I hear the dead travel fast in Alaska
I've been asked to pick a book for the staff choices shelf in Borders. An employee can select any book so long as (a) you can write a paragraph of about forty words praising it and (b) it's something we have a fair few copies of in stock; so I chose the new Love and Rockets release (well, rerelease) as it's in my section and I'm fond of L&R. Of the two main sagas, I prefer the Hoppers stories just that teency bit more than Palomar; it's probably all the punk/HxC references that make me feel at home. Plus there's the women.
SPOILERS HAVE BEEN PURGED.
I was kinda hoping that this film was going to be better than the comic it's based on, the latter of which I never thought particularly much of (I would upload it to illustrate the point but I deleted it a while back). The premise-a horde of vampires take advantage of a remote Alaskan city's month of darkness to feed on its inhabitants unchecked by solar activity-is a rather ingenius set-up which is probably why I downloaded the comic in the first place. However, despite changing the plot slightly, the film's probably about the same level of quality as the comic: good but not nearly enough win for everyone's liking.
First, the vampires. They're fast and they're mean; meaner than the ones in Anne Rice novels. I've never read an Anne Rice novel and I'm only going on the shaky memory of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in Interview with the Vampire but I seem to recall that all the bastards did in that movie was sit around and ponder the tedious minutiae of everyday vampire life. The ones in this film don't do that because Alaska's far too cold to do any sitting down even if you're dead. Instead, they just kill people at great speeds and they sometimes go a bit over the top in trying to look scary (especially when there's no one around to see it but us) but as far as vampires go, you get your money's worth. Their Renfield stand-in was pretty decent too: not quite Tom Waits but he certainly looked the part and, merciful Christ, could he have done with some dental work.
As for the humans, well, that's a different story altogether: I had to beat them to death with their own shoes they weren't up to much really. As you would expect from a movie where most of the living act as food for the dead, there's little in the way of background given to most characters and it's only the primary couple of a bearded Josh Hartnett and his girl who have a past that we know about. The survivors change location throughout the month of darkness probably to keep the film's pulse going and to stop things becoming too reminiscent of the Night of the Living Dead house-siege formula, but since you learn so little about them you don't really care which ones live or die, as long as those who die all die horribly.
In summary then, gentlemen: in this movie, we have some good scares, a couple of juicy axe decapitations and some pretty decent vampires, all in a good choice of location. The stand out part in my mind was the fantastic bird's eye tracking shot of the city enveloped in a fiery chaos as its residents are put to the tooth and claw. From above, the people all resemble insects-INSECTS-and their blood seems so bewitching against the snow. It's so well constructed, I'll bet they hired a choreographer especially for that scene. Money well spent.
So, it's worth your quid. Just don't go expecting a sequel to Near Dark. I still say that the first Devlin Waugh adventure is a far better story and would've made a better vampire film. The only reason Hollywood won't touch it is because the hero is gay, those faggot-loathing bastards.
I saw Eastern Promises last night. I might write a review of that if I ever get over the shock of seeing Viggo Mortensen's cock flopping about on screen like a seal on PCP.
SPOILERS HAVE BEEN PURGED.
I was kinda hoping that this film was going to be better than the comic it's based on, the latter of which I never thought particularly much of (I would upload it to illustrate the point but I deleted it a while back). The premise-a horde of vampires take advantage of a remote Alaskan city's month of darkness to feed on its inhabitants unchecked by solar activity-is a rather ingenius set-up which is probably why I downloaded the comic in the first place. However, despite changing the plot slightly, the film's probably about the same level of quality as the comic: good but not nearly enough win for everyone's liking.
First, the vampires. They're fast and they're mean; meaner than the ones in Anne Rice novels. I've never read an Anne Rice novel and I'm only going on the shaky memory of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in Interview with the Vampire but I seem to recall that all the bastards did in that movie was sit around and ponder the tedious minutiae of everyday vampire life. The ones in this film don't do that because Alaska's far too cold to do any sitting down even if you're dead. Instead, they just kill people at great speeds and they sometimes go a bit over the top in trying to look scary (especially when there's no one around to see it but us) but as far as vampires go, you get your money's worth. Their Renfield stand-in was pretty decent too: not quite Tom Waits but he certainly looked the part and, merciful Christ, could he have done with some dental work.
As for the humans, well, that's a different story altogether: I had to beat them to death with their own shoes they weren't up to much really. As you would expect from a movie where most of the living act as food for the dead, there's little in the way of background given to most characters and it's only the primary couple of a bearded Josh Hartnett and his girl who have a past that we know about. The survivors change location throughout the month of darkness probably to keep the film's pulse going and to stop things becoming too reminiscent of the Night of the Living Dead house-siege formula, but since you learn so little about them you don't really care which ones live or die, as long as those who die all die horribly.
In summary then, gentlemen: in this movie, we have some good scares, a couple of juicy axe decapitations and some pretty decent vampires, all in a good choice of location. The stand out part in my mind was the fantastic bird's eye tracking shot of the city enveloped in a fiery chaos as its residents are put to the tooth and claw. From above, the people all resemble insects-INSECTS-and their blood seems so bewitching against the snow. It's so well constructed, I'll bet they hired a choreographer especially for that scene. Money well spent.
So, it's worth your quid. Just don't go expecting a sequel to Near Dark. I still say that the first Devlin Waugh adventure is a far better story and would've made a better vampire film. The only reason Hollywood won't touch it is because the hero is gay, those faggot-loathing bastards.
I saw Eastern Promises last night. I might write a review of that if I ever get over the shock of seeing Viggo Mortensen's cock flopping about on screen like a seal on PCP.