It seems fitting to put this review as my first on my blog since it combines so many things I love ... a walk down memory lane, a tinge of buffy, vamp movies in general and, of course, my dear dear DAVID TENNANT!!!!! i don't care that i'm biased but i figured i should put that out first so whoever is reading this can stop now... hahaha... another alert... this has essentially turned out to be more of a 1985 vs 2011 review, so check out now if you're not interested...
At this point, let me say something before i completely lose you.. the 3D effects were pretty cool, worth the extra dollar to pay for it... the best i've seen so far in a live action movie, not counting Avatar.. and i think that's saying a lot since every other movie is trying this 3D thing and failing miserably.. so much crap in this movie comes flying out at you and not just the credits, haha... i even reached out to catch a cross which floated towards me, i laughed out loud at that, good thing i was in an almost empty theatre...
First of all, to prepare to watch this version, i went back in time (wink wink) and watched the original 1985 cult classic... it was awesome to watch it again... basically, it was amazingly campy and typically 80s which in itself was a particular treat... if you grew up in the 80s, you'd appreciate it.. and at the end of the day, as much as i didn't want to and shouldn't compare the two, i can't help it and neither will you, if you've seen it, that is...
the story is basically the same, the new guy in town, who moves in next door to a horny teenager, is a vampire. and it falls on him, the teenager, his friends and a TV "vamp-expert" phony to defeat the baddie... i mean, how can you go wrong with that plot? let's talk expectations - remember, it was written in the 80s, which means that you have to expect that the story is going to be predictable and simple... so how, you may ask, did they attempt to update the classic underdog vs vamp story? first step, get a writer from buffy the vampire slayer, marti noxon, to write the screenplay, that's how... having said that, i was a teensy tiny bit disappointed about how that turned out... i expected more witty, ironic lines (im not sure why) but all in all, i was happy to see her take on the story... she chopped off some unnecessary bits from the original and kicked up the pace for this generation of viewers... for added excitement , she threw in some pretty violent and brutal scenes and peppered in enough obscenities by all characters for that "cool" factor.... she also fleshed out the characters to suit the present day audience.. i mean, if anyone is comparing and expecting an exact remake of the original.. duh! what's the point of a remake if they're just going to repeat verbatim from 1985? im sure there would be more critiques about that... next step is to fit all her fleshed out characters with cool actors to play them... i mean, toni freaking collete, colin farrell, anton yelchin and, my dear dear david...
so let's start with the actors... there are 6 main characters in this movie, Charley, his mom, his girlfriend, his "best" friend (cos this bit is different from 1985) Evil Ed, Jerry the vampire and Peter Vincent... of all these characters, there is only one played by a fully american actor... just a random fact that struck me but has no significance to the story at all... also, there're a couple of cameos that were fun.. Lisa Loeb as Evil Ed's mom and the original Jerry, Chris Sarandon, who is a random victim of the new Jerry...
As for the mains... Anton Yelchin as Charley, im not sure if he passes as a modern version of William Ragsdale... the original Charley was more lovable and you tend to want to cheer for him more than this guy... Plus his girlfriend is too hot and when the worst happens, you don't exactly root for her, either... i think it's becos he's way too cool, original Charley was not cool , no one really was in the 80s... back then, in movies, you were either nice or mean, there wasn't any in between... Now, you have cools guys who are nice, i guess, but they don't necessarily translate into ideal underdogs... Still, 2011 Charley had his moments and his ultimate plan to kill the vamp was inspired and pretty badass, which i liked... Girlfriend Amy, welllll, she's ok.... she's definitely a hotter version of the original, and stronger, too, which appeals to the feminist in me... it's a little less pedophilic than 1985, only becos the age gap doesntseem as tremendous as original jerry and amy... this 18 yr-old with a crush on colin farrell is way more plausible...
I love Toni Collete's version of mom... She definitely stood out as her own character, rather than the original whom i have no recollection of at all... And Evil Ed... what can i say about Mr Mintz-Plasse? too many reviews on the interweb calling him Mclovin' and saying that they he'll always just be Mclovin' to them... I can't disagree... i loved the original Evil Ed, he was quirky and a character all his own, Mclovin' just a sad geek who was turned way too early in the movie for my taste... I remember more of a team effort of amy and evil ed helping to save the day, rather than a showdown between friends... altho, 2011 charley kind of had it coming...
Colin Farrell... I can't decide, i really can't, i can't decide which jerry i prefer, honestly! 1985 jerry was an old-school vamp... had a coffin in the basment, had a minion who took care of day time issues. there was even a freaking stained-glass window in what i remember to be an almost castle-like abode... he was posh and refined and classy (well, as classy as you can be in 1985 anyway)... 2011 jerry - a handyman, who always seems a little grungy to me, always in a singlet/tank top/wifebeater, whatever you choose to call it, and way more of a player type of man plus he had a real job, a believable night job which many people have these days, esp in Vegas.. him being colin farrell, bad boy appeal, makes it more believable that he can seduce his victims cos i never really saw any young person falling for 1985 jerry who, altho was very suave, looked ancient even back then... 1985 jerry, to his credit, was more subtle and stealthy about being a vamp... whereas 2011 jerry was freaking brutal and violent, which im ashamed to say, i quite liked... it added a thrill factor to the movie... actually, there were some technical vamp issues which bothered me which i will deal with later... what i couldn't understand was... what was with all the apple-eating?
And now, the best for last, my lovely David Tennant...His Peter Vincent was totally entertaining! I'm sure a large part of my amusement is becos i loooove loove loove him, but he was brilliant! a lot of critiques about peter vincent becoming chris angel-like but it was an awesome fun ride to watch! as much as roddy mcdowall was perfect for the 80s... there was no way, they could make the vamp expert like that again.. the father figure thing worked in the 80s but not anymore... a fake, assholic, alcoholic wannabe with a tortured past is way more relatable to our present audience... what that says about us now, i dont want to think about it... 1985 peter was an almost hasbeen tv celeb cos his style was more late 70s, which is similar to 2011 peter, who needs so much showmanship to try and stay current... same but different, i like that... and david tennant was great being a divo of a showman and then being a pathetic coward later on... it was just the right balance of outrageousness and vulnerability that made you root for him instead of charley... his lines weren't all that great (sorry, marti) but he looked like he had a ball playing this character and it showed... ditto for colin farrell, by the way, i mean not the vulnerability factor, but he went all out psycho and brutal that it was great to see.... i think that their performances outshone poor charley... my opinion anyway... and the little twist in the end, when jerry meets peter, i loved that... it was a surprising twist that completely made perfect sense, very buffy-esque!okay, i need to address some technical vamp issues that bugged me... charley's escape with one of jerry's victims without jerry hearing/smelling them is impossible... i'd like to think that it was all part of jerry's master plan to freak charley out and allow the escape since he had an evil smile at the end of that scene, but im not so sure... in contrast, evil ed makes a note of how heightened his senses had become.. another thing, i couldn't understand was why he turned into a freaky monster creature on the road, when he was normal man-like while feeding in his house... altho there was a scene where he got stabbed and his physical reaction was a weird crawling thing which was pretty creepy, that was good, it added to the thrill factor again... the weird vamp creatures crawling out of the wall/floor were quite freaky and im not sure if that "vampirically" correct but it was interesting... one last peeve, what was the point of the "cool" kids gang? they seem to have no significant contribution to the story at all, i felt they took up precious time of more storytelling or more david, i would have preferred either...
so the question at the end that should be asked is... would i watch it again? would i tell my friends about it? yes and yes... not just for my david (altho i would probably be doing that for the 1st 10 times i watch it) but it is a sincerely fun enough movie to watch... check your brains at the door and enjoy the ride...
No comments:
Post a Comment