Friday, October 5, 2012

Film Friday: Fright Night (1985) & (2011)

Remakes are all the rage these days because they come with a built-in audience. You take a film property with an existing fan base, you repeat the story with some twist to make the film feel fresh, you use new special effects or new story-telling techniques, and you’re guaranteed at least a minor hit. Add in a top-named actor like Colin Farrell and you should be looking at quite a moneymaker. That is unless you really screw it up. Welcome to Fright Night 2011!

** spoiler alert **

Release in 1985, the original Fright Night proved to be quite a hit. It starred William Ragsdale as Charley Brewster, a fan of horror films, who discovers that his neighbor (Chris Sarandon) is an actual vampire. Naturally, no one believes him, not his mother, his best friend or his girlfriend. He finally seeks out Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), a washed up actor who plays a vampire hunter in horror movies and has his own local show hosting classic horror movies. Vincent doesn’t believe him either and thinks he’s a crazed fan. But Vincent soon discovers the truth and then he and Charlie set out to hunt down Sarandon and to free Charley’s girlfriend.

All in all, this film wasn’t great by any stretch of the imagination, but it was original and it was entertaining. It also became a surprise hit, out-earning every other horror film of that year. What made the film work was the characters. Charley was likable as the determined teen who intends to protect his family even if they can’t see the danger. Vincent was enjoyable as the washed up cynic, who rises to the challenge of a fight with something he never truly believed existed. And Chris Sarandon was smarmy, condescending and so unlikable that you really couldn’t wait to see him get his comeuppance. This drew you in and made you pull for the heroes to get their act together to take out the bad guy that you had personally come to despise.
In 2011, Fright Night was remade. This time Colin Farrell took the place of Chris Sarandon, Doctor Who’s David Tennant took the place of Roddy McDowall, and some other people replaced the other actors. And that’s kind of where the problem begin with the remake. William Ragsdale is not a good actor. But he came across as a genuine teen who was both out of his league and yet determined to prevail. His replacement, Anton Yelchin, comes across as a very smooth actor who reads his lines with the right amount of emotion but with no believability that he is this person you see on screen. Amanda Bearse, who plays Charlie’s girlfriend in the original, is not attractive nor is she slavishly devoted to Charlie, and that makes her a very real girl for the type of woman who would date Charlie. Her replacement, Imogen Poots, is too attractive and too compliant with Charlie’s script needs.
David Tennant is a poor replacement for Roddy McDowall as well, though more in the writing than in acting ability. McDowall’s Vincent was washed up and tired. He didn’t believe in vampires and when he found out the truth, he was overcome with fear. Watching him get up the courage to fight was rather inspiring. Tennant’s Vincent, by comparison, knows the vampires are real and is basically just a coward and a waster. He’s comic relief as an unlikeable drunken womanizer who runs from danger in an almost melodramatic way. McDowall was someone you could look up to eventually, Tennant is a joke you want gone.
Then there are Sarandon and Farrell. Normally, I’m impressed with Farrell, but not here. Sarandon played the vampire as a true bad guy. You loathed his smugness and you genuinely worried that his power was too strong for the good guys to overcome. Indeed, even though you knew how the film would end, you never felt really sure. And as his victories built up, you worried that he might actually win. Farrell, on the other hand, plays an annoyance. There is nothing about him to suggest an all-powerful creature, he’s more like an animal. And he doesn’t get under your skin like the smug Sarandon, he annoys you more like a skateboarder who won’t leave your driveway. Moreover, there seems to be no real plan for Farrell. When you try to imagine him winning the film, it’s never clear what his victory would even look like. So he’s just never menacing.
So the film starts poorly in the area that matters most – the characters. And it goes downhill from there. Indeed, this film fails dramatically in something that any remake should be able to achieve: it doesn’t live up to the story of the original. The original story moved confidently from plot point to plot point, with each building on the prior plot points. The order of the action made sense, the characters’ actions made sense, and the story became progressively more tense. The remake doesn’t. The remake seems like a jumble of uninteresting moments until the lengthy fight scene at the end. There is little continuity and no tension. Not to mention, the entire film is so dark in the way it’s filmed and the effects so dull that it's hard to follow.

What makes this worse is that the film lacks any sort of intermediate level of danger. In other words, throughout the original, there were many bad things which could happen at any moment, but the remake only offers two results: dead or survives. Thus, since you know the movie isn’t over, you know that Charlie will survive each scene to make it unscathed to the next, and that means there is no tension. By comparison, you were never sure what could happen in any scene in the original because there were so many more alternatives.

Beyond this, there is nothing you could call a twist or a new slant on the original. There is no unexpected revelation, no attempt to make the story bigger or take it in new directions, and nothing to give you a fresh look at the story.

In effect, this remake failed on all levels. It offered less story than the original, its effects were worse, it had no interesting take on the original, and its characters lost all the quirkiness which made the originals so interesting to watch. That’s why this bombed and why the original out-earned it domestically by about a third on a much smaller budget. The moral here is simple. Even if you’re going to remake a film, you still have to make a good film.

77 comments:

Kristina D said...

The original Fright Night is one of my fave movies, the FX might look cheesy to some now, but I don't think so; watching in the dark it all still freaks me out and I think it's the ideal combo of taking the whole vampire history, the mythology, even the feel of classic horror movies and Hammer films, and then wrapping it into a perfect 80's package.
You are spot on re: all the casting and portrayals actually making the original movie so fascinating & where the remake flopped. Sarandon had that slimy suave intimidating thing going on, perfect for what a vampire would be anyway plus one that's assuming an 80's identity, he was just perfect in every way, McDowall was super, brought that classic horror cachet, Gotta mention Evil Ed was a crazy delight too-- will never forget the cross on his forehead! compare to Twilight et al, very adult too. Heck I even love the soundtrack (I'm the 80s geek who was depressed when the Hunter DVDs didn't have the same music that was heard on the show). great post, cheers!

tryanmax said...

...the entire film is so dark in the way it’s filmed...

I can't stand all the movies that are basically filmed in the dark these days. I guess we're all supposed to own a state-of-the-art display with "truer blacks." I'm not saying they should film movies as though they will be played on a 6" B&W, but at least make the DVD transfer viewable on the average screen. If I want to appreciate the subtlety of black on black, there's Blu-Ray for that.

Tennessee Jed said...

well, I have to start with the fact I never saw the original and most likely will not see the re-make. Reality for me is that Halloween and fright films just never seemed to catch my imagination. I guess I've seen the original Jason all the way through, although probably never all at one sitting. For some reason, I was much more a fan of films like Psycho and Wait Until Dark.

The other thing that jumped out at me from this review is that I have this uneasy feeling that my man Colin Farrell may have made some less than stellar choices recently. hey, every actor has some clunkers, and it's not like there has been an abundance of great roles hanging out there in this the dark night of the film industry. I haven't even checked out imdb to confirm whether that is a fair feeling or not. He can really be good, but I think he has had some less than stellar roles

AndrewPrice said...

Kristina, I agree completely! The original had both a very timely 1980s feel, but also a real throwback feel. McDowall perfectly captured the feeling of the old Hammer films -- from the costumes to the attitude. In many ways, his Vincent was Vincent Price returned to the screen, only forced to deal with it for real this time. That gave the film a real feeling of history and depth.

Sarandon was great too. He was so smarmy and cocky that you just hated him. But he was also so capable and powerful that he was a genuine threat. He wasn't just a paper tiger vampire like Farrell.

I agree about the effects, they were great at the time and they still hold up enough today to be believable.

The remake had none of those things. It felt like a generic teen film of today with no heart and no soul. It lost all the cool little bits that drove the original and tried to replace those with "hip," only it wasn't hip, it was just dull.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I don't like one-color films, though there seems to be a lot of that lately. And while this film wasn't quite one-color, it was for the most part. As soon as "the action" began, everything turned a dark grey/blue and you couldn't see anything. I don't know why they did this. I guess they thought it would make it easier to hide bad effects if you couldn't see them, but you basically ended up with everything happening in this dark/murky blur. Apparently, lighting is a lost art these day?

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I'm a huge fan of Farrell, but I got the feeling he did this one for the paycheck. There was nothing about this character which made it special and nothing about this role which you would have thought would have attracted him. Nor did he bring anything unique or interesting to the role. He was just some punk who threatened the kid and then tried to kill him for an hour using special effects. Sounds like a paycheck to me.

Individualist said...

Andrew

I have not seen the remake but have seen the original.

It sounds bad but I will say this in its defence based on your review.

It appears they did not try to make Farrell out to be a Goth Twilight Vampire the Masquerade rip off of Anne Rice with a bunch of moody don't hate me because I am a monster, it's a goth thing... oh the humanity soliquies for no reason.

The humanization of Vampires was cool when Rice did it in her novels but the copycatting is becoming a very bad cliche. That would have made the remake worse.....

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Actually, I think they make Farrell out a lot like a Twilight vampire only older. He's like some emo grown up in many ways, only he's also really violent. The biggest problem is that he doesn't seem to be a vampire so much as a guy who is psychopathic killer with some special traits. In other words, he doesn't come across as some special undead creature, he comes across as just something violent and kind of animal-like.

I agree about Rice. It was fascinating at first to see a new angle on vampires, but man did they overdo it. Vampires should not be emos!

Individualist said...

Fist it was Elmo....

now it is Emo the Vampire...

"Hey kids your blood tastes bad when you don't eat your vegetables..... Gag!

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, I almost think that Elmo the Vampire would be preferable at this point.

T-Rav said...

Hmmm. If I remember right, this got a good review over at BH last year. But I didn't see it. Haven't seen the original either, so there was no pull for me there.

Regarding the whole emo-vampire thing, you know what really blew that up? 30 Days of Night. If you haven't seen that, you should. The vampires in that movie are just soulless, emotionless monsters, and the humans are in fear for their lives. A nice throwback to the older model.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It did get a good review at BH and I am shocked. I see nothing good in this film. It's just pointless, dull and a waste of time.

I haven't seen 30 Days of Night, but I will check it out. :)

I think the problem with vampires today is that they've broken into two groups -- emos and animals. There doesn't seem to by an menacing undead vampires anymore.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, this is just speculation really, but you know what I think vampires need? A proper mythology. There need to be more movies with a well-laid out understanding of what they are and aren't, what does and doesn't kill them, what they can and can't do, etc. Maybe it's my obsessive need for consistency talking, because I often say the same about zombie movies. But I feel that would be a step in the right direction.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a definitive vampire movie. But I think the problem is that so many people have already tried that (everything from the Dracula movies to Interview With a Vampire) that I think people assume the mythology is pretty well laid out and expended. So what they are trying to do now is find new ways to used them in new ways -- like romance films or turning them into slasher films.

And I think that is causing a real loss in quality among vampire films.

Still, I would definitely like to see a "definitive" vampire movie and I'll bet it would make a fortune as the only competition now is the fluffy stuff.

DUQ said...

I like T-Rav's idea of a big definitive mythos defining film. I like that a lot. And you know who would make the coolest vampire? Liam Neeson!

DUQ said...

Also, I liked the original Fright Night a lot and I was looking forward to the remake, but it was just dull. I don't even remember most of it, just something about the house blowing up. In fact, I think I remember the soundtrack better than the film.

AndrewPrice said...

DUQ, I like the original a lot as well. I've seen it many times and it just holds up so well over time. I've seen the new one a couple times to give it a fair chance it just didn't work for me.

Liam Neeson as the definitive vampire would be fantastic! :)

tryanmax said...

DUQ, you are wrong. The coolest vampire would be Henry Kissinger.

Individualist said...

I think there is a definitive vampire mythology. It is just that no one wants to be tied down to it. Vampires are immobilized but not killed by stakes. They are destroyed by Sunlight. They are burned by Holy Water and are turned by the sight of a cross if held by one who has faith.

I think it is Ok to drop one of the items in a movie but once you do to many they become VINOs.
(Vampires in Name Only).

So the question you have to ask before you sit down in the theater is this.

Is the a Vampire Movie or a VINO movie.

Liam Neeson said...

I will bite you.
I will kill you.

DUQ said...

tryanmax, LOL! That is so true! He would be perfect!

Anonymous said...

For my personal reference I have always used The Lost Boys as the definitive vampire movie,as far as the rules go.
The vampires could'nt go out in sunlight.If exposed to sunlight they burst into flame. Garlic didn't have an adverse effect on them,so it was exposed as a myth.Holy water destroyed them. They died if they were impaled.The vampires didn't kill everyone they targeted. Some people they killed,some people they turned.While the lesser vampires could simply sleep in a dark,secluded place the head vampire required a guardian. In some movies it's a human familiar,in TLB it was a dog,but it protected the sleeping vampire just the same.Vampires don't throw a reflection in a mirror.They can fly.And inviting a vampire into your home renders you powerless.The Lost Boys made a modern(circa 1987) vampire movie but respected the traditional rules.
Oh,and I almst forgot. The vampires were remorseless killers.They didn't emote or brood or wonder what their role in the scheme of the universe was.They slaughtered.
GypsyTyger

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, You just like Kissinger because you've stolen his glasses! :)

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, LOL! I think most are VINO films these days.

AndrewPrice said...

Nice work on the Neeson quote. :) When you know the movie in question from a quote that small, then you've found a defining quote!

AndrewPrice said...

GypsyTyger, I agree. Lost Boys is a fantastic movie all around. It's well written. It's funny, scary and exciting. And you're right about the perfect use of the vampire mythos. It's an all around excellent film and it ranks up there as probably the best or near-best vampire movie!

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Nice contrasting reviews, Andrew!

I only disagree about one thing: I thought Charley's girlfriend in the original was attractive, but hey, that's pretty subjective so I ain't saying you're wrong.

The remake was so disappointing. It's like Farrel didn't even call this one in, but neither did the director or writer(s) so I can't really completely blame him for doing such a poor job.

And yeah, the let's make it so dark no one knows what the hell is happening craze irks me almost as much as the shaky cam.
Why not just go directly back to radio programs if they don't want us to see everything? Sheesh.

It's almost like they tried to make the remake bad in every way imaginable. Are the producers deaf, blind AND retarded or are they simply idiots? Nothin' personal towards them, just an honest Benservation.

Speaking of Lost Boys, the last sequel (Lost Boys: The Thirst NOT Lost Boys: The Tribe), starring Corey Feldman was surprisingly good and very funny! I highly recommend that one.

Also, re: the garlic in the original Lost Boys;
Only the head vampire was able to tolerate the garlic (still didn't like it). The other vampires were still burned by it. Just a minor quibble.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Speaking of VINO's, I'm also tired of the WINO's.
What's so damn hard about werewolves? I did like Skinwalkers and Dog Soldiers, but most are dreck.

T-Rav said...

Gypsy, I like those rules, though I'm not acquainted with the whole "familiar" thing. Heard of it, just don't know much about it.

I never got the whole "don't have a reflection" or "don't cast a shadow" thing. They're solid bodies, I don't see why that would be one of their qualities.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, You're talking about Al Bundy's neighbor! LOL! Seriously though, what I mean is that she's not a model like all current Hollywood actresses. She seemed quite normal and quite like someone Charlie would date.

I agree about the remaking being totally disappointing. They had such a solid base to work with and then adding in a top notch actor like Farrell and it was really disappointing the remake turned out to be so forgettable.

The darkness thing bothers me because that's been the trend for several years now. I don't know what they think they are achieving, but all it really does is take me out of the movie.

A Benservation! LOL! :)

I haven't seen the Lost Boys sequels. You're right about the garlic. I thought it was hilarious when they were eating!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, The no reflection/no shadow thing is meant to make them seem like they are only partially on Earth, and the rest is in some other evil plane of existence. I think it's a cool idea, but they never really explain what it's supposed to mean.

T-Rav said...

Ben, not gonna lie, I like Cursed quite a bit. That's kind of a good werewolf movie, in my opinion.

Does anyone know what the rules are for werewolves, anyway? Obviously there's the whole silver thing, but are there other ways to kill them?

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, Werewolves are easy, especially in an age of slasher flicks.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I liked Cursed quite a bit as well. I was amazed how attractive Ricci was too... no more Wednesday Addams!

Rules for werewolves? I think it's just silver bullets and if you get bitten you become one.

T-Rav said...

Although it's not my favorite, I thought the Gary Oldman/Winona Ryder version of Dracula nailed the whole "vampires as evil killers" thing pretty well. Dracula (and presumably other vampires) does have feelings and maybe kind of a soul, but at the same time he's completely ruled by evil, and the only way to end it is to kill him. So it's not only a horror movie but has a tragic element as well. I thought that was a nice touch.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I always thought they were soulless, which why they are evil/undead creatures. My favorites are probably Lost Boys, Interview With A Vampire and Fright Night.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

T-Rav, good call. Cursed was good!

rlaWTX said...

Haven't seen either of these, but I'm going to chime in on the mythology discussion.
Buffy (TV version) & Angel were awesome about establishing & maintaining the vampire mythology. But, I also like the strong fantasy book series that take the "classic" (read: Stoker version) mythology and tweak. If the author/filmmaker can create a universe that makes sense with the new rules, then I'll roll with it. I think the 'worlds' where vamps aren't inherently evil require an awareness that they fight the natural impulse of the stronger to overtake the weaker.
[for pre-Stoker "vampire" concepts, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has some interesting ideas!]

As for weres, I prefer the aware duality, fighting to maintain his grip on humanity versions (Patricia Briggs!) rather than the slavering, slobbering monster versions.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, I like the psychologically complex versions of all of these better than the slobbering monster/animal versions. Unfortunately, I think "vampires" have become a generic form of "tough monster with powers we don't need to explain." That's why we're seeing them in so many films and why they don't seem to follow any real rules anymore.

I often think of things like Underworld which is really a movie about two S&M gangs fighting each other. And they call one group vampires and the other werewolves but neither is really that at all... they are just names attached to generic creatures.

I haven't read anything by Briggs. Any suggestions?

Individualist said...

rlaWTX

I think you are right in that you can change and edit the rules for Vampires in your own Universe but.....

You need to maintian enough of the rules in order to not have a VINO movie. Too many today go overboard.

Two major things that mark a movie as in danger of falling to VINO territory is the Vampire that never drinks blood and the Vampire that is immune to Sunlight.

You can do these things if you have a good enough back story or an explanation as to why the "myth" of the real rules got out into the public consciousness.

But when you do silly things like (everyone would know they were a Vampire cause in sunlight they sparkle... then you fall apart

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Did you ever see Priest? What a turd. It's based on a comic book and it's about a sort of alternate world where humans and vampires fight. The vampires are more like giant spider things, except the one bad guy who is part human and part vampire. It's one of those films where the fact they are vampires bears little relation to real vampires. He can go out in the sun, he doesn't need blood, he's just a killing machine.

Individualist said...

Andrew

I did see the movie and it was really bad....

the vampires were more like an alien type creature.

I think Priest the comic book is supposed to be better but I have not read that...

Patriot said...

Andrew......what are your thoughts on the Blade trilogy in their depiction of vampires?

Gotta love his car in the original Blade movie with Kris Kristofferson as his "familiar."

Individualist said...

Andrew

There is a little known movie called Innocent Blood that I thought was really good.

The line that starts the film is when a girl vampire is deciding to go out to eat ande says tonight I think I'll try Italian and ends up eating a mobster... good flick

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, Exactly. They weren't vampires at all, they were like aliens or something. And the whole film was rather pointless... one long fight scene.

I keep meaning to watch Innocent Blood, but I keep forgetting. I should write that down.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Although not as good as the original, Fright Night 2 wasn't bad (and it still had Roddy McDowell in it).
It was also better than the remake.

Silver Bullet was another pretty good werewolf film.

Priest was definitely a VINO movie. A watchable (if mindless) monster movie (in the made for scifi sense) but nothing resembling vampires in it.

T-Rav said...

Andrew, even by horror/fantasy standards, the idea of being half human and half vampire doesn't make sense. Vampires are dead, right? (Or undead. Whatever.) Anyway, so their sperm or eggs are dead as well. So how can you take dead matter on one side and living matter on the other and wind up with a new life? It is entirely illogical and stupid.

I'm looking at you, Twilight.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, I didn't see the Blade vampires as vampires really. I saw them more as just generic monsters. Still, I enjoyed the series very much. I thought Snipes was excellent and the films were very entertaining.

What were your thoughts?

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I didn't care much for Fright Night 2, but you are correct, it is miles ahead of the remake.

I have a soft spot for Silver Bullet, but I don't know why. I just like that one. :)

Priest was totally VINOs!! And yes, it was watchable, but I wouldn't watch it again.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I agree. But in Priest the vampires looked like giant spider things and the queen (which was really large) didn't bite the guy so much as spit on him or something and that turned him into a human/vampire with yellow eyes -- no breeding involved. That meant he could move around in the daylight and I guess it made him super menacing since he was a tough human to begin with (Karl Urban). Blah blah blah. They weren't vampires.

Are you saying what's her name didn't get knocked up by that shiny emo in Twilight? I'm shocked! LOL!

shawn said...

Well, I've only caught part of the remake on the movie channel or showtime recently, and I'd have to say that I agree with Andrew's assessment of the two Fright Nights.

Classic 80's vampire movie- Near Dark. I love that film.

Best Werewolf movie out there- An American Werewolf in London. Outstanding practical effects by Rick Baker, for which he won an oscar. The movie pulls off being both funny and scary. The follow-up, An American Werewolf in Paris was horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I remember The Howling being pretty good at the time, but I haven't seen it since the 80s.

AndrewPrice said...

Shawn, If you've seen half the film, then you've seen the whole film. :(

Near Dark? How did I miss that?

I saw American Werewolf in London recently and it definitely held up. That's a solid movie all around and the effects still stand out.

I enjoyed The Howling quite a bit. I didn't care for the sequels, but the original was really good.

Patriot said...

Andrew....... I too liked Snipes in the series. He was almost believable in the role of vampire/monster hunter. The idea however, of vampires with a Trilateral Commission-like leader group was too much.

I also liked the fx of when he offed them how they quickly turned to ash.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, Like I said, I never saw them as vampires. I just saw them as monsters. And with that caveat, I liked the series. I would not have liked it as a vampire story.

rlaWTX said...

Andrew, the Briggs books I was specifically talking about revolve around a skinwalker named Mercedes (who is a VW mechanic). They are def fantasy, not SF. But I love all of her stuff. (I am now cringing because is kinda scary to suggest an author you REALLY like in an odd genre in case the other person doesn't like them!!!)

Indi, I agree that there are "required elements" to modern vampires. And the Twi-vamps were barely able to claim the title.
But check out the Conan-Doyle "vampire" short stories if you want to see what an impact Stoker made on the mythology.
There is another Young Adult series out there about vampires in Texas that comes much closer to "real" vampires: Morganville vampires. I am behind for the last several books, but the series started off very interestingly, and the vamps are not necessarily totally EVIL - but they are totally selfish and self-important, which is close to the same thing. :)
And they do NOT sparkle!!!

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

Near Dark is very good. I watched it once years ago but, man, that movie has style to spare (and half the supporting cast from Aliens!). And Innocent Blood isn't too bad either - one of John Landis' lesser-known films, with his usual brand of gratuitous nudity and car crashes!

I haven't seen either Fright Night film. The original one I will definitely need to see one day. I'm sure I'll get to the remake eventually. A couple friends of mine saw it and they didn't think it was that bad.

And I agree - I hate one-color films, too. There are times when it works but Hollywood managed to crank out a lot of beautiful looking movies in the past featuring a FULL color palette.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, The original Fright Night is absolutely worth seeing, especially if you're an 80s film guy, as I know you are. It's a very enjoyable film.

You can skip the remake and you won't miss anything.

I don't understand what makes Hollywood think that one-color films are a good idea? What makes them think we don't want to see color in our movies? They're not even artistic about the one-color stuff, like the black and white directors were, they just wash out all the color. I don't get it. And I can't think of a single film where it worked.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, No need to cringe! I won't hold it against you if I don't like it. :)

T-Rav said...

Did you know that on the TV guide and all, the Twilight movies are listed as "Horror," the same way others are labeled "Comedy," "Adventure," etc.?

Which, I agree, they are horror movies--just not in the way the TV people mean it.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, As you say, they are indeed horror, just not in the way the TV Guide intends! LOL!

ScottDS said...

Andrew and T-Rav -

If you go to your local chain bookstore, you'll find the Twilight books (and its zillions of imitators) in a relatively new section:

"Teen Paranormal Romance"

They actually had to create a new genre for this stuff (at least for inventory purposes).

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Believe it or not, I was aware of that. Twisted, isn't it? Apparently, teens can now do it with any number of monsters.

Of course, when you're a teen, maybe everything is paranormal anyway?

ScottDS said...

I believe it.

As far as being a teenager is concerned, yeah, there's the usual alienation and all that and in another 20 years, the vampire fad will have been replaced by something else. (It's only a matter of time before they turn the Invisible Man or the Creature from the Black Lagoon into a "teen paranormal romance" story, assuming they haven't already.)

AndrewPrice said...

Of course, it's hard to blame them... who doesn't want to do it with a mummy or ghoul or zombie?

I think the creature from the black lagoon is a gonner my friend... lost to history. :(

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

"I think the creature from the black lagoon is a gonner my friend... lost to history. :("

That just means it is ripe for a re-imagination. Are you up for it?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, LOL! You are correct, it is ripe for a re-boot.

I would imagine, sadly, it would be an environmental crusader. :(

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Not if you do it in reverse. Think of it this way. A beautiful building is built on a former wet-land. Some crazed environmentalist decides that is WRONG and sets off an huge explosion in the building and destroys it. Then gets an injunction to stop rebuilding. While they litigate, it returns to a black lagoon wetland and a creature is formed. All because of a crazed environmentalist.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, So he goes around doing what? Trying to build buildings to frustrate environmentalists? LOL!

T-Rav said...

Personally, I thought it was appropriate that the apocalypse in 28 Days Later began because some idiot animal-rights activists broke into a lab to "liberate" the "prisoners." How do you feel about those poor chimps now, morons?!

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I thought that was awesome! The only thing I don't understand is why Danny Boyle did that? He's a HUUUUUGE leftist.

Joel Farnham said...

Nope, the environmentalist camps on the site to make sure no one works on the site. He gets changed in to the creature by the wetland. The hero, the re-builder figures out what happened. Eventually kills the creature after it murders a few of his workers, and then re-drains the swamp hopefully before it changes another environmentalist into a creature, which should be coming along after 5 minutes.

Moral of the story, don't destroy something when you don't know the consequences.

SyFy programming executive said...

"it would be an environmental crusaser."

Genius! Now all we need to make it a mega-creature or fit in a skarktopus or two.

AndrewPrice said...

Arg.

Mycroft said...

Great calls on The Lost Boys, Near Dark and The Howling. Though I am not a Tarentino fan, I also enjoyed From Dusk Til Dawn.
The Patricia Briggs books are very good, though the last few I read were closer to Romance novels than Fantasy/Horror.
Another writer you might enjoy is Larry Corriea. You have to love a writer that promises that the only time his vampires sparkle is when they're on fire. There are 4 books in his Monster Hunter International series, plus he has a great alt-history series, Hard Magic: The Grimnoir Chronicles.

AndrewPrice said...

Mycroft, Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check that out.

I liked Dusk Til Dawn a lot as well!

Anonymous said...

Hey Andrew, let's not be ignorant now. You should do your research before making such comments on certain subjects. Firstly, you mentioned the horrible movie known as "Priest" and refered to the GN of the same name. Yet,they are nothing alike. One, is a lame attempt at a vampire movie and the other is a GN about a priest named Ivan Isaacs who after losing his love at the hands of a cult sect of the catholic church, who ritually sacrifices her hoping to resurect a saviour (turns out to be a false saviour. A fallen angel, who onced served as God's side to defeat lucifer, but now has turned against god himself), sells his soul to a devil in order to exact his revenge. But, he only sold half of his soul to this devil, so he still remains in control of his body and mind. I could go on, but I won't. All, I'm saying is that you shouldn't make such presumptions without knowing the facts.

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, I meant only the film. I haven't read the comic book... only seen the horrible movie and knew that it was somehow "based on" a comic book.

Post a Comment