Day 289 - 10/16/09 - Movie #289
BEFORE: As I said before, I used to watch old Abbott + Costello movies when I was a kid - one of the local Boston UHF stations ran them on Sunday mornings, and one of my favorites was "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein", which starred Frankenstein's Monster, Bela Lugosi as Dracula and Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolfman. It was like a great jam session with all the movie monsters in one film. They used to do that with the Godzilla movies too - the best ones would have Godzilla battling Rodan, Mothra and Megalon, all in the same film! I used to watch those on the UHF stations too, Saturday afternoons were time for "Creature Feature" movies. If this film captures some of that old spirit, then I'm very excited...
THE PLOT: The notorious monster hunter is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula who is using Dr. Frankenstein's research and a werewolf for some sinister purpose.
AFTER: You know, I rather enjoyed this one - it was totally action-packed and the special effects were top-notch. I've never seen such great transitions into werewolves and vampire bats before.
Huch Jackman as Van Helsing came off like a cross between Indiana Jones, James Bond and Wolverine - all of which was fine by me. Kate Beckinsale, who was also in "Underworld", seems to have built a whole career out of battling werewolves. Count Dracula, of course, is the one with the evil plan here, using both the lycanthropes and Frankenstein's Monster as his pawns. Van Helsing has all sorts of devices and innovative methods to battle the undead, thanks to a monk named Carl who acts like his "Q".
Even though "Dracula" is set in Romania and "Frankenstein" in Germany, I'm willing to overlook a little cross-cultural monster overlap if the story is clever, and I found that it was. Is it outlandish, unrealistic, even cartoonish? Well, yeah, but it's entertaining, and here that trumps everything else... There's a lot of rope-swinging that always seems to take the characters exactly where they need to go - and a lot of other things from the Road Runner vs. Coyote school of physics, but what are ya gonna do? It all added up to a thrill ride of sorts.
More than any other film so far, this one put me in a festive Halloween mood, and I'm feeling generous...
RATING: 9 out of 10 crossbow bolts
SPOOK-O-METER: 4 out of 10 (light on the gore, but heavy on the scary monsters)
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Son of Frankenstein
DAY 288 - 10/15/09 - Movie #288
BEFORE: The third of Universal's Frankenstein movies, and by now I expect the formula would be wearing thin - the novel by Mary Shelley was covered in the first 2 movies, so this one is pure Hollywood. Still, it stars Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone AND Bela Lugosi, so how bad could it be?
THE PLOT: Wolf Frankenstein, son of Henry Frankenstein, returns with his wife to his father's estate to claim his inheritance.
AFTER: Ah-hah, I knew that the Monster couldn't die - at least not while there were more sequels to be made! Henry's son Wolf (Rathbone) returns to the family castle to find that the Monster is (sort of) alive, tended to by the deformed Ygor (Lugosi). This film also introduces the town constable/inspector with a prosthetic arm - another character that was parodied in "Young Frankenstein", as played by Kenneth Mars. In fact, it's hard to take any of these classic Frankenstein films seriously, after Mel Brooks did such a great job of skewering them.
So Wolf heals the Monster, who hasn't been up and about since being struck by lightning a few years back. Ygor has ways of controlling the monster, by playing music and talking nice to him, so when the men who convicted Ygor of grave-robbing turn up dead, it's not too hard to figure out what's going on.
The inspector is a strange character - it's hard to tell if he's working for the town populace, since he also approaches Wolf with an offer of protection from the same people. There are obvious signs that the Monster is back and that Wolf is conducting experiments, but the Inspector is so busy trying to gain Wolf's confidence that it seems like he's not interested in proving that something untoward is happening. And when a small child gets kidnapped by the Monster - do you really think this is a good time to have a drink and play a game of darts?
This was Karloff's last appearance as the Monster - he was played in further sequels by other actors (though he later returned to the franchise to play a mad scientist) Lon Chaney Jr. took over the role in "Ghost of Frankenstein", and Lugosi himself played the Monster in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man". Those 2 films, plus "House of Frankenstein", wrapped up the Universal franchise movies - but I don't have copies of them, so maybe someday...
RATING: 6 out of 10 hidden doorways
SHOCK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (the Monster returns to his silent killing ways)
BEFORE: The third of Universal's Frankenstein movies, and by now I expect the formula would be wearing thin - the novel by Mary Shelley was covered in the first 2 movies, so this one is pure Hollywood. Still, it stars Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone AND Bela Lugosi, so how bad could it be?
THE PLOT: Wolf Frankenstein, son of Henry Frankenstein, returns with his wife to his father's estate to claim his inheritance.
AFTER: Ah-hah, I knew that the Monster couldn't die - at least not while there were more sequels to be made! Henry's son Wolf (Rathbone) returns to the family castle to find that the Monster is (sort of) alive, tended to by the deformed Ygor (Lugosi). This film also introduces the town constable/inspector with a prosthetic arm - another character that was parodied in "Young Frankenstein", as played by Kenneth Mars. In fact, it's hard to take any of these classic Frankenstein films seriously, after Mel Brooks did such a great job of skewering them.
So Wolf heals the Monster, who hasn't been up and about since being struck by lightning a few years back. Ygor has ways of controlling the monster, by playing music and talking nice to him, so when the men who convicted Ygor of grave-robbing turn up dead, it's not too hard to figure out what's going on.
The inspector is a strange character - it's hard to tell if he's working for the town populace, since he also approaches Wolf with an offer of protection from the same people. There are obvious signs that the Monster is back and that Wolf is conducting experiments, but the Inspector is so busy trying to gain Wolf's confidence that it seems like he's not interested in proving that something untoward is happening. And when a small child gets kidnapped by the Monster - do you really think this is a good time to have a drink and play a game of darts?
This was Karloff's last appearance as the Monster - he was played in further sequels by other actors (though he later returned to the franchise to play a mad scientist) Lon Chaney Jr. took over the role in "Ghost of Frankenstein", and Lugosi himself played the Monster in "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf-Man". Those 2 films, plus "House of Frankenstein", wrapped up the Universal franchise movies - but I don't have copies of them, so maybe someday...
RATING: 6 out of 10 hidden doorways
SHOCK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (the Monster returns to his silent killing ways)
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Bride of Frankenstein
Day 287 - 10/14/09 - Movie #287
BEFORE: It's interesting to note that the role of The Monster was uncredited in the opening credits of the original 1931 movie, to maintain the mystery of what was about to unfold. The Monster was listed with a question mark, although Boris Karloff was listed in the closing credits.
The sequel continued this tradition, with the Monster's Bride credited with a question mark in the opening credits.
This film seems to cover the 2nd half of Shelley's original novel, but of course there are major differences....
THE PLOT: Dr. Frankenstein (goaded by an even madder scientist) builds his monster a mate.
AFTER: In this movie, you can see a lot of the elements which Mel Brooks chose to parody in "Young Frankenstein" - the blind old hermit who takes in the monster, and Minnie, the older housekeeper, the obvious inspiration for Frau Blucher (insert horse whinny here).
There's a framing sequence with Mary Shelley relating part of her cautionary tale to her husband, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron. The part of Mary Shelley was played by Elsa Lanchester, who also played the Bride. She was quite attractive, when not rocking that giant electrified beehive hairdo...
In this film, the Monster learns a few words, has his first cigar and enjoys some music, but he just can't seem to keep his hands away from the villagers' necks, so cue up the angry mob again. There's another mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius, who visits Victor, I mean Henry, and shows him some "miniature life" he has created - a tiny king, queen mermaid and ballerina in little glass vials (what is THAT all about?) Pretorius is a sort of foil for Dr. Frankenstein, and part of the impetus to create a mate for the Monster. Like Henry, Pretorius enjoys digging up graves for spare parts (and apparently having picnics in tombs...he's a bit of an odd duck)
The Bride has a stolen heart, but an artificial brain, whereas the Monster has a stolen brain, and (one would assume) an artificial heart. Alas, some relationships are doomed from the start...guess she doesn't go for tall, dark and gruesome...
RATING: 5 out of 10 homunculi
SPOOK-O-METER: 2 out of 10 (the Monster's less scary once he learns to talk)
BEFORE: It's interesting to note that the role of The Monster was uncredited in the opening credits of the original 1931 movie, to maintain the mystery of what was about to unfold. The Monster was listed with a question mark, although Boris Karloff was listed in the closing credits.
The sequel continued this tradition, with the Monster's Bride credited with a question mark in the opening credits.
This film seems to cover the 2nd half of Shelley's original novel, but of course there are major differences....
THE PLOT: Dr. Frankenstein (goaded by an even madder scientist) builds his monster a mate.
AFTER: In this movie, you can see a lot of the elements which Mel Brooks chose to parody in "Young Frankenstein" - the blind old hermit who takes in the monster, and Minnie, the older housekeeper, the obvious inspiration for Frau Blucher (insert horse whinny here).
There's a framing sequence with Mary Shelley relating part of her cautionary tale to her husband, Percy Shelley, and Lord Byron. The part of Mary Shelley was played by Elsa Lanchester, who also played the Bride. She was quite attractive, when not rocking that giant electrified beehive hairdo...
In this film, the Monster learns a few words, has his first cigar and enjoys some music, but he just can't seem to keep his hands away from the villagers' necks, so cue up the angry mob again. There's another mad scientist, Dr. Pretorius, who visits Victor, I mean Henry, and shows him some "miniature life" he has created - a tiny king, queen mermaid and ballerina in little glass vials (what is THAT all about?) Pretorius is a sort of foil for Dr. Frankenstein, and part of the impetus to create a mate for the Monster. Like Henry, Pretorius enjoys digging up graves for spare parts (and apparently having picnics in tombs...he's a bit of an odd duck)
The Bride has a stolen heart, but an artificial brain, whereas the Monster has a stolen brain, and (one would assume) an artificial heart. Alas, some relationships are doomed from the start...guess she doesn't go for tall, dark and gruesome...
RATING: 5 out of 10 homunculi
SPOOK-O-METER: 2 out of 10 (the Monster's less scary once he learns to talk)
Frankenstein (1931)
BEFORE: From new-wave vampires and souped-up werewolves who conduct scientific experiments, I veer back to a classic movie monster, and the ultimate scientific experiment - the re-animation of life after death. Cinemax was nice enough to show the first 3 classic Frankenstein movies from the 1930's last month. If ever there was a classic horror film, this (along with Bela Lugosi's "Dracula") is it. It's rather humbling to admit that while I've enjoyed "Young Frankenstein" and "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein", I haven't ever watched the original on which they're based.
By the way, Abbott and Costello never did actually meet Frankenstein - they met Frankenstein's MONSTER. The title character is the mad scientist, not his creation made from corpses - it's amazing how many people habitually get this wrong, probably because the monster is never actually given a name.
THE PLOT: An obsessed scientist assembles a living being from parts of exhumed corpses.
AFTER: To truly judge such a classic film, I also reviewed the plot of Mary Shelley's novel, which I did read many years ago. The 1931 movie stripped away the book's framing device (with Dr. Victor Frankenstein found wandering in the Arctic, and made to recount his tale to a ship's crew) and for some reason, swapped Victor's first name with that of his close friend, Henry. Another difference is that in the original book, the monster is NOT made from parts of corpses, and although the actual process used is somewhat ambiguous (so the readers would not try to recreate the experiment), it seems more akin to a Jewish Golem, made in large size since the good Doctor had problems recreating the intricacies of the human form.
There are more plot points in the novel, of course, including the monster becoming self-aware, educated and vegetarian, and living for a year near a family's cottage in order to observe them, then befriend them. But the movie doesn't have that kind of time, it's got to get to the juicy bits. The movie really only covers the first half of the book, thus leaving opportunities for a sequel.
Think of all the innovations in the 1931 movie which became horror-movie staples - the laboratory with all its mysterious devices shooting sparks. The mad scientist, and the hunchbacked lab assistant (here called Fritz, but of course all later incarnations would be named Igor...) and the angry mob with torches and pitchforks.
At the heart, it's a simple story - man makes monster, monster misunderstood, mob murders monster. But at the time of its creation, the story stood for something more - a warning not to mess with the natural order of things. A suggestion that perhaps man is not meant to understand all the scientific principles surrounding life and death. In this age of proposed cloning and genetic re-sequencing, there may be some meaning still to be extracted from the old tale...
RATING: 6 out of 10 Tesla coils
SPOOK-O-METER: 2 out of 10 (a lumbering Karloff isn't all that hard to run away from)
By the way, Abbott and Costello never did actually meet Frankenstein - they met Frankenstein's MONSTER. The title character is the mad scientist, not his creation made from corpses - it's amazing how many people habitually get this wrong, probably because the monster is never actually given a name.
THE PLOT: An obsessed scientist assembles a living being from parts of exhumed corpses.
AFTER: To truly judge such a classic film, I also reviewed the plot of Mary Shelley's novel, which I did read many years ago. The 1931 movie stripped away the book's framing device (with Dr. Victor Frankenstein found wandering in the Arctic, and made to recount his tale to a ship's crew) and for some reason, swapped Victor's first name with that of his close friend, Henry. Another difference is that in the original book, the monster is NOT made from parts of corpses, and although the actual process used is somewhat ambiguous (so the readers would not try to recreate the experiment), it seems more akin to a Jewish Golem, made in large size since the good Doctor had problems recreating the intricacies of the human form.
There are more plot points in the novel, of course, including the monster becoming self-aware, educated and vegetarian, and living for a year near a family's cottage in order to observe them, then befriend them. But the movie doesn't have that kind of time, it's got to get to the juicy bits. The movie really only covers the first half of the book, thus leaving opportunities for a sequel.
Think of all the innovations in the 1931 movie which became horror-movie staples - the laboratory with all its mysterious devices shooting sparks. The mad scientist, and the hunchbacked lab assistant (here called Fritz, but of course all later incarnations would be named Igor...) and the angry mob with torches and pitchforks.
At the heart, it's a simple story - man makes monster, monster misunderstood, mob murders monster. But at the time of its creation, the story stood for something more - a warning not to mess with the natural order of things. A suggestion that perhaps man is not meant to understand all the scientific principles surrounding life and death. In this age of proposed cloning and genetic re-sequencing, there may be some meaning still to be extracted from the old tale...
RATING: 6 out of 10 Tesla coils
SPOOK-O-METER: 2 out of 10 (a lumbering Karloff isn't all that hard to run away from)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Underworld
Day 286 - 10/13/09 - Movie #285
BEFORE: Another vampire film (almost done...), this one also has werewolves thrown into the mix. Werewolf? THERE wolf... If I like this one, I suppose I'll have to add its two sequels to my want list. Damn...
THE PLOT: Selene, a beautiful vampire warrior, is entrenched in a war between the vampire and werewolf races. Although she is aligned with the vampires, she falls in love with Michael, a werewolf who longs for the war to end.
AFTER: This is like one of those old schoolyard questions, like "Who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman?" Or one I once overheard in the comic shop - "Who would win in a fight, Big Bird or Barney?" It seemed quite ridiculous, but it stuck in my brain, which eventually determined that Big Bird would be the winner - he's got the reach, the beak, and even though he only has the use of one arm (think about it...) he was raised on the "Street". Barney's a big wuss.
In this case, it's a gang war between the immortals, vampires vs. werewolves.
The main problem I had with this movie was the acting, which was most horrific. Outside of Kate Beckinsale and Bill Nighy, no one seemed capable of delivering a believable line of dialogue, due to a combination of over-emoting and funny accents. I've seen porn actors with better acting skills - not many, but a few.
Another problem is a lack of exposition - characters interrupt each other just as they're about to say something that could give the audience some relevant info about the situation. "This human is important." - but WHY? "This will break the covenant..." WHAT covenant? Please, explain! Is that too much to ask? The ruling stands - if I have to go to the internet to discover what the plot was of the movie I JUST WATCHED, then it failed to deliver, and it can't score on the upper part of my scale.
That said, the dusty cobwebbed classic horror monsters were in need of an update - these are not your father's vampires + werewolves. They use guns (ones that shoot dozens of bullets and almost never seem to need reloading) and modern blood-work and genetic science, along with some cool CSI-style graphics illustrating the physical changes of lycanthropy.
But, if you're trying to unite the two species, wouldn't the old-fashioned way work better? They all have human(ish) bodies, right? Speaking of which, there are obvious references to "Romeo & Juliet" here, but those 2 Shakespeare characters were firmly ingrained in two feuding families - the conflict here might have been greater if the werewolf who was crushing on a female vampire had been a werewolf for more than 10 minutes. They try to cheat by saying that a new werewolf gets all the memories of the one who bit him, but I don't remember that as a solid part of werewolf lore...
No crosses, no stakes, no holy water, no garlic, no wolfsbane here - just a lot of silver bullets.
And the ruling is - I'll watch the sequels next October if it's convenient for me, but I don't think I'll be going out of my way to track them down.
RATING: 5 out of 10 syringes
SPOOK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (a few action-oriented killings, and creepy werewolf attacks)
BEFORE: Another vampire film (almost done...), this one also has werewolves thrown into the mix. Werewolf? THERE wolf... If I like this one, I suppose I'll have to add its two sequels to my want list. Damn...
THE PLOT: Selene, a beautiful vampire warrior, is entrenched in a war between the vampire and werewolf races. Although she is aligned with the vampires, she falls in love with Michael, a werewolf who longs for the war to end.
AFTER: This is like one of those old schoolyard questions, like "Who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman?" Or one I once overheard in the comic shop - "Who would win in a fight, Big Bird or Barney?" It seemed quite ridiculous, but it stuck in my brain, which eventually determined that Big Bird would be the winner - he's got the reach, the beak, and even though he only has the use of one arm (think about it...) he was raised on the "Street". Barney's a big wuss.
In this case, it's a gang war between the immortals, vampires vs. werewolves.
The main problem I had with this movie was the acting, which was most horrific. Outside of Kate Beckinsale and Bill Nighy, no one seemed capable of delivering a believable line of dialogue, due to a combination of over-emoting and funny accents. I've seen porn actors with better acting skills - not many, but a few.
Another problem is a lack of exposition - characters interrupt each other just as they're about to say something that could give the audience some relevant info about the situation. "This human is important." - but WHY? "This will break the covenant..." WHAT covenant? Please, explain! Is that too much to ask? The ruling stands - if I have to go to the internet to discover what the plot was of the movie I JUST WATCHED, then it failed to deliver, and it can't score on the upper part of my scale.
That said, the dusty cobwebbed classic horror monsters were in need of an update - these are not your father's vampires + werewolves. They use guns (ones that shoot dozens of bullets and almost never seem to need reloading) and modern blood-work and genetic science, along with some cool CSI-style graphics illustrating the physical changes of lycanthropy.
But, if you're trying to unite the two species, wouldn't the old-fashioned way work better? They all have human(ish) bodies, right? Speaking of which, there are obvious references to "Romeo & Juliet" here, but those 2 Shakespeare characters were firmly ingrained in two feuding families - the conflict here might have been greater if the werewolf who was crushing on a female vampire had been a werewolf for more than 10 minutes. They try to cheat by saying that a new werewolf gets all the memories of the one who bit him, but I don't remember that as a solid part of werewolf lore...
No crosses, no stakes, no holy water, no garlic, no wolfsbane here - just a lot of silver bullets.
And the ruling is - I'll watch the sequels next October if it's convenient for me, but I don't think I'll be going out of my way to track them down.
RATING: 5 out of 10 syringes
SPOOK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (a few action-oriented killings, and creepy werewolf attacks)
Monday, October 12, 2009
Queen of the Damned
Day 285 - 10/12/09 - Movie #284
BEFORE: This was the 2nd Anne Rice vampire novel to be turned into a film, the first of course being "Interview With a Vampire", which I've seen.
THE PLOT: The vampire Lestat becomes a rock star whose music wakes up the queen of all vampires.
AFTER: I'm tempted to write just a two-word review: Bloody awful.
I can get why Lestat wanted to become a rock star - the lifestyle, clothes and hours of a rock performer all seem to fit with the vampire lifestyle. Plus there's an endless supply of young groupies to feed on. It's just too bad that Lestat wants to play all that goth emo stuff - so the music really sucks, pun intended.
The music is so bad it wakes up Akasha, the Queen of the Damned, who wants Lestat to be her new consort. The other vampires, who were already pissed that Lestat was publicly "out" as a vampire, then have to band together to deal with a new threat.
Stuart Townsend, who I only know from "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", takes over the role of Lestat (from Tom Cruise) and we learn Lestat's backstory, but honestly, it wasn't all that interesting.
RATING: 2 out of 10 gold records
SPOOK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (vampires bite, vampires burn up...ho hum)
BEFORE: This was the 2nd Anne Rice vampire novel to be turned into a film, the first of course being "Interview With a Vampire", which I've seen.
THE PLOT: The vampire Lestat becomes a rock star whose music wakes up the queen of all vampires.
AFTER: I'm tempted to write just a two-word review: Bloody awful.
I can get why Lestat wanted to become a rock star - the lifestyle, clothes and hours of a rock performer all seem to fit with the vampire lifestyle. Plus there's an endless supply of young groupies to feed on. It's just too bad that Lestat wants to play all that goth emo stuff - so the music really sucks, pun intended.
The music is so bad it wakes up Akasha, the Queen of the Damned, who wants Lestat to be her new consort. The other vampires, who were already pissed that Lestat was publicly "out" as a vampire, then have to band together to deal with a new threat.
Stuart Townsend, who I only know from "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", takes over the role of Lestat (from Tom Cruise) and we learn Lestat's backstory, but honestly, it wasn't all that interesting.
RATING: 2 out of 10 gold records
SPOOK-O-METER: 3 out of 10 (vampires bite, vampires burn up...ho hum)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
From Dusk Till Dawn
Day 284 - 10/11/09 -Movie #283
BEFORE: I wasn't able to catch up yesterday, since I went to a Cask Ale Festival in the afternoon - these are beers even rarer than microbrews, sometimes brewed by the individual cask, so it was a chance to sample some unique flavored beers. Once I finish vampires and move on to Frankenstein movies, which are shorter, I should be able to double up...
THE PLOT: Two criminals and their hostages unknowingly seek temporary refuge in an establishment populated by vampires, with chaotic results.
AFTER: What's interesting to me is how long a movie can go sometimes without using the V-word. This one makes it through a whole hour before the presence of vampires is revealed. The Gecko Brothers (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino) are a couple of bank robbers escaping to Mexico, who hijack the RV of a preacher (Harvey Keitel) and his son and daughter (Juliette Lewis). Things take a turn after they cross the border and visit the Titty Twister, a club meant to lure in truckers and bikers for the vampires to feed on. Along with a couple of other patrons who survive the initial attack, they manage to MacGyver (or "A-Team") some weapons, based on what we all know about vampires - holy water, stake through the heart (though apparently in this film, a gut shot is almost as efficient). Vampirism is treated here like a virus - once bitten, a character only has a few minutes before they gain vampiric appearance and powers...there's no 3-day waiting period as seen in some movies.
Salma Hayek's got a 5-minute appearance as an exotic dancer, and Cheech Marin plays no less than three different roles (I guess all Mexicans look and sound alike?). I wasn't sure about casting Harvey Keitel as a wayward preacher, but he really perks up in the 2nd half of the film. And if you like seeing Quentin Tarantino shot, stabbed or otherwise injured, man, this is the film for you.
Somewhat cartoonish, but mostly enjoyable, as vampire flicks go. Imagine "Salem's Lot" mixed with "Pulp Fiction". Extra point for using an obscure ZZ Top song, "She's Just Killing Me", over the closing credits.
RATING: 7 out of 10 squirtguns
SPOOK-O-METER: 5 out of 10 - lots of gnarly vampires.
BEFORE: I wasn't able to catch up yesterday, since I went to a Cask Ale Festival in the afternoon - these are beers even rarer than microbrews, sometimes brewed by the individual cask, so it was a chance to sample some unique flavored beers. Once I finish vampires and move on to Frankenstein movies, which are shorter, I should be able to double up...
THE PLOT: Two criminals and their hostages unknowingly seek temporary refuge in an establishment populated by vampires, with chaotic results.
AFTER: What's interesting to me is how long a movie can go sometimes without using the V-word. This one makes it through a whole hour before the presence of vampires is revealed. The Gecko Brothers (George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino) are a couple of bank robbers escaping to Mexico, who hijack the RV of a preacher (Harvey Keitel) and his son and daughter (Juliette Lewis). Things take a turn after they cross the border and visit the Titty Twister, a club meant to lure in truckers and bikers for the vampires to feed on. Along with a couple of other patrons who survive the initial attack, they manage to MacGyver (or "A-Team") some weapons, based on what we all know about vampires - holy water, stake through the heart (though apparently in this film, a gut shot is almost as efficient). Vampirism is treated here like a virus - once bitten, a character only has a few minutes before they gain vampiric appearance and powers...there's no 3-day waiting period as seen in some movies.
Salma Hayek's got a 5-minute appearance as an exotic dancer, and Cheech Marin plays no less than three different roles (I guess all Mexicans look and sound alike?). I wasn't sure about casting Harvey Keitel as a wayward preacher, but he really perks up in the 2nd half of the film. And if you like seeing Quentin Tarantino shot, stabbed or otherwise injured, man, this is the film for you.
Somewhat cartoonish, but mostly enjoyable, as vampire flicks go. Imagine "Salem's Lot" mixed with "Pulp Fiction". Extra point for using an obscure ZZ Top song, "She's Just Killing Me", over the closing credits.
RATING: 7 out of 10 squirtguns
SPOOK-O-METER: 5 out of 10 - lots of gnarly vampires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
