Legends of Blood – review

Authors: Wayne Bartlett & Flavia Idriceanu

First Published: 2005

Contains spoilers

Subtitled as “The Vampire in History and Myth” the book sets out to look at both the myth and legend of the vampire and what has made the vampire such an enduring symbol in literature and the movies.

On first glance a scholarly book, I was not convinced by some of the arguments and investigations. Many of these were only small things but gave me pause to think. For example, referring to Dracula we are told that “we do not really know how the Prince became a vampire.” This, in itself, is true. However, from the novel we know that he attended the Scholomance, the Devil’s academy – an attendance mentioned later in Legends of Blood. We also know that Stoker used Emily Gerard’s “Transylvanian Superstitions” as a reference work, who tells us that of the ten scholars admitted at a time to the academy one is detained and “mounted upon an Ismeju (dragon) he becomes henceforward the devil's aide-de-camp”. Dracul means dragon as well as devil and many believe that Stoker hinted that Dracula was the 10th scholar and this led ultimately to his vampirism. Whilst not explicit I would have liked to have seen this explored.

Another example is when the authors mention strigoï. They mention the strigoï mort and the strigoï vii (though only as living and dead vampires), but state that the vii are werewolves. I have never come across this variance of the myth; all my research likens the strigoï vii to witches, who use psychic vampirism to hagride children. I have heard of the close ties between lycanthropy and vampirism, especially in the belief that when a werewolf dies it becomes a vampire, but never explicitly in connection with the strigoï. I am not saying here that the authors are wrong but they cite no reference to their assertion that the vii are werewolves and therefore the source of their theory cannot be validated.

One aspect of the book that might put people off is the way they veer to other myths and legends. There is a chapter on the witch, one on the magus and another on pacts with the devil. I actually thought these worthwhile as there are similarities and we are looking at the base archetype. To understand the base archetype of the magus helps us look deeper into the base archetype of the vampire, for example.

What disappointed me more was that the book seemed bereft of movie sources. The authors cite all the classic literature and myth sources, and also offer insights I had not picked up on such as the fact the “Helsing” as in Van Helsing is an anagram of English. However, when it came to movies (and TV shows) we were only offered generalities on the Hammer films and more in depth looks at Coppola’s Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, Nosferatu and the Buffy TV Show (plus a couple of minor references to some other mainstream movies). With the vast and rich amount of vampire lore produced in movies one would have liked to see some more references.

Worse than this was the citing of Harry Potter similes, which smacked of playing to a popularist readership and added nothing, in my opinion, to their arguments.

One area that was not explored was the more modern vampiric myth based around genetic manipulation, certainly a way in which the genre has evolved over recent years and ignored by the authors completely.

All in all, this was not a bad read and I did especially like the way in which forms such as the witch myths were drawn into contrast and comparison with the vampire myth but referentially light in places. 6 out of 10.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen – review

Director: Stephen Norrington

Release Date: 2003

Contains spoilers

It seems unfair to judge a film harshly because it comes nowhere near the source material but, with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Or LXG as it was dubbed to hang on to the coattails of the X-Men) I find it difficult to not do so. LXG was based on graphic novels by Alan Moore and, as I look at the film, I will draw in similes with the graphic novels, comparing characters mainly. I do this because it was in characterisation that I felt the film found one of its great failings.

The film begins with a raid on the Bank of England in 1899, with a tank. With a tank, you say, but this is steampunk, this is a Vernian alternate universe where modern technology was invented earlier. The tank is chased by bemused Bobbies through the streets until it crashes through the doors of the Bank of England. Soldiers open fire (begging the question what where soldiers doing encamped in the Bank of England?) when the tank blows the safe door open and “German” soldiers flood out of the tank with machine guns. They are led by a character, the villain of the piece known as the Fantom (Richard Roxburgh) who goes straight for some blueprints.

Next we see the same tank, again led by the Fantom but this time with “English” soldiers, raid a German Zeppelin factory and kidnap the scientists. By this time the world is on the brink of war and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is formed from some of the more unique characters in the world. We shall now look at the League in depth.

Firstly we have Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery) in the film he is depicted as a man, sick of adventure and serving Queen and Country as he is haunted by the death of his son on his last adventure. It is said that he has been blessed by a witch doctor who says Africa will not allow him to die. In contrast, in the graphic novels, Quartermain is a junkie found in a Cairo opium den.

Next we have Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah) Captain of the Nautilus. Quartermain accuses him of being a pirate although the film portrays him as an honourable man and yet also shows him worshipping Kali. In the graphic novel he is portrayed more as snobbish and xenophobic, yet his keen insights are key to the League’s success. The nautilus is different also, referred to in the film as the sword of the ocean it seems scimitar like whereas in the graphic it is a giant mechanical squid shaped thing.

Next we have Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Jason Flemyng). In this, as is in the graphic, Hyde has been terrorising Paris as the creature in the Rue Morgue. However the character is different. He still has to drink potion to change, in the graphic it had become more of a Hulk like affair, he is portrayed in a much more positive light and the idea that Hyde’s size is proportional to his evil has been dropped.

Next is the invisible man (Tony Curran), who is a completely different character. In the film he is Rodney Skinner, a thief who stole the invisibility formula and is a bit of a cheeky rogue. In the graphic novel he is Dr Hawley Griffin a sociopath, who thinks nothing of dashing a policeman’s brains out in order that he might steal the clothes as he is cold and was captured whilst posing as the Holy Spirit in a girl’s finishing school and impregnating the girls.

We shall jump the one other character that was in the graphics for now, as she is our vampire connection and look at the two who were not starting with Tom Sawyer (Shane West) – agent for the American Secret Service. This character ends up being a surrogate son for Quartermain and, I fear, was only in the film because it was deemed an American character was needed.

The other, not from the graphics – though they hint he was in an earlier League – is Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend). Dorian Gray is from the Oscar Wilde story and cannot die as all age and injury (and sin) is absorbed by his portrait. This is highlighted when he is shot and the bullet wounds heal over. When asked what he is, he replies, “I’m complicated.” Although not in the graphics Townsend’s performance makes Gray one of the best characters, he is supremely arrogant and this in turn makes Gray a reason to watch the film. Quartermain had met Gray when Quartermain himself was still a boy, there is an unexplored history between Gray and our last character.

Mina Harker (Peta Wilson) is our last character and our vampire connection. Before we look at her as a vampire, we should note that, again, the character is radically different from the books. In the books she is Mina Murray (having divorced Jonathon and reverted to her maiden name, in the film she is a widow) and she shows no vampiric traits. In the books she is part of the League because she survived great evil and has a sharp mind - although in both books and film we see the marks left on her by Dracula. In the film she has two neat puncture wound scars, in the graphic her neck is a mangle of scars. Truthfully the graphic novels are not really vampiric and would merely (normally) only gain a Honourable Mention.

In the film she is a full vampire. We believe she has a reflection, she can walk in the sun and she does not sleep in a coffin. However we have examples of her vampiric nature. She feeds, we know that much. When one of the Fantom’s men holds her at knifepoint she overpowers him and feeds from him.

What is interesting with the feeding comes from the aforementioned scene, where she ends up smeared in blood that quickly vanishes and also in a scene with Gray where she tastes her own blood and then, it appears, becomes sexually aroused by the taste.

In a Venetian section of the film we see her vampiric self unleashed to its full capacity. She is able to climb walls, fly and summon a flock of bats as she tears through a rooftop of gunmen. It is one of the best scenes in the film, though I am biased of course.

In the film’s finale we see her in one on one battle and see her rapid healing. Her face is cut and heals quickly and she survives a sword stick through the chest. Her immortality we are not sure about, she confesses herself that she does not know if she can die – although when surviving the sword stick she does say that her heart was missed.

I mentioned the characters failing and it was because they are just not as complicated (despite Gray’s protestation) or as flawed as they are in the graphics. Whilst I truly believe I shouldn’t base my view of a film on what it was conceived from, the characters were just too nicey nice and without depth. If the film and characters were good, despite moving away from the source material, then I wouldn’t find myself in this dichotomy.

The plot of the film is based around greed and an arms race. It is also about double-crossing as the key is the League itself and an attempt to replicate and sell their abilities and technology. It is within this, as with the characters, the film fails us. The very nature of the film relies on a suspension of disbelief but it is impossible to do so. The Nautilus, given its size, could never fit into the Venice canals. The speed in which the League’s secrets are uncovered is boggling; indeed how the workings of the Nautilus were gathered from a few photos in the wheelhouse was beyond me. The CGI (which the film relies on) can be poor in places and that does not help in the suspension of disbelief

This film isn’t bad as a brainless action adventure on a bored Saturday afternoon (such as today when I decided to crack the old DVD out and review it) but it does not draw me to watch it often. The acting is average really, with the exception of Townsend really who is superb. Quartermain is played less as the stuff of Boys Own Adventures and more as Sean Connery.

All in all, though there is no vampire connection, you are better off with the graphic novels, the film itself gets 3.5 out of 10 – whilst Townsend is good, as are the vampiric moments, they are too little to save the film.

There is an official site for the film here.

The imdb page is here.

Vamp or Not? The Blind Dead Series

The Blind Dead series consisted of four films from director Amando de Ossorio, these being “Tombs of the Blind Dead” (1971), “Return of the Evil Dead” (1973), “The Ghost Galleon” (1974) and “Night of the Seagulls” (1975). All four films are collected in an Anchor Bay 5 disc Box-set, all have been restored.

The series was brought to my attention by Leila who told me that, firstly, these were (in the main) great Euro-Horror – enough to make me want to see them - and that also, some of the films could be classed as vampire. In truth Amando de Ossorio does change his premise and mythology, as well as the series’ direction, in each film and thus I intend to look at each film individually in a mass, and therefore unapologetically long, Vamp or Not?

Tombs of the Blind Dead.
First of the series, in which we are introduced to the Blind Dead. The film starts with views of the abandoned village of Berzano, a skeletal hand inching out of a crypt and a woman screaming. This opening is throwaway, but worth noting that it is daylight and not as pathetic as the alternative opening (on the DVD extras) that tried to tie the film in with Planet of the Apes, in a shameless marketing ploy!

At some seaside resort, old school friends Virginia (María Elena Arpón) and Bet (Lone Fleming) bump into each other. They’re pleased to see each other and yet there is a sense of some form of upset in their past. Virginia’s friend Roger (César Burner) turns up and invites Bet to a weekend in the country that they are arranging. Off they go, on a steam train, and we get more of a sense of issues – though it, at first, seems like Virginia is jealous of the attention Roger gives Bet.

We then discover that, in school, Bet and Virginia had a lesbian affair and the issue seems to be more one of embarrassment on Virginia’s part. Discovering that there is no stop before their destination, Virginia gathers her bag and jumps off the moving train. This is noticed by Bet and Roger and they pull the alarm cord – the train driver refuses to stop.

Virginia reaches the ruins of Berzano and decides to camp down for the night. In the ruins we have seen graves with ankhs rather than crosses – and I’ll return to the specific design of those later. Anyway, we begin to see mist or smoke rising from the graves and then the blind dead awaken. On first view they look very much like desiccated zombies but let’s take a closer look at them.

They do move very slowly, a zombie attribute, however they seem to be a little more sentient than your typical zombie. At one point one reaches through a break in a door to lift the bar that is locking it, this shows an awareness that you wouldn’t often see in a zombie – late on in the film we see one use a sword – again tool use is not a common zombie attribute. In this first encounter however we see something that is most definitely out with the zombie genre – they ride horses. Indeed, though we are never sure where these horses materialise from, they end up chasing Virginia down when she steals a horse. Of course she is caught. Just a note about the horseback scenes, filmed in slow motion with a kind of electronic echo to the sound of the hooves these are hauntingly atmospheric scenes.

The next day the two friends go looking for her on horses they hired from their hotel and seem to get stuck in the abandoned village when their horses bolt. Comment is made by them that the ankh’s in the graveyard are satanic in nature, which irked me but is corrected later. However, they are found by the police, who have Virginia’s body. Her body is covered in bite marks but they are not enough to have killed her. She has died through loss of blood and this is a clear vampiric indication. These dead are not flesh-eaters but blood drinkers and if you look at the screenshot the bites do not look like the typical zombie attack bite marks shown in cinema as they are not deep at all.

The fact that Virginia rises as one of the dead could come from either the zombie or vampire myth. However, when she does rise and attacks the very creepy morgue attendant (Simón Arriaga) she goes for the neck and is clearly drinking blood rather than eating flesh.

For now I’ll jump the next part of the film, which explains how the blind dead were created, and follow what happens with Virginia. Rather than heading out and attacking the first warm-blooded human she sees, she heads for Bet’s mannequin factory. This shows a purposefulness that is not often associated with zombies. Bet is not there but her assistant Nina (Verónica Llimera) is. Nina manages to set Virginia alight. Fire is not a common zombie killing tool, and certainly we would expect a zombie to lumber on and not scream in the flames as Virginia does and fire, of course, is often used against vampires. It should be noted that Virginia is the only victim we see rise.

Jumping back, Roger and Bet go to see a Professor Candal (Francisco Sanz) an expert on the Templars. We discover that these Templars returned from the Holy Land obsessed by the occult and having adopted the symbol of the Pharaohs (the ankh) as the symbol of everlasting life. They conducted the Tenebrae Ritual, which in itself is an interesting name. Tenebrae is Latin for darkness and is most commonly associated with religious services conducted by Christian churches to commemorate Christ’s death over the Easter period that are performed at night. Whether this was used in the film as a corruption of the Christian rituals or simply because of the Latin translation I do not know. We see the ritual and a virgin girl is cut many times by knights on horseback and then the knights feed from her blood – using virgin blood to gain life after death is rather vampiric.

The Knights were tried for their crimes and hung, their eyes pecked out by crows – hence them being blind and forcing them to hunt by sound. There is a marvelous scene as Bet watches (Candal's son) Pedro’s girl being devoured, trying to remain silent and yet she can hear her own heartbeat, so can the Blind Dead. Hearing the heartbeat of a victim is often used in vampire films and, whilst the inclusion here is less to do with a vampiric nature and more to do with them being blind and, perhaps, our own centre of life (the heart) betraying us to the dead, it is worthy of noting in a genre sense.

The other aspects to look at are the fact that whilst sunlight seems to be ineffective (it appears that Virginia is on the prowl during the day, and the opening scene is in daylight) the blind dead by rote rise at night (to the ringing of the abbey bell) and then return to their graves – certainly a trait more vampiric than zombie, indeed in traditional vampire myth a need for the dead to return to their graves during the day was a sure sign of vampirism. It is also clear that the blood they drink sustains their life, but does not heal them or offer youth - Virginia, once dead, maintains her wounds, the blind dead have no eyes and have become desiccated husks.

Just to note that the ending is really quite downbeat – it is a fantastic ending to a marvelous piece of Euro-horror. Okay, the effects are a bit hokey, but that is part of the joy.

So a real crossover film, and not a standard vampire flick, but there is enough in this to push me towards believing this movie should have a place in vampire filmographies.

The imdb page for Tombs of the Blind Dead is here.

Return of the Evil Dead

As I said in my introduction, the mythology and direction of these films changed from movie to movie. This is less a sequel than it is a re-imagining, and begins in the 14th Century in the village of Bouzano (note the spelling has changed) in Portugal on the Spanish border. What we see here is the death of the Templars, however this time they are not arrested but taken by the village folk. To prevent them from returning and hunting them the villagers burn out their eyes (as opposed to crows pecking them out) and then they are burnt to death (rather than being hung). As they die they swear revenge.

Modern day Bouzano and the village is to celebrate the burning festival (remember in the first film the whole region was uninhabited, the village abandoned). Guys are being built to be burnt, and if you look at the screenshot you’ll see that they are not only in Templar robes but they sport rather wicked looking fangs. We see a gang of kids attack misshapen hunchback Murdo (José Canalejas). He is saved by a young woman called Moncha (Loli Tovar).

Jack Marlowe (Tony Kendall) has come to the village as he is a firework specialist and meets with Mayor Duncan (Fernandon Sancho), the mayor’s fiancée Vivian (Esperanza Roy) and the mayor’s right hand man Da Costa (Frank Braña). Vivian takes Jack to the ruined abbey and it becomes readily apparent that they have history. At the ruins they meet Murdo and he tells them that the dead are unhappy and explains the ritual that the Templars used to cheat death. We see the ritual again, but it has changed from the first film. The title Tenebrae is not used and there is no cutting with swords from horseback, this time the sacrifice is stabbed by dagger, her blood gathered in a bowl and drank by the knights whilst their leader eats the heart.

Murdo obviously has a grudge, in respect to the way he has been treated, as he has kidnapped a girl and sacrifices her, that night, in the graveyard. As her blood spills upon the soil, the ground smokes and the dead rise. It is clear, therefore, that these dead have been dormant since their deaths and it is blood which revives them. This is, of course, rather vampiric. Again horses appear from nowhere.

The first to be attacked are Moncha and her lover. This provides one interesting insight - the Templars hammer at the door for entry with the hilt of a sword. Rather like Virginia, in the first movie, Moncha tries to get away by stealing a Templar horse. Unlike Virginia she does get away and we discover, in the process, a little about the horses. We still do not know where they have come from but we now know that they, like the Templars, are dead.

The Templars attack the village and seem intent neither on flesh eating nor blood drinking. In this case they are interested only in slaughter, mainly with sword, their motivation is revenge. This is really not very zombie like and much more the sort of behaviour we’d expect from more sentient undead. We discover, via the film, that fireworks (used like a bomb) and fire are effective against them. Given their mortal deaths, fear of fire seems logical. None of those slaughtered appear to rise again.

The majority of the film is a siege with a handful of survivors in a church. The use of the church does not seem to have a religious basis, after all the Templars are trying to get in, but more down to a big solid door to hide behind. The real danger in the film is human greed and hatred. It is at the end of the film that things get interesting. We have three survivors, Jack, Vivian and a small child. They decide to sneak away and blindfold the child to keep her quiet (on the basis that if she can’t see she won’t scream). They are edging past the blind dead when the child takes off her blindfold and screams. The dead don’t react. Jack touches one and it falls and then they all fall. They have died with the sunrise. This is very vampiric and whilst they do not crumble to dust, given that they are fairly desiccated already, nor burst into flame I believe this gives us a rather large tell. The unfortunate aspect of the ending is that it is, almost, a happy ending – unlike in the first film which was wonderfully disturbing.

I’ll mention that the child refers to the Templars as skeletons, whilst they are certainly skeletal in appearance a better description appears in the next film. The Templars also seem, if anything, more intelligent than in the previous film. At one point they trap a child against a doorway, by fastening her coat with a dagger, rather than just killing her, so that she becomes bait for the adult survivors.

So, in film number two we have immortality via a blood ritual, rebirth through a blood ritual, a desire for revenge, a fear of flame, cognisant thought, death in the sun and the villager’s be-fanged representations. Whilst the siege aspect was reminiscent of “Night of the Living Dead”, I believe this film also deserves a place in vampire filmographies. Like the first this is also a great piece of Euro-horror and is definitely worth a watch despite, again, some hokey effects and, in this film, some very orange blood.

The imdb page for Return of the Evil Dead is here.

The Ghost Galleon

This is a very weak entry in the series, to my way of thinking the weakest actually, and yet it has a certain something. Once more Amando de Ossorio changes the rules, although it is difficult to tell if he has changed the basic mythology again as we get very little in the way of background in this movie. What made this more difficult to watch was the terrible dubbing. Giving the first two movies were in original language and then subtitled one wonders why Anchor Bay couldn’t do the same with this one.

Over the credits we see a horned skull with glowing eyes; this is actually plot necessary and not just for show. After the credits we meet Noemi (Bárbara Rey) who works for model agency owner Lillian (Maria Perschy). Her roommate and lover Kathy (Blanca Estrada) is missing. She demands to know from Lillian where Kathy is but Lillian pleads ignorance - that is until Noemi threatens to go to the police. She is told to meet Lillian at the docks and it is revealed that Kathy, and another model Lorena (Margarita Merino) are out at sea for a publicity stunt for client Howard Tucker (Jack Taylor).

They make radio contact with the girls and they say a fog is descending. A galleon comes out of the fog and, ignorant of the warning flares the girls put up, hits their boat. Their boat is taking on a little water and they ask for rescue. Noemi is incensed so Tucker has his right hand man Sergio (Manuel de Blas) tie her up until the girl’s are rescued – so that she does not spoil the stunt.

Lorena decides to board the ship and Kathy falls into a sleep that seems unnatural, not even waking fully when Lorena screams. Later Kathy does go aboard, falls asleep in a cabin and is then got by the blind dead – who seem to spend most of their time in crates. Meanwhile the others can’t find the girls by helicopter and so go to see Professor Grüber (Carlos Lemos) at the metrological station. He says that fog never forms in the area of sea they are looking at. He is dismissive until they mention the galleon, a ship that the Professor has heard appears and whichever boat sees it vanishes. Tucker is going out to sea to find them and Grüber insists on coming too. So we end up with the Professor, Tucker, Sergio, Lillian and (forced to come along) Noemi on Tucker’s yacht. A mist falls and they see the galleon, though the girls’ boat has now vanished.

They board the galleon but it seems deserted. Grüber insists that the boat is not actually real, neither is the mist, that they have strayed into another dimension – bear with me, we get more on this later. The galleon, from a distance, looks pretty darn rubbish as it is clearly a model but on board, where the mist puts everything into a perpetual night, it is pretty darn atmospheric. They look down to their launch and it vanishes – returned to their dimension says Grüber – they end up bunking down for the night. As the others sleep Noemi explores, looking for Kathy. She is banging away in the hold when the blind dead emerge from their crates and attack. They injure her throat but she manages to crawl up to deck before being grabbed and taken down into the hold.

Once in the hold we finally see their feeding (up to now we only heard Lorena scream and saw Kathy carried off). In the first film they were blood drinkers, in film two they simply killed but in this they decapitate the victim and then eat the flesh. The eating of flesh is particularly zombie (though not unknown in the vampire genre) but a zombie wouldn’t normally decapitate (with a sword) the victim first. This method of feeding really is an oddity.

The next day Grüber finds a ship’s log and things get clarified (at least a little) this 16th century galleon was carrying the sarcophagus/crates of the Templars – plus treasure (don’t they always). There is no mention of any blood ritual, just that the Templars had been excommunicated by the pope. They are described as mummified corpses, a much better description than that of skeletal (from film 2) as they still have a leathery skin. The Professor also points out a certain smell in the air like a chemical some plants give out that causes a narcotic effect – hence them sleeping so much and much too damn convenient to my way of thinking.

Exploring the ship further they discover the treasure and Sergio is gathering as much as he can when the dead awaken. The four manage to get to deck but the dead are coming for them. Suddenly Grüber remembers that he knows exorcism (!) and Cushings a cross together (ie ties two bits of wood together). Unusually he pours petrol from a lighter over the binding and sets the cross alight. Using this he forces the dead back into the hold.

Now, to be honest, we never do know whether it was the cross itself, Grüber’s rather unimpressive words of exorcism or the fire which pushes them back. All we do know is that it is successful and that, in the second film, they are afraid of fire – though given that the rules change from film to film this means little. If we could be certain that it is the cross then the reaction would be vampiric but we cannot really tell.

Stuck on the boat (a passing ocean liner does not see them as it is in our dimension) they decide to go on the offensive and throw the dead’s crates overboard. This causes the galleon to pass back into our dimension as the ghouls (as the dialogue describes them) are gone. They decide to swim to shore, leaving Grüber to be rescued later as he can’t swim. The three in the water are using a plank as a raft but it cannot support their weight and the weight of the treasure carried by Sergio. He tries to kill Tucker, to lower the weight, and is stabbed by Lillian for his trouble.

On board ship, the skull (from the credits) that was in the treasure room suddenly gains glowing eyes and the galleon bursts into flames, the smoke suffocating the Professor. Lillian and Tucker get back to dry land and collapse on the beach. Suddenly out of the water the dead begin to surface. Now we should note that it is daytime and so the dying in sunlight rule has vanished somewhere. The final shot of the film is a point of view shot of the two survivors as the dead descend on them.

It is a great ending, returning to ending on a note of doom, to what is truthfully a weak film – strong in atmosphere I’ll grant you – but the story sucks. It is as if it was suggested that a new blind dead movie be made and, well wouldn’t it be cool if they were on a galleon? How do we get them there? We’ll make something up. The only real evidence for ‘Vamp or Not?’ we have (taking from this film only) is perhaps they were scared by the cross and, more on the zombie side, flesh-eating. I’d have to fall on not vampire for this movie.

The imdb page for The Ghost Galleon is here.

Night of the Seagulls

The most intriguing film title of the series, certainly, this was actually one of my favourites (if not my favourite). That said I could understand if fans of the earlier films were turned off by this, it is so unlike those which went before. Think Lovecraft, think essence of Dagon and Shadow over Innsmouth and you are about on the right track. This, like the last film, was dubbed but the dubbing was much less intrusive.

The film starts in the middle ages and a couple travelling to their new home are lost. The man leaves his wife at the cart whilst he goes to a house to ask for help. We see the (living) Templars riding along. They reach the man, who has been unable to gain entry to the house and they stab him. Then they nick off with his wife; serves her right for wearing an outfit that, forget not containing her cleavage, fails to contain her nipples!

She is taken to their castle and tied before the foot of a statue that has all the hallmarks of Lovecraft. She is sacrificed and her heart is placed in the mouth of the statue. We then see the Templars descend upon her, presumably to drink her blood, though that is not clear. Crabs then eat her dismembered body. I said it is not clear if they drank her blood but what is clear is that they do not do anything similar to their sacrifices once they, themselves, are dead. I say that not only because we do not see it but because when we see the crabs take a sacrifice later, she is not dismembered. This is the only background we get to the Templars in this film, except for a comment that they originally came from France.

Cut to the present day (or it was when this was shot, the clothing however never survived the seventies!) Doctor Henry Stein (Víctor Petit) and his wife Joan (María Kosti) are taking over a rural practice. The town seems very unfriendly, not liking outsiders and the retiring Doctor (Javier de Rivera) only advices them to leave and, if they don’t, not to pry and not to go out at night. Of course they do pry and they do go out at night. Eventually they befriend a mentally handicapped young man called Teddy (José Antonio Calvo) who is regularly beaten by the locals and orphan young lady Lucy (Sandra Mozarowsky), both are clearly scared.

The story, as it unfolds, is that the Templars continue with their sacrifices and the villagers are complicit. Every year the Templars rise from their graves and, on seven consecutive nights, seven maidens are selected by the villagers to be sacrificed. They do this as to not comply would see them all slaughtered by the Templars. Of course the Doctor gets involved, Lucy is selected and he interferes leading to the wrath of the Templars descending upon them. This is a brief précis that does not do the film justice, but there is little to help the ‘Vamp or Not?’ until the ending and the précis is short but accurate, the true strength of the film is in the amount of atmosphere and paranoia it manages to produce and that must be seen to be appreciated.

I will add that, after our last adventure out at sea, this film sees the return of the Templars’ dead horses. Once again some of the horses are stolen by mortals in order to get away from the dead. This time, however, the Templars seem to have the horses well trained and they take the horse thieves to where they want – i.e. the Templars’ castle.

During the film Henry manages to kill a Templar by setting it on fire. However, this is not new in the series and, if anything, these blind dead seem less bothered by flames than they did in previous films. Moving on, the film ends with Henry and Joan trapped in the Templars’ castle, with dead rising from sarcophagi. Henry has realised that they have selected Joan to be the next sacrifice. The idol stands above them and they, after putting much effort in, smash it.

The results are spectacular. The dead collapse all at once, dying. The factor that makes this spectacular is the profusion of gushing blood that floods from the eye-sockets as they die. There doesn’t seem to be a logical reason for this, over than the fact that it looks pretty darn cool. However, we can tell from this that it was the idol, which the Templars worshipped, that gave them life beyond death, and whilst a physical idol that bestows undeath is not unheard of in vampire movies it is not common, nor is it a strong indicator to a movie being genre.

With this one, like the last, I’m leaning towards not vampire. Yet it is a fantastically moody film, brimming with atmosphere, that both fans of 70s Euro-horror generally and those who love Lovecraftian fare should really want to experience. Incidentally, I mentioned the film’s title being intriguing, it comes from the fact that when the Templars ride, though it is night, seagulls cry and those birds are said to be the anguished souls of the maidens who have been sacrificed.

The imdb page for Night of the Seagulls is here.

Additional thoughts on the series
I have examined each film, looking for vampiric elements and yet, as a series, I have to say this is worth the time of any aficionado of 70s horror, not just those seeking vampiric or zombie goodness. Even the weakest of the films, the Ghost Galleon, is so much stronger than Ossorio’s earlier and, quite frankly, rubbish Fangs of the Living Dead.

If I had one main issue with the series it is that Amando de Ossorio seemed obsessed, at least through the first three films, with putting a rape/attempted rape scene in the film. In the first film Pedro rapes Bet, in the next Da Costa attempts to rape Vivian and in the third it is intimated that Sergio raped Noemi. I didn’t mention this in the main body because the events added nothing to what I was looking at (i.e. was it a vampire orientated film). My objection to these scenes was not born of a prudish nature but because they were gratuitous and, over three films, became somewhat of a pattern. Perhaps Ossori wanted to show just how despicable humanity is, and therefore we deserve the fate dealt to us by the blind dead, I don’t know.

That said, despite the last paragraph, these films brim with atmosphere and as all four are available in one set I’d encourage all horror fans generally to give them a go.

BBC Dracula - first thoughts

I've just watched the BBCs new version of Dracula and my first thoughts were it was pretty good.

The story is radically different from Stoker's original and despite being worried that Marc Warren was perhaps too young to play Dracula I was impressed by his performance and impressed by the way the Count was portrayed. This is a brutal, evil and calculating Dracula.

The show was on BBC 1 and, when it finished, on BBC 4, there was a 30 minute amusing clip show about Dracula called Transylvania Babylon - I do hope that it is an extra on the DVD.

No review, as the Directors cut DVD comes out in a couple of weeks, so I'll review this when I have that - the programme as it stood had moments where I thought there might have been expansion and I'm hopping we'll see that in the Director's Cut. Not too sure about the ending, but I'll explain when I review - thus this is an advanced spoiler warning also.

Netherbeast Incorporated - trailer

I've mentioned this movie a couple of times, a comedic corporate vampire film, that is looking fairly darn good. There is now a trailer for the film, embedded below. The homepage is here and the MySpace site is here.

Pure Blood – review

Director: Ken Kaplan

Release Date: 2001

Contains spoilers

You would be forgiven for thinking that South African movie Pure Blood was going to be shlock horror, given that its DVD release is by Troma – the same company that gave us the Toxic Avenger and, the wonderfully titled, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown. The truth, however, is that this is a very strange, low budget, almost art-house film of surrealistic proportions and this surrealism is both the saving grace and downfall of the movie.

The DVD opens with a brief word from Ken Kaplan in which he makes it very clear that this is a political movie, a movie that shows a futile and disturbing grasping for the old ways of apartheid during the upheavals of the political shift in South Africa. He also states that it is a zombie movie but, despite the fact that Kaplan is the film’s director, the very fact that I am reviewing this should give you an indication that it is a vampire movie – though an obscure and bizarre vampire movie at that.

The film proper starts with some written notes, interspersed with images of dog obedience and soldiers, surrounding an experiment performed by one of the old regime’s Generals (Marius Weyers). The notes on screen are annoying in that they flicker and shift, making them difficult to read. As the film progresses we learn more about the experiments but it seems that the General wanted to create a person of pure blood, a person whose blood could offer immortality to the regime and its members. He took a virgin girl and impregnated her; the resultant off-spring would have pure blood. The girl, Gertrude, grew to be a woman (played by Aletta Bezuidenhout) who was tormented by her younger self (played by Amanda Lane) and this inner torment is key to the movie. Older Gertrude then lived for her son, Faan (Carl Beukes).

We see Faan returning home from work on his bicycle. He is in a uniform and is a rookie policeman. When he gets home his mother and their friend Hope (Nomsa Nene), who appears to live in a small shack on their property, are in the living room. He tells his mother that he has seen a man hanging around outside. He goes to see who it is and we hear a scream from inside. Going back into the house Faan sees that there is an older man in the living room, who identifies himself as Eugene (Danny Keogh), the brother whom Faan had been told was dead.

As the film progresses we see that there is a relationship, from the past that Eugene wishes to resurrect, between the older brother and the mother. I have read comments regarding the incestuous nature of this but it clearly is not. The narrative makes it abundantly apparent that Faan and Eugene have different mothers and there is no biological connection between Eugene and Gertrude. Faan is pleased to see his brother, Gertrude less than pleased.

We see Faan giving blood. These are for blood tests as he hopes to be promoted to the elite flying squad. In the police station we also meet a member of the squad, Craig (Chris Vorster) who always carries a portable electric torture device – he has no moral qualms about using it as it is a device to reach the truth in his opinion. We also see a blossoming romance between Faan and Becky (Emily McArthur), who is a member of a private security firm.

Gertrude makes cakes for a living and is commissioned to make many cakes for an event that will be attended by the top South African politicians and police chiefs. She always uses red icing sugar but has run out of food colouring. Faan finds (what he thinks is) some in a cupboard called the “blood of sacrifice”. Gertrude reacts strongly to it and says it needs throwing out. Later Eugene finds it and recognises it. He pours some on a plate and dips his finger in it, it burns like acid.

He takes the blood of sacrifice to an abandoned museum and starts shouting at his father, the General. He throws the blood of sacrifice to the floor and is suddenly flanked by two masked soldiers as smoke pours from the liquid, solidifying into his father. The General at first appears like a TV image, grey and static filled, but quickly solidifies to colour. He tells Eugene that Faan is the key, he has pure blood. Eugene was a failed experiment as his mother lied about her virginity. He gives Eugene a syringe of his own blood, he wants Eugene to inject the young man and then bring him to the museum.

Gertrude is behind on a cake order and Faan helps her finish the cakes. Late into the night he falls asleep at the kitchen table and is awoken the next morning by a knock at the door. It is the Doctor (Joss Levine) and his wife (Jennifer Steyn) who are to buy the cakes. They have not been iced. Faan goes to wake his mother but she does not move. The Doctor looks in on her and, on moving the sheets, we see the bed is stained with blood – she has slashed her own wrists and bled to death.

Later Eugene returns home, Faan wishes to call the ambulance to take her corpse but Eugene refuses. Once Faan has left the house, Eugene injects her with the blood. When Faan gets home his brother is finishing the cakes and then the mother walks in. In truth she is quite zombie like. She rarely speaks, her movements are jerky and the only thing she seems to do is make cakes. The Doctor and his wife turn up and Faan does not know how he will explain her miraculous recovery, but when they enter the kitchen she has transformed to her younger self. This version of her is much more articulate and of course is not recognised. They sit for dinner but young Gertrude gets the Doctor alone and manages to inject him – giving him the needle of blood once he has been infected.

Soon both the Doctor’s wife, in a needlestick injury, and Eugene have been injected and infected. Faan, at first, does not know what is going on but the ever watchful Hope does. The vampires concoct a scheme to use their infected blood in the icing on the cakes in order to turn the new heads of South Africa.

The vampirism is strange and unusual. Once infected, they get an intense desire to ingest blood and their reaction to it seems almost narcotic. We see them using blood packs and at one point they kidnap a child, whom they siphon in a clearly disturbing scene. They are sensitive to light and they wear earplugs as their hearing has become incredibly acute. Just ingesting the merest amount of the infected blood will turn a person.

Gertrude is an interesting character, at first she seems to transform between her older and younger self. The older simply goes on, not realising she is dead, the younger is twisted and hateful for the way she was treated and is clearly manipulating the situation. Eventually these two become two separate entities.

The film has some startling images, from a vampire sense, the infected Becky being hooked to many blood packs, or licking blood from the road at a car wreck work very well. The dreamlike imagery when Eugene is infected and he falls to the bed awash in blood is fantastic and the death of the general, killed by Eugene via an injection of more blood, is great in a visual sense with blood rising around him as he is surrounded by, what seems to be, representatives of the various peoples of South Africa.

The film stock quality is of a lower grade but we loose sight of that as we are drawn into the film. I found the acting good, I have read comments that the acting is appalling and I found this unfair, all the cast seemed natural, nothing seemed forced. Certainly this is not mainstream Hollywood acting, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In many respects I got the feeling of perhaps an Australian movie in the tone of the film, I’ve always found Australian movies to have a certain quality within them that makes it clear they are from Down Under and this, for some reason, shares that ineffable quality.

The problem with the film is within the surrealism. We are never too sure about what is occurring and the exposition is low. It might not have been a factor, but unfortunately it is. I wanted to more understand what was happening to the characters and this was not delivered. It is a distinct lack in narrative that leaves us cold within the film and that is a shame. I think, perhaps, an over-enthusiasm for the strong imagery involved made the filmmakers loose sight of the fact that a narrative is a key ingredient in a film, even one as surreal as this. As the film reaches its ending we become more confused, the film offers us even less narrative and whilst we get the bare building blocks of what has gone on we certainly get no clear answers.

Without doubt, this is a strange film, worth seeing from a world cinema perspective and also worth seeing for a very different take on vampirism, but ultimately it proves unsatisfying. 4 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Vamp or Not? Shaolin Vs The Evil Dead

With a title containing the phrase ‘The Evil Dead’ you would be forgiven for asking why I am doing a ‘Vamp or Not?’ feature on this film. After all ‘The Evil Dead’ is one of the most famous zombie film series and, whilst this has nothing to do with Raimi’s series, one would automatically think zombie.

Then we get to the back of the DVD box and read, “When the immortal king of the vampires (Kit Cheung) is accidentally reawakened…” and this, obviously, caught my eye.

So is it a vampire movie? Strangely we do begin with a procession of kyonsi, the hopping vampires made famous in films such as Mr Vampire. They are being led by the priest Brother White (Gordon Liu) and his assistants Sun (Jacky Woo) – who offers the slapstick comedic relief – and the young boy Fire (Shi Xiao-Hu). Although these are most definitely, to look at, kyonsi in the film’s dialogue they are referred to as zombies. However, there is some cross-over between zombies and vampires in the way kyonsi are portrayed in the various Hong Kong movies, plus the dialogue in this is dubbed and the translation for the dubbing is often suspect (at one point the prayer scrolls that are placed on the foreheads of the kyonsi are referred to as voodoo paper – really mismatching myths).

The film actually changes some of the reasoning behind how kyonsi behave. Traditionally kyonsi hop because rigor mortis has made them stiff. In this Brother White says they hop because he makes them do so. They are quite capable of walking but if they are hopping then they are kept too busy to cause trouble. When asked why they have their arms outstretched it is said that it is to keep a distance between each one so that they do not trip over each other.

When it looks like it might rain, Brother White stores his kyonsi and the three look for a restaurant. The restaurant seems odd but the two assistants are happily eating when Brother White enters. He casts a spell so that he might see and realises that the noodles are maggots and all the staff and patrons are dead. These dead are more like zombies, rotting with only magic making them look alive. It seems they are in a haunted village or village of the dead. Cue big fight sequence. The fight sequence gives us three main plot points. Brother White stops the dead by pulling their souls into spirit eggs. He then uses these spirit eggs to release the souls and enable the dead to move on later in the film.

The next plot point is the fact that Fire accidentally swallows a spirit egg which leads, later in the film, to possession, a distending stomach and then, right towards the very end of the film, Fire birthing the spirit (whilst on the toilet) as a young boy. This spirit child is referred to as Egghead and proves to be a most unfunny and annoying character.

The final plot point is that they are rescued by Brother Black (Louis Fan) and his assistant Moon (Shannon Voh). Black destroys the spirits of the dead rather than helping them and is referred to as White’s brother, though I think that is more to do with a religious order thing. I say this because Black is jealous that White became head of their order, subsequently leaving it, and, whilst all the assistants refer to the two masters as uncle, he states at one point that he was the previous head of the order’s only son and should have been next in line.

There is, through the film, a blossoming romance between Sun and Moon, curtailed because of their masters and the deep-seated need in Black to oppose White.

Black resurrects a midget zombie in order to convince some villagers that they are in danger; this was a zombie earlier laid to rest by White. When the zombie is let loose it sucks the blood from all the livestock leaving two fang marks in each carcass. Again we have a zombie/vampire crossover. Black then catches the creature he has let loose and destroys it in front of the villagers making them trust him. Black ends up using black magic to try and con the village out of their valuables and casts a dark spell which takes over the virgin boys of the village transforming them into the ‘virgin army’.

Black and White confront each other in a game of phantom chess, Black uses the virgin army which now look like kyonsi and White uses paper warriors. There is some summoning of creatures, including a very vampire like bat – but this is throwaway. As the child kyonsi are defeated they revert back to the human forms and White triumphs. Defeated, Black then breaks into the forbidden area of the ancestral tomb of the village and accidentally awakens the King of the Vampires.

I say that but the film never refers to the creature as King of the Vampires and we see little of his powers. This is due to the biggest problem with the film. It is only half a film. From what I can gather director Douglas Kung was enamoured with the format of the Kill Bill films and wanted to make a two part story. The film ends abruptly after Black manages to stop the King and then becomes possessed by his spirit. What seems to have been missed is the fact that both parts of Kill Bill can be watched independently, I don’t think this can be – or at least it suffers if you try. The end credits have a trailer sequence of scenes from the second film, that certainly makes it look like there is going to be an army of Kyonsi on the march in the second film. That said there is no sign, as of yet, of a release of film number 2.

The dubbing is not great, but is functional. One wonders why the DVD has English dubbing only and yet also has English subtitles. I for one would have liked to see the film in its original language with subtitles. Some of the sfx work well and, though we can tell they are cgi, they are not obtrusive. The scene where the restaurant, at the beginning of the film, is forced back to its proper, decayed, form from its illusionary opulence is very impressive. There is some great slapstick, as one would expect from a Hong Kong movie, but some of the jokes – surrounding peeing, penis size and a young boy birthing a spirit child in an exploding toilet fell flat to this viewer. The biggest issue, as I said, is the fact it has only half a story and this makes me glad that I decided to do a ‘Vamp or Not?’ as any review score would have suffered because of the lack of conclusion (and no sign of the sequel despite this film’s release being in 2004).

Is it vampire? If I had to rely on the King of the Vampires I would have to say no, there is no indication that he is anything other than dead. The midget zombie’s habit of sucking blood from livestock is more like it, though I can’t help but think of overtones of the chupacabra. I am going to go for vampire, however, because of the presence of the kyonsi – even if they call them zombies. They are the traditional Chinese vampire form. That said, I wouldn’t bother watching this until (and if) the second part is released – they really will need to be watched back to back.

The imdb page is here.