Martin

Year: 1976
Director: George A. Romero
Writer: George A. Romero
Genre: Horror: Vampire

Martin seems like the kind of movie that I would enjoy. It is George A. Romero's take on vampires which is not in a way you would have been likely to see from anyone else. Martin may or may not actually be a vampire, but whatever he is he is far from a magical being. He never transforms into a bat, isn't repelled by the cross or garlic, and can go out in the day just fine. He's your typical guy except for the fact that he is compelled to the blood of humans.

The movie definitely deserves credit for moving beyond the Dracula archetypes. It's nothing liek them and feels much more like Ginger Snaps than Nosferatu. Still, I didn't enjoy it much at all. Overall, the film really doesn't explain itself well and it leaves you hanging in a lot of ways. Beyond that, it doesn't feel entirely cohesive. It feels more like snapshots of various times in Martin's youth, all probably very close together, but just events that occurred... Nothing is necessarily connected.

Many people seem to really enjoy Martin but it wasn't for me. His method of victim-grabbing is rather interesting though when it works (or perhaps more interesting when it fails). The idea behind the movie also seems to be some sort of coming of age thing, which works, but it missed the mark.

Although I didn't like it, Martin still seems like the kind of film that gets called a classic in certain circles. No doubt it's a very interesting take on vampire films and I wouldn't mind watching something else like it in the future.

Fright Night Part 2

Year: 1988
Director: Tommy Lee Wallace
Writer: Tom Holland, Tim Metcalfe
Genre: Horror: Comedy, Vampire

Fright Night is an excellent movie. It may be supremely 80s but it's a ton of fun and a great take on vampires that I'd love to see again these days. Fright Night Part 2 attempts to continue the story of the first but mostly just falls apart.

In Part 2 we hear Charley Brewster recounting the events of the first film (in case you forgot?). After he finishes his tale we see that he's in an office and that his therapist has helped convince him none of that stuff ever occurred. There's no such thing as vampires!

Soon after we see that Charley also has a new flame. Why? Wasn't the huge climax of the first film not only defeating the vampires that moved in next door, but also saving his girlfriend from vampirism? What was the point of that if he was just going to toss her aside for some new girl? After I managed to get over that though a new thought crossed my mind. Did they rush to make this movie right after the first one? I asked this question because it feels like a big pile of nonsensical parts stuck into one somewhat cohesive whole.

There are multiple parts of the film where scenes change with no real explanation between them as to what occurred. There is a part where you see some characters in one scene, and then the next they are in jail. What, how did that even happen? There are a few points like that and it makes it feel like the director was in a hurry to pump this out after the success of the original. This isn't the case though as Part 2 was made a few years after the original, not immediately. You've got to wonder what was going on in production where they had to cut out scenes that explained what on earth was going on. Not only that, but this movie is supremely 80s. This is a plus or minus depending on who you are - to me it was a plus.

This is not to say the movie wasn't enjoyable. It still was pretty fun and I liked the new vampire crew a lot. My favorite in particular was Regina. The movie quickly escalates to the climactic showdown. While it's not as drawn out or cool as the first film it still is alright. Check it out if you got a kick out of the original Fright Night.

Dracula 2000

Year: 2000
Director: Patrick Lussier
Writer: Joel Soisson, Patrick Lussier
Genre: Horror: Vampire

Dracula 2000 is right up there in cinematic worth aside Godzilla 2000. Seriously. The "2000" of the film is that it's a modern take on the whole Dracula tale. There's not a thing wrong with that in theory and it actually starts out kind of cool. We begin the movie in some crazy bank vault with a man who appears to be the grandson of Van Helsing or something of that sort. A troop of highly trained men crack into Van Helsing's safe one night (despite having no clue what's inside it). Apparently, anything worth that much security must be worth zillions of dollars. So they get in there and extract a coffin because they're certainly not going to leave empty-handed. I'm sure you can assume what the coffin contains.

From then on things descend quickly into silliness. Really, the best thing about the film is that we have a hunky Gerard Butler playing Dracula. Beyond that though the film is nearly pure teenage Hollywood drivel. That's not to say there are not things to like about it. For one, it is kind of cool how the characters were modernized. However, the film also seems to be plagued by the worst product placement ever. It seems that stuff was really vile in the late 90s/early 2000s. Virgin Records is pimped so damn much in the movie for no good reason you'd almost think this was a commercial.  Honestly, when Dracula gapes in astonishment at the store for 30 seconds you tend to notice.

If you're just looking for a very simplistic and flashy vampire romp it's not so bad. I doubt the movie was ever really intended to be taken seriously (like say, Bram Stoker's Dracula [1992]). Especially with a name like Dracula 2000 it seems targeted squarely at the kind of audience who goes gaga over graphical splendor and sirens. So, overall the movie wasn't for me.

Rabid

Year: 1977
Director: David Cronenberg
Writer: David Cronenberg
Genre: Horror: Thriller, vampire

Being one of Cronenberg's first feature films, it should be recognized that this is not a Hollywood-class movie. Of course, he never really was in the market for making things with mass market appeal, but his technique definitely has become refined over the years. For reference, Scanners and Videodrome came in the 80s.

I'm not sure how I feel about Rabid. I liked the premise, but I didn't feel very interested in the plight of any of the characters. They were nice and alive-feeling, but I didn't care much whether they lived or died. If I had cared however I think it would have felt more dramatic and enthralling. As is, I felt myself losing concentration again and again as the film went on.

The story is a little creative. A woman and her boyfriend are going out for a joyride on their Harley and get in a horrible crash. The boyfriend is mostly alright but the lady is left to sizzle under the heavy hot metal of the motorcycle. She gets rushed into a plastic surgery clinic (apparently they're the closest hospital) where they perform a new skin graft technique on her.

She lives and seems to have healed up excellently. The only problem is that while the skin graft succeeded, it requires sustenance to stay living. So, the girl ends up having to feed much like a vampire would to survive. Again, if this character had been portrayed differently I really would have cared but I don't. It doesn't even feel like she struggles with the matter of attacking people until it's all too late.

The movie is kind of a zombie-flick too. Although the people are "rabid" and not undead, brain-crazy freaks. Still, I was almost willing to classify this as a zombie flick as well. Anyway, it's an okay movie. Best to watch this one if you're a Cronenberg devotee. For a better skin graft-related film I'd suggest Eyes Without a Face.