the word "cheesy") that it could almost be something that Elvira or the MST3K guys would have a great time tearing apart. I don't actually know if they did ever do a show about "Black Sunday", of course, because I've never had any interest in watching any of them.
For anyone watching the restored, uncut, super-duper, remastered DVD edition of "Black Sunday" alone in the dark with the wind and rain lashing at the windows, it might still have some life left in it. It doesn't work for me so I'm rating it as average.
"Originally released in 1922 as Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens, director F.W. Murnau's chilling and eerie adaption of Stoker's Dracula is a silent masterpiece of terror which to this day is the most striking and frightening portrayal of the legend."
To be honest with you right from the beginning, I don't think much of "Nosferatu" (otherwise known as the the world's first movie copyright infringement). I only uploaded this film to YouTube because I realised that I still hadn't used my account for anything constructive in the six years since I joined the site.
Having recently discovered that I could actually upload movies longer than fifteen minutes, I decided to start filling my YouTube channel with public domain horrors. I know other people have done this, but since I also discovered that it takes over an hour to upload anything, I don't think I'm going to be a very great rival to the big name "PD" channels.
But anyway, "Nosferatu" sucks. Not only does Graf Orlok (or Count Dracula) suck blood as a vampire (albeit rather invisibly) but the whole film is wretchedly boring. I may have over a dozen copies of it scattered throughout my Mill Creek and other budget horror DVDs, but that's not because I like the film in any way.
For a start, it's all in black and white which is a bit shitty really. Then, to add insult to injury, it's silent (apart from the crappy music added to it after the fact) with a load of title cards which you have to read. Yes, read! Who the Hell watches a film to read it? You'll expect me to start reading subtitles on modern foreign movies next!!!
Of course, I'm being sarcastic as I'm quite aware of how much of a philistine any of that would make me look if I truly felt that way, but I really dislike "Nosferatu" to the point of absolute hatred.
What I hate most about the film is that it's all style over substance. It's just a few "scary" images created by the very odd looking Max Schreck with the ripped-off "Dracula" story underneath it all. Bram Stoker's novel is infinitely better than this crap, and the name changes don't help the movie's cause either.
I loathe the acting especially as I have no idea if the actors were actually saying anything resembling what appears as a caption on screen, and I find the whole cast to be very unattractive. I just can't think myself back ninety years ago into a time before I existed to appreciate any of it. Not only is "Nosferatu" old but everything about it is entirely alien to me, distancing, and it just doesn't grab my attention.
Now I know there are some people who will defend "Nosferatu" to the hilt with all the tired arguments about how groundbreaking it was and how I need to learn all about the styles of the German silent movie industry before being so judgemental, but seriously, have you ever tried watching this film recently?
That's another reason why I posted it back up to YouTube. I want people to actually sit there and watch this crap for as long as they can stand it. I can barely make it ten minutes in without wanting to switch it off, and that's not just because I've seen it so many times before.
"Nosferatu" simply isn't a very good film. Yes, we're lucky to have it since all the copies were supposed to be destroyed for copyright infringement, but it's still badly shot and directed. It's almost as bad as the later Bela Lugosi "Dracula" (based on the official Bram Stoker stage play), and that's saying something.
Basically, "Dracula" works well as a book but has never translated well to screen. Just because "Nosferatu" was the first movie adaptation of the story does not make it the best.
"After Jonathan Harker attacks Dracula at his castle (apparently somewhere in Germany), the vampire travels to a nearby city, where he preys on the family of Harker's fiancée. The only one who may be able to protect them is Dr. van Helsing, Harker's friend and fellow-student of vampires, who is determined to destroy Dracula, whatever the cost."
The final entry in my "Hallowe'en Countdown" is Hammer's version of "Dracula" from 1958. It may not be all that horrific for a modern audience but you can't have Hallowe'en without Dracula and this is the version that I grew up with.
I was, am, and always will be a fan of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing no matter how bad the later films were that either of them got themselves into. Neither ever gave a bad performance and they took their roles completely seriously in spite of how ludicrous the subject matter was.
Hammer's "Dracula" is still the quintessential vampire film for all lovers of the genre. It may not be strictly accurate to the book (but then again, what Hammer film is?), but it's certainly the most enjoyable and watchable version ever made.
A great atmosphere, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing fighting it out, beautiful actresses, rubber bats on wires, and all done on a budget which wouldn't even pay for Keanu Reeves' voice coach in a more modern production.
This is what horror movies were all about when I was young and you couldn't even call yourself a horror fan back then without having watched all the Hammer and Amicus films first.
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about "Dracula" except that, even though it was shown on the BBC nearly every year, it took far too long to become available to a British audience on VHS.
Now it's available just about everywhere on DVD, go on and spoil yourself.
"As a string of mysterious killings grips Seattle, Bella, whose high school graduation is fast approaching, is forced to choose between her love for vampire Edward and her friendship with werewolf Jacob."
Well, I'm pleased to say that "Eclipse" was actually better than "New Moon". Despite most people telling me that none of the Twilight films belong in the horror genre even though they have vampires and werewolves in them, I can now say for sure that they do.
Yes, this is a horror movie, rather than a horrible movie, with a teenage love triangle at the heart of it all and I'll tell you why. It has a full on "werewolves versus vampires" war in it! War is horror, death is horror, and giant CGI werewolves ripping pretty teenage vampires to pieces is horror!
So it probably won't go into anybody over the age of thirteen's top ten movies but this was a pretty decent offering for the intended audience. Even those of us who it wasn't really intended for can tune out of the awful soap opera dialogue and revel in the beauty of Rosalie (Nikki Reed) and Alice (Ashley Greene). I think we are all over Bella now even though Kristen Stewart was great as Joan Jett in "The Runaways" recently too.
I really don't care what women think of the boys in the film since I'm not wired that way. I am, however, glad that, even though the werewolves still seem incapable of owning a shirt when they are together, nobody has to see Jacob's chest or abs until well over an hour into the film. If that's all you want to see then I suggest arriving late.
None of them apart from Bella's father can actually act, of course, and there's still very little chemistry between any of them especially in the love triangle itself. Edward (Robert Pattinson) still looks miserable most of the time and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) just seems to be angry. I would probably be angry too if I'd chosen such a totally awful girl as Bella to be in love with rather than one of the pretty vampiresses. She's still hardly the kind of girl that most people would go for and so I suppose it's only fair that two supernatural monsters are the only ones competing for her attention.
Once again Bella is all confused about who she loves most and it's all talk and/or glib comments for nearly an hour. There are a couple of flashback stories for some of the seemingly unimportant characters at this point (just to vainly try to put Bella off wanting to be a vampire herself for five minutes) plus a couple of moments where Edward and Jacob stand really close to each other angrily. The camera stands even closer to everybody though as I don't think I've ever seen so many headshots and close-ups since the last Clearasil advert I saw on TV.
But then things start getting good. No, I don't mean Jacob getting punched in the face when he tries to kiss Bella. Yes, that does happen and I did enjoy it. The Volturi bit part players have turned up and the gang of newborns is homing in on Bella so you just know that big trouble is about to kick off left, right and centre... or as many camera angles, slow-mos and quick cuts as the director, David Slade, can work in.
Of course, before any of this happens, we just have to have one of the most embarrassing and non-erotic teenage fumbles on a bed ever filmed. Nothing really happens of course because Edward wants to wait until they are married even though Bella wants to be diddled before she becomes a vampire. How sweet yet very lame. Better to keep on begging Bella to marry him while the werewolf keeps pushing himself on her too than to give her the good seeing to that she needs. The kiss between the evil vampiress Victoria and whoever the other guy was (Riley?) a few minutes later was twenty times hotter and lasted all of a few seconds.
I probably should also mention the 20 minute three-in-a-tent scene where Edward had to call a still shirtless Jacob in because he didn't have any body heat to keep Bella warm. Yeah, that was his excuse. It all turned into a bit too much of a male bonding session for my liking. Oh, if only this had been an adult film! It did remind me of that really bad "Blair Witch Project" porn parody even down to Bella's woolly hat but I digressed. Yes, once again Edward's idea of keeping Bella safe is to take her where it's most dangerous, on top of a freezing cold snowy mountain. No wonder she decides to give Jacob a proper snog before he goes off trying to kill himself in battle because she agreed to marry the vampire after all.
But, yes, it's all out war from then on. Cullens, werewolves, bad vamps and Uncle Tom Cobbly all run at each other swiping heads off, biting, clawing, pulling off arms and breaking necks. For a PG-rated film this was pretty good!!!
Aw, but I'm giving away the plot. It's not as if you are going to see this anyway since you are reading this review on a horror film blog. Suffice it to say that the final battle between Edward and Victoria is good but nothing to lose your head over. It is amusing how the vampires seem to be made of bone china though and the only blood involved is Bella's.
Jacob manages to get himself injured in another epic CGI werewolf battle and, since there's nothing like kicking a big smelly dog when he's had his back broken and is down, Bella tells him that she has finally chosen Edward over him. There I just saved you $10 which you can donate to my cat food fund on the right if you really want to.
Everything ends with a scene that mirrors the start but now there's a promise of a wedding and some hanky panky to look forward to next time.
So there you have it. Did five minutes of brutal horror action justify nearly two hours of boring teenagers angsting over who they fancied? Well, if you use the same ratio of soap opera to violence that "Wolf Creek" used to qualify as a horror film then yes.
I'm standing by my original statement. "Eclipse" is a horror movie. Not a very horrific horror movie I grant you but it does belong in the genre.
Yes, that is the correct spelling of the title even though the band featured in the movie is named "Killer Barbies" just like the famous dolls. Being English, I have the UK version of this movie which I bought from Poundland (a lot like Dollar Tree) a couple of years ago for the princely sum of, yes, you've guessed it - £1. It's just known as "Killer Barbys" everywhere else for obvious reasons.
Now, knowing my taste in movies as you may or may not yet do, you'd expect me to absolutely hate this lesser valued Jess Franco effort with a passion usually only spent vilifying Hollywood remakes. But you'd be wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Perhaps the main reason I liked it was because of all the boobs and blood. Yeah, baby, I like those. I also liked it because it reminded me of yet another "bad movie" from 1985 called "Der Formel Eins Film" ("Feel the Motion"). How can that be when "Killer Barbys" is a vampire horror movie and "Feel the Motion" is just a load of Europop bands performing amidst a weak storyline? Well, the truth is, "Killer Barbys" is just a vehicle for promoting the Spanish rock band of the title amidst a weak and cheesy storyline too.
Now, using an unknown (to the rest of the world) mid-90s rock band who all travel in the same van and have sex with each other as the focus of a movie may seem like wishful thinking on the part of "Scooby Doo" lovers everywhere. Well, it certainly was for me. But more than that, even in spite of poor dubbing and dialogue, I really liked the characters. We're not talking about something of quality like "The Monkees", "The Beatles" or even "Cliff Richard" with this little adventure though as none of them could act their way out of a wet paper bag. I could however see a great parody of "Summer Holiday" here as, in many ways, it was just as if Cliff and the gang somehow took a very wrong turn and ended up in Transylvania
The Killer Barbies unfortunately do not actually end up in Transylvania either. They are very much in Spain all the way through but it's always nice to see a bit of Europe that you haven't seen before. The camerawork is generally pretty good and things don't look too low budget even though they obviously were. It's really only some of the poorer practical effects that let it down but there's nothing too noticeable apart from a couple of really fake bodies and heads.
Which brings me back to the nudity. Heads? Nudity? You will see my reasoning when you learn that the vampire Countess who the band encounters when their van breaks down exists on a diet of blood and semen. Oh yes, and there's an oral sex scene too just before to make sure I complete the segue.
Mariangela Giordano plays the Countess with a great deal of sexual allure considering that she is the least attractive of the three female leads and is actually 59 years old! Seeing her naked isn't actually the horror you might expect from a woman her age which has me feeling a bit ill for some reason. Silvia Superstar who plays the lead singer Flavia also spends a bit of time nude and is one of the better looking women I've seen in any Spanish movie so I'm sure she'd be rated as the most attractive by a lot of viewers. The one who did it for me though was Angie Barea. She plays the overly horny blonde backup singer and is hot as hell! Trivia fans will love that she used to host a sex programme on Spanish TV too. Obviously she was typecast.
There's very little for straight females to enjoy here unless they like seeing a hairy willy in a bath. Now there was horror for me as I certainly didn't expect to see one of those half way through the film! I wouldn't say all the males in the film are ugly or anything, but they are quite plain in comparison to the women. There are even a couple of dwarves in it, but they don't do much at all really which is a shame.
The big question is should this even count as a horror movie. Hell, yeah! I even got into the story though it's certainly nothing original. Is it scary? Hell no! It's not scary at all unless women of nearly pension age rubbing blood all over themselves is a phobia of yours. Actually it might be one of mine now even though it turned me on!
If you are feeling a bit down and there's nothing else to watch then I can thoroughly recommend "Vampire Killer Barbys". It's worth the conversion rate of $1.50 of anybody's money but if you can't find it to buy then I suggest a rental. As "bad movies" go, it isn't actually that bad at all.
When I first saw the name of this movie, I feared the worst. "Trasharella" initially sounded like the kind of low-budget dreck that a studio like Troma would release as a bad, sexed-up parody version of "Cinderella" but with even less chance at cult status than any of the other "-ellas" already out there ("Barbarella", "Cadaverella", "Vampirella", "Stripperella"... the list goes on). But, when I saw that Rena Riffel was not just the star of this but also the first time director and producer, I was intrigued enough to give it a chance. I'm glad I did too.
In case you've never heard of Rena Riffel, she was Lena in "Candyman: Day of the Dead" (1999) but is best known for playing Penny/Hope in Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" (1995). She's also hot, uber hot, and there's a damn good reason why she has often been referred to as having the best body in Hollywood. Rena has done a lot of topless roles over the years and I always find that a good thing when it comes to actresses.
Really if you are going to watch a bad movie then it's pretty much a necessity to have a lot of eyecandy to keep your interest and with Rena Riffel in a movie you can be sure that all your hopes there will be taken care of even if she keeps her clothes on. She's also one of the sweetest people you could ever hope to meet and that part of her personality shows through in every character she plays. To watch her is to love her in ways that you'd probably only experience from watching old Audrey Hepburn movies. Rena is perhaps more of a Marilyn Monroe than an Audrey but I'm sure you'll agree with my point once you go back and familiarise yourselves again with her previous roles.
So when I put the "Trasharella" screener into my DVD player, I have to admit that an element of bias crept into the equation. For that reason, I didn't even read the synopsis and certainly no other reviews. I knew that I was going to like watching the beautiful Rena but I had to clear the playing field of anything else that would influence my viewing pleasure. With a pie in one hand and the remote control in the other, I was free of all distractions and ready to devour not only the pie but every frame before me.
The movie begins in black and white with occasional added digital effects including some faux film scratches and a grainy look to make everything look more "grindhouse". Cinematography is generally very good thanks to Dave Edwards. It's not done perfectly, but you can see what was intended and it isn't too distracting. Some useful "Zombie Walk" extras show off their make-up briefly just to make sure that everyone knows that this is going to be a horror fairy tale.
It's during these scenes that we learn the origin of a vampire curse on Hollywood starlets which began 75 years ago during one of Helena's past lives in France. Everything turns into a silent movie for a while and it's a clever idea. My only real criticism of this section, taking into account the low-budget (and avoiding mentioning the sparseness of the sets), is that technically it needed to be a bit blurrier and darker to make it look more authentic. Everything was a bit too sharp which undermined the other effects used to make it look like old footage. Rena looks great though as an aspiring silent movie actress and hams it up nicely.
Then we're back to the present day and things switch to colour. Rena's red wig and green dress really stand out. Everything stays grainy though and saturation levels are changed from time to time to slightly posterise the look of what now turns into a live-action comicbook adventure. It's hardly going to be another "Blade" since Trasharella's enemy is none other than the comedic Count Smokula.
In spite of the presence of this stereotypically Jewish vampire Count, there's nothing too horrific in any of this apart from a lot of the obviously improvised dialogue. Some aspects of this work better than others and there are some good lines, but they are few and far between. What set this out of the ordinary though was when Rena suddenly burst into song. I really wasn't expecting that at all.
The songs in "Trasharella" wouldn't be out of place in a bigger budget Hollywood musical though they are equally camp enough for fans of Rocky Horror too. Rena Riffel has a beautiful voice which sent shudders down my spine during the very catchy "Perfectly Imperfect". There's another catchy yet not quite so memorable song by Count Smokula in the middle but the final number, which I think is called "Beauty is Pain", performed again by Rena Riffel, reminded me a lot of Blondie. Yes, the musical numbers really are that good! The full 2-DVD set also contains a couple more music videos it seems, but I was suitable impressed by the ones contained within the movie itself. "Trasharella" has a lot of hidden gems and not just the ones inside her magic lipstick (but more about that later).
While not being entirely a "girl power" movie, there's a definite female empowerment message at the heart of "Trasharella" and some not too thinly veiled satire/social commentary about Hollywood in general. Count Smokula comes across as representing male oppression through the ages while the starlets themselves are forced to become sleazier and trashier to succeed. It's not giving too much away to say that, when Helena transforms into Trasharella with the aid of a Betty Page wig, magic lipstick, and magic pumps to conquer the vampire's curse, it's not without severe consequences to her own psyche. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but the whole film could be considered a warning that if a girl wants to succeed in showbusiness then the necessity of becoming trashy will be detrimental to her mental health. It's a good job that Rena only does these wholesome G-rated movies then, isn't it? Yes, I probably read too much into it. It is supposed to be a comedy after all.
Tom Challice has the most memorable comic performance for me as Helena's psychiatrist, Dr. Simon Fieldsgoodman, when he turns himself into a Red Injun brave while taking notes of her problems. I know I should find Count Smokula more amusing than I do, but I also found him to be a bit too sinister to carry the comedy off. Maybe I'm just jealous that he got to have Rena as his slave even if it is only acting.
Other notable things about "Trasharella" include some fine naked boobage on display from Mary Carey (as Lucy Les Rue) and Rena herself. An amusing laundry room tease had me thinking that Rena was going to keep her goodies covered up for the whole film, but thankfully she didn't. There's some almost erotic lesbian sexual tension between Helena and Lucy but it doesn't really come to anything. A tiny girl to girl kiss much later (involving sharing the magic lipstick with Jade Paris as Becky Bardot) is also over far too quickly. There are no sex scenes as such though because, quite simply, they wouldn't add anything to the plot one way or another. It's all just a bit of a burlesque tease which again is a clever way of tying "Trasharella" back into "Showgirls" and "Striptease" for Rena Riffel worshippers everywhere.
I also have to mention the TV Batman-style fight scenes with onscreen "Kapows". I wish that they had gone on longer mainly because I could watch catfights like this all day especially if they involve Jade Paris. I know from Rena herself that a lot was unfortunately edited out because the movie was getting too long. The whole thing now runs for 102 minutes.
With all its flaws, "Trasharella" is firmly entrenched in the "so bad it's good" genre and only falls short slightly from having a guaranteed cult status. I can still see a cult following of convention girls wearing nothing but dresses made of black plastic bags, maple-heeled pumps and buying "magic lipstick" replicas complete with Austrian crystals inside the cap. Actually even if it never happens that little excursion into the realm of my imagination was a special moment.
If you are into Ed Wood then you'll love "Trasharella". Comparisons to the British "Razor Blade Smile" (from 1998) can also be drawn as Trasharella is an equally iconic character to Eileen Daly's Lilith Silver but without the vampiric elements. Perhaps if Trasharella had become a leather-clad vampire rather than a trashbag-wearing vampire slayer then she would have been even sexier. Maybe there's an idea for a sequel... "Pleatherella" perhaps?
"Trasharella" definitely needs a sequel as the ending really didn't go the way I expected it to. Count Smokula seems to be indestructable in spite of being "killed" twice in this movie (once with a Barbie doll "crucifix" of all things) and would certainly benefit from a repeat performance as Trasharella's nemesis. Anything that gets Rena Riffel to cover her chest in fake blood again has to be a good thing, right?
There are no big special effects other than some blood spatter but boobs and blood are usually the only elements needed to please me even if a movie lacks in most of the qualities that normal people (and I use that term very loosely) need to justify the amount of entertainment they derive from it all. The fact that one of the pairs of boobs here belongs to Rena Riffel is the most special effect of all. Did I mention how Rena looks so beautiful in every scene that it makes you want to lick the TV screen? Well, I have now.
Apart from her physical charms though, Rena shows that she has a considerable amount of talent. In truth, she's a Jill-of-all-trades and most of her creativity is yet to be tapped but "Trasharella" is very much a step in the right direction. It not only makes me wonder what Rena would do with a bigger budget, but also how much success she could achieve if she were to pull things up a couple of notches and continue to direct other less Rena-centric, projects.
It's no secret that, in spite of watching a lot of bad movies, I'm hardly the biggest fan of this genre, but to be fair, "Trasharella" is simply the most refreshing low-budget, independent movie that I've seen for a long time. I recommend it, and I'm quite pleased to have it in my collection. It's not much of a horror movie and is certainly not going to win any mainstream awards, but you won't be disappointed if you like bad movies which are intentionally made to be that way.
"Edward leaves Bella after an attack that nearly claimed her life, and in her depression she falls into yet another paranormal relationship - this time with werewolf Jacob Black."
What a disappointment. With a change of directors from Catherine Hardwick to Chris Weitz and with what must have been a larger budget after the success of "Twilight", "New Moon" was actually worse not better.
The writers remained the same with Melissa Rosenberg adapting Stephanie Meyer's novel for the big screen but this still wasn't what anybody expected. The pacing of "New Moon" was just far too slow. At over two hours long (actually 130 minutes), it just dragged on and on and was probably worse than reading the book if this was the best that could be made of it.
It seems that fans of the book were again divided with some really pleased that so much was included and others moaning about it being butchered but, honestly, who has the patience for all that? There was just far too much talk which led to absolutely nothing at all apart from more brooding and moping.
The acting was pretty bad this time too so there appeared to be no chemistry between any of the characters. That's a bit of a failure for a romance, I think.
With Edward absent for most of the story, this was Jacob's chance to take over but, having spoiled it all for myself by asking other people who have read the books what happens, I knew it would all be in vain.
All I cared about were the action scenes but there were too few of them. The fight scenes were good but over too quickly and the CGI wolves were actually quite well done too even though they were still obviously CGI.
Cinematically, "New Moon" was filmed well and although it looked a bit different to "Twilight", it was actually easier to watch. There were way to many close-ups which got annoying even if Kristen Stewart is flawless and expressionless enough to stand them. Her constant blinking and twitching was very distracting.
Towards the end, things picked up a little bit with the Volturi but it all seemed to be somewhat rushed. Michael Sheen stood out as Aro but I was so glad that the film was coming to an end by this point, especially after being so bored, that I didn't really even care.
I'm rating "New Moon" as 3 out of 10. If all you want to see is Taylor Lautner's chest then you won't be disappointed.
Oh well, at least I enjoyed my trip to Burger King.
Although hardcore fans of Stephanie Meyer were a bit nonplussed, to say the least, over this movie adaptation of her bestselling vampire novel, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can imagine that I'm going to take a lot of flak for my opinion, especially as "Twilight" is a movie meant primarily for teenage girls, but I'm willing to take that risk since the story and chemistry between the leading actors is so beautifully done that, if you are willing to overlook some minor flaws, you can't help but fall in love with this film too.
Yes, this film has flaws. Some of the camerawork early on is a bit amateur and some of the stunts are a bit cheesy but, even if this was to be judged by bad movie standards, it was still very entertaining.
I really didn't notice any major goofs though as the relationship between the incredibly strong leads of Kristen Stewart (as Bella) and Robert Pattinson (as Edward) really drew me into the fantasy in ways that only fans of something like "Buffy" or "Angel" could truly appreciate. Yes, this is all very much like a more serious and romantic version of the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the TV series but with a bit more of a "Romeo and Juliet" feel to it. "Star-crossed lovers" is, I believe, the correct expression for this situation.
Underlying the dominant love story though is also a subplot of good vampires against bad vampires and even the hint of werewolves on the horizon. With at least one sequel about to occur pretty soon, it's obvious that as much was being packed into this film as possible to create hooks. It all worked too. There wasn't too much given away but just enough to leave this as a stand alone movie while making the viewer wish there was more. A delicate balance has been achieved and this makes it such a commercial masterpiece that it has the potential to outsell "Harry Potter" now that the original audience of those books and films has grown up and moved on.
I'll mention again that what really drew me in was the acting. The vampire actors are all beautiful rather than just attractive while the humans are shown to be a lot more unkempt and immature even though everyone looks about the same age. Kristen Stewart is the middle ground between these two polarities as she is beautiful yet not quite fully formed as a woman. Her performance was exceptional albeit with some moments of unrealistic dialogue. The character of Bella was just such a paradox that she had to stand out as an attraction for Edward the vampire. She was a lot more controlled and mature than any of her peers yet still awkward enough to be one of them at times too so her reactions were realistic even if her words were not.
At 122 minutes, "Twilight" is a long film which, due to slow pacing, feels even longer. For once though this isn't a bad thing as if it had been trimmed then it could have ended up as just another MTV style teen flick. The added length adds some substance to things and allows the greater character development which will undoubtedly continue into the sequels.
Cinematically, it is a beautiful film to watch. Only one rough piece of camerawork on the beach distracted me for a moment. Everything else was framed perfectly and all the aerial shots, zooms and pans were done effectively. A baseball game used to show the speed and strength of the vampires was a moment of almost comic relief which didn't really work out too well, but at least it is possible to see what was intended. The director, Catherine Hardwicke (of "Lords of Dogtown" fame), still seems to be learning about what works and what doesn't but, since no movie is ever perfect, the pros outweigh the cons especially considering the length.
The biggest problem with this film for horror fans, of course, is not the technical achievements or production values, but like every other vampire film in recent years, it just isn't scary. I can't honestly remember a vampire film apart from certain scenes in "Salem's Lot" ever being scary though. When a lot of Edward Cullen's lines consist of the question, "Are you scared?", it does tend to provoke the audience, in this case me, to say "No" instead of waiting for Bella's equal response.
Really though, "Twilight" is more of a romantic drama with some action rather a real horror genre movie. The potential was never even there in the books, it seems, to make this into anything other than a kind of "Dark Shadows" for the 21st Century. You can't honestly go into this expecting another "30 Days of Night" because it's not going to happen.
There isn't a lot of blood in this considering it's a vampire movie, and any death scenes are pretty much off-camera. I imagine that this was done intentionally to keep it within the PG-13 rating more than anything else. For my tastes, it could have used some harder and more gritty bloodletting, but the target audience should be more than satisfied with what is there.
I've rated "Twilight" as 8 out of 10 based mainly on its value as an entertaining movie. As a horror movie, it is only worth half that score. I still recommend that you watch it though.
"The vampire Zachary Simms wakes up in his coffin after having overslept for 100 years. In the house lives young Kendall Gordon. Simms is amazed over how much has changed the last century. But Kendall's boyfriend doesn't like the guy who always follows Kendall around."
I just looked this up because I watched it when it was released back in 1993 and loved it. Of course this was mainly because I was (and will always be) an Adam Ant fan.
Anyway, the film is quite an oddity in the vampire genre. It isn't a classic by any stretch of the imagination but it's sort of a gentle, "fish out of water" romantic-comedy a bit like "Crocodile Dundee". Adam Ant plays the part of a "nice" vampire really well. There are some great lines and he is very charismatic in the role. Kimberly Foster is quite sweet too, and it's a shame that she pretty much disappeared from showbiz a couple of years after making this film. The onscreen chemistry between the leads is quite apparent.
If you ever see this for sale anywhere, I urge you all to buy it. I'm going to order it myself now because I'd forgotten all about Adam Ant's vampire film when I was originally making my website and only got to thinking about it when I was reading through some old copies of "The Demeter" earlier.
It suppose Jim Carrey's "Once Bitten" (from 1985) sort of eclipsed this in the video shops when it was re-promoted on the shelves next to "Ace Ventura" which is why hardly anybody got to see this. The titles were so similar that I expect a lot of people got confused and ended up with the wrong movie. I hate it when that happens, but at least my local video shop has pretty much stopped doing that kind of thing nowadays.
My rating for "Love Bites"? 10 out of 10 for cheesiness. You'll love it!
