and Falling, fly – review

Author: Skyler White

Release date: 2010

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: In a dark and seedy underground of burned-out rock stars and angels-turned-vampires, a revolutionary neuroscientist and a fallen angel must pit medicine against mythology in an attempt to erase their tortured pasts… but at what price?

Olivia, vampire and fallen angel of desire, is hopeless… and damned. Since the fall from Eden, she has hungered for love, but fed only on desire. Dominic O’Shaughnessy is a neuroscientist plagued by impossible visions. When his research and her despair collide at L’Otel Matillide – a subterranean hell of beauty, demons and dreams – rationalist and angel unite in a clash of desire and damnation that threaten to destroy them both.

In this fractured Hotel of the Damned, Olivia and Dominic discover the only force consistent in their opposing realities is the deep, erotic gravity between them. Bound to each other finally in a knot of interwoven freedoms, Dominic and Olivia – the vision-touched scientist and the earthbound angel, reborn and undead – encounter the mystery of love and find it is both fall… and flight.

Review: Skyler White was good enough to contact me and ask me to review this, her debut novel. Between our first communiqué and getting the book I was also contacted by my friend Derek, from over at Mondo Vampire, suggesting I might want to read the book. A recommendation I took in good faith as Derek has excellent taste in literature and… well let me just say wow. I say that with the full force of jealousy having read one of the best crafted debuts that I have had the pleasure of coming across.

However, you will want more nitty-gritty than my enthusiastic gushing and rightly so because this book deserves it. Skyler White has, with consummate skill, crafted not only a darkly passionate book that does wonderfully unusual things with the genre, she has crafted a book that explores desire and spirituality in a way I haven’t seen for some time. She draws a gothic landscape perhaps with a tint of Tanith Lee but opens a philosophical vein with a scalpel of eroticism that was shaded with an edge of Milan Kundera.

But, to our lore. Olivia – and all the other vampires – are fallen angels of desire. Earthbound, with their wings and shadows stored in their tombs they are forced to subsist on the blood of man. They feed through quills on the razor edge of their teeth and beneath the nails. These can become dull, unable to scratch unnoticed but tearing and murderous unless they are sharpened by one of their sisters. They must feed on desire, or fear, and their teeth break if they bite someone who does not desire or fear them. They are shapeshifters in that their body type alters to meet the desire of one they are with, become taller or shorter, gaining or losing body mass, their breasts enlarging or shrinking. They do not see themselves in the mirror – just what others desire, they are virgins as their sex is closed and monstrous and their flesh is insensate. This is the basic lore for the vampires, though there is much to explore within the book.

Dominic, on the other hand, is a realist and believes that Olivia and her sisters are self deluded, only convincing themselves that they are vampires, and thus he seeks to cure them of their delusion. He has to anchor himself in scientific reality to save his sanity as he is a reborn, plagued with the memories of a myriad past lives all seeming as real as his memories from this life.

Both characters were beautifully drawn and skilfully manoeuvred to allow Skyler to explore the nature of desire and the clash between the supernatural and the scientific. A book that should be in all vampire genre fans collections, as well as readers of damn good, thought provoking prose. 9 out of 10.

The Last Vampire on Earth – review

Director: Vitaliy Versace

Release date: 2010

Contains spoilers

There are times that it becomes difficult to get over the dislike of a product. Try as I might I could not bring myself to like this – despite an interesting premise coiled at the centre of the film and some, truthfully unexpected, rather nice photography lurking within the film. It wasn't actually the amateur level performances that killed me off, nor was it the apparently poor research in places – we’ll get to both those issues, however. It was the fact that this had little in the way of its own identity – becoming a Twilight wannabe, and strangely inverting the core character types in the process.

The film begins with a voice over telling us that “in previous centuries we’ve taken the idea of monsters, witches and vampires to heart.” It then admonishes us saying we are guilty of fearing that which we don’t understand. Actually, if the film is done right it is fear of what will rend us limb from limb, cast a killer hex on us or drink our blood until we die and rise as a soulless creature of the night. But, I guess in this post-Twilight age vampires (et al) can be just too fluffy.

Welcome to bitchville USA – or so you’d think listening to the mouthy kid having a go at a passing girl and then the pale kid. The pale kid is Aurelius (Michael Bole). So, he is pale and has a weird name, and the film is called last vampire on earth… hmm… methinks we have a contender for the vampire of the piece. I do have to say that, whilst their inexperience shines through, both main leads at least try their damndest and Bole really does try to put on the pouty vampire persona.

He is heading into lit class (I guess a filler lesson given we discover he is majoring in haematology). Also heading in there is Chloe (McKenzie Grimmett). The Professor (Charles Creager) informs them that they are to study Dracula and, not only that, they will be expected to perform a play of it for their grades. No-one volunteers for a role and so he hands out the role of Dracula to Aurelius and Mina to Chloe. Afterwards Chloe tells her bff Melissa (Keri Graham) about this – who comments that it probably won’t be a stretch for Aurelius, what with him being pale and mysterious. At least the dialogue between Melissa and Chloe sounded fairly natural because when we hear the other kids talking about the play – well it sounds as though they are reading from cue cards, their dialogue is that stilted.

So, long story short, Chloe and Aurelius hang out to learn lines and practice and become close (eventually taking walks together holding hands and everything). Chloe is the preacher’s daughter and she invites him to church. Afterwards he is invited to dinner (both times it is the same fried chicken dinner... what... I'm just observing here). Here is our poor research wrapped around the kernel of a good idea. When he says grace the preacher, Melvin (Kevin N Glaser), prays to Jehovah God and in conversation he is shocked to hear that Aurelius wants to be a haematologist, as blood is sacred. Okay, so he is a Jehovah’s Witness. In that case they were not at church but at kingdom hall and he wouldn’t be a preacher he’d be an elder. I’m no fan of evangelical religions but I respect beliefs enough to suggest you should get the terminology right. Further, I’m actually unsure whether a witness would be horrified by the concept of haematology. The religion precludes the ingestion of blood (and by default transfusions) but to study blood to then create medicinal cures for viruses, for instance, I stand to be corrected but I would think that would not be frowned upon at least for a non-witness. Vampires, of course, would be a no-go and this is the kernel of a good idea.

So, Aurelius is a vampire, he pukes up human food (out of sight of Chloe’s family) and buys blood from a blood donation collector. We discover he can move very quickly (he plays himself at table tennis) and he says he is over 2000 years old. How does he say this? Well he gives Chloe info about vampires as a clue and she tells him that she knows what he is and he says that she should say it… you know the script, its lifted straight from Twilight except that he is 20 not 17, how long as he been 20… 2028 years. He heard Jesus speak and thinks he was a great man. We even get a laid out on the grass scene (luckily he doesn’t sparkle). This isn’t a nod, and it certainly isn’t satire; this is plagiarism. Hell, a deleted scene has a running with her on his shoulders moment!

But the characters are kind of turned in on themselves. The vampire boyfriend seems quite comfortable with what he is, he still drinks human blood – even though he doesn’t hunt for it – and he is alone rather than in a clan. The human girlfriend wants to save the world, yessiree, this is no bratty self-indulged Bella. She is studying cultural anthropology as she wants to be a missionary and she has been on foreign missions already. That’s where she, through an open cut and a little girl’s infected blood, caught aids. So, she meets this guy with the cure… perhaps she is selfish… no, stop being cynical.

Unfortunately her folks discover that she is dating a vampire when her little brother (Justin Oliver) overhears her mention the word to Aurelius. Why they would even indulge the concept and how she fails to say that she was talking about the play (something that is mentioned by her mother (Sharon VanDervort)) is not as mystifying as how these humans manage to overpower a vampire – something we do not see – drag him into the woods and tie him to a stake ready to burn him. Will Chloe get there in time to save him? Incidentally, with regards his status of Last Vampire on Earth – it is never actually addressed in any meaningful form.

If I sound dismissive I apologise, but the good (but not totally original) idea of a vampire meeting a Jehovah’s Witness cannot prevent this from being a Twilight rip off (with less bratty characters). Mystifying moments and amateur level acting aside it is that one fact which makes this a very poor beast in my eyes. As a plus there is some nice music and, as I mentioned, the photography is nice in places (especially given the budget). I also do wish the young actors involved all the best in future endeavours but this one did not float my boat. Real genre fans will violently dislike it, Twilight fans are likely to rile against the plagiaristic aspects. 2 out of 10 recognises the good idea at the heart of the film.

At the time of review there is no imdb page.

Honourable Mention: Dracula (2009)

This is a 2009 film, directed by George Anton and from the opening shot, of Van Helsing (Gary Miller-Youst) cursing Dracula in a too staged delivery, I was ready to be disappointed with this film. Yet, as I watched I was captured by something within the concept of the film and, whilst it is far from perfect, my feelings twisted, becoming more positive as I realised what George Anton was trying to do. Hell even a couple of the performances began to grow on me, when they perhaps shouldn’t have.

However, let me take you on the journey I went on to reach that point and it might also explain why I have written this as an honourable mention rather than a review. The credits were accompanied by a rousing orchestral score and, when finished, we see two men – Dracula (Juan R. Caraccioli) and Rienfield (Collin Sutton), and, no, I don’t see the point in changing Renfield’s name – approach a hooker. Reinfield explains that he likes to watch and Dracula grabs her and bites her. We don’t see much of the bite. The scene cuts to a man, Vinnie (Ivan Crasci) returning home and beating his significant other, Dana (Melissa LeSang) – this scene wasn’t immediately convincing.

We then see Jonathon Harker (Derek Baker) on a countryside path. Cut to a man, Matt (Dan Martino), who is in a police car arrested for paying unpaid traffic fines. He is a screenwriter, or so he claims, and the cop (Greg Williams) suggests that perhaps he should live in the real world, but loosens the cuffs. We cut and see the cuffs going on again. Lucy Westenra (Ginger Pullman, Vampire Killers) is making a TV show about male models. Matt pulls up at an office to deliver food. He is late. We see Detective Seward (Patrick Kaiser) with an i-phone, the picture of a man on the display is labelled vampire. Men deliver a bodybag to Rienfield, he eats bugs and reveals that the Master is inside.

I could carry on but you see the problem, or what appeared to be a problem at least. There is no apparent narrative structure. Soon we will see Matt speak to a producer – played by the same actor who plays Jonathon – who tells him to add a vampire twist to his script as vampires are all the rage. Matt claims to have a Transylvanian heritage and then we see that his father and Van Helsing are one and the same. Van Helsing wears a crucifix that appears cut from a magazine and… Well I started to wonder, not only about the cheap crucifix prop but that surely these almost random scenes would create a narrative at some point? We can’t keep jumping between chronological reference points? The film began to resemble something created by the cut-up technique and, in truth, it was.

You see, then I had it… the realisation sank in that Van Helsing and Matt’s father were not one and the same. All the vampire references, all the moments that seemed based upon Dracula were moments of script created by Matt that we were seeing as he dreamt them up. In his mind he based Van Helsing on his father and Harker on the producer. It was, almost, genius. Anton had taken another film he had been involved in, Pop’s Piece, and cut in the vampire references – almost as per the in-film request of the producer. It was cut-up, in some respects it was recycling, but it desperately needed a visual or auditory clue earlier in the film to indicate this was happening. However, with the realisation suddenly, the random blur of story based upon an all too familiar tale made sense despite the film continuing along a path of chaotic narrative. It is because we get snippets of the Dracula story, intermingled within a tale of Matt and his father and also Matt and his infidelity with his friend Vinnie’s wife, that I have gone down an honourable mention route.

As well as the missing visual or auditory clue the film perhaps had other problems. The acting was far from perfect and some performances were outright poor. Garry Miller-Youst and Colin Sutton need pulling for special mention however. Both, at first, seemed too over the top. Sutton’s Reinfield was almost a cartoon version of Renfield and yet, as I realised that this was not a character in his own right but a character within Matt’s mind, the over-the-top delivery suddenly seemed right. Likewise, Miller-Youst offered a level of histrionic delivery to his characters that felt, at first, detrimental to the film. However, as the film went on, his performance kind of got under your skin. Perhaps it was a tad too much as Matt’s father (from the Pop’s Piece footage) but as Van Helsing, well… for the most part it worked in a strange way.

Coupled with this was dialogue that, beyond delivery, occasionally seemed unnatural. An example of this was the scene where the cop gave advice to Matt. The dialogue seemed unwieldy and not the sort of thing a cop would say but what we don’t know is if he actually said it. That scene is played out with the cuffs loosened and Matt going to jail in Pop’s Piece but then, in this, we also see the cop taking him down an alley to have his wicked way with him. What was real and what was in Matt’s head? I do know that, with the Pop’s Piece footage there were moments that ended up being improvised and this probably exacerbated the feling that some of the dialogue was unwieldy.

There were moments that just did not work – Harker being chased by something unseen was one such thing, the screechy noise accompanying it felt cheap. Perhaps it was designed so but it was a step too far. The affair that Matt has with Dana seemed odd – there wasn’t enough building of a relationship or chemistry to make it feel anything other than a device. All in all, however, this felt more like a deliberate experiment in filmmaking and recycling then perhaps the cut and paste exploitations we are familiar with through some of Al Adamson’s films. It just suffered in execution – and I would hazard a guess that it was due to budget as much as anything.

We got very little in the way of lore but we did hear that Dracula was a spirit – almost an idea of him possessing others was perhaps glimmering between the lines. I would have liked to have heard more of this, but remember it was only within Matt’s script. Seward as a detective was a good idea, even if the accompanying performance felt, perhaps, a little lost.

There are going to be some horrified folk who pick this up expecting a straight Dracula themed vampire film and find themselves faced with a different beast all together. This is an experiment, a look at a piece about an artist and his relationship with his father given a surrealistic vampiric twist. The imdb page is here.

Bloodwine – review

Director: Patrick Keith

Release date: 2008

Contains spoilers

Bloodwine is a micro-budget film that has a basic premise at its heart of a brandy that, for some reason, causes vampirism. This, in itself, isn’t original. A Taste of Blood used the exact same device over forty years before… However, it is the nature of the vampire genre that we borrow and (hopefully) evolve concepts, building on the past.

Thus, the premise of this has been done before but not in the exact same way and, to be fair, this might have had no budget and be a first time effort, not only for the director but also the two primary leads, but it managed to hold my attention with something that a lot of films (of both micro and major budget) often miss out – character.

Unfortunately, the start of the film does let it down – not in look but in premise as we realise that this is actually the epilogue to the film and the rest of the production is what preceded it. Whilst this might be okay it does mean we can kind of guess what fate has in store for the character Andrea (Melissa Johnson) and also know that no lasting harm will come to her as we see her enter a cellar in modern day Romania.

Andrea is a Goth and snoops around the wine cellar before opening the sarcophagus of the vampire Carmilla (Vanessa Leiani). Carmilla does not lie around to be staked and attacks Andrea, who is on the back foot until she turns her head and wards the vampire with a cross earring. She stakes the vampire, to no avail. As they fight a jar is smashed with a heart in it. Andrea realises what it is, and stakes Carmilla’s removed heart – killing the vampire in a rather effective special effect (given the budget). She then burns the cellar; the castle burning was not as good an effect, it has to be said.

Some time before. Brandy (Lora Meins) has just transferred to the college in her previous home town, as her father has just moved the family back to the area. As she goes to her dorm, laden with box, she meets Mercedes (Heather Whitsell) and Nicole (Christina DeYoung). They warn her of her roommate in the bitchiest of terms. As she enters her dorm she immediately recognises her roommate as her good friend Andrea. It seems the gruesome twosome next door have been bullying Andrea due to her Goth sensibilities.

The two go for a meal. Andrea used to live with her uncle – who is currently researching in Prague – and the two of them had many a misadventure whilst Brandy stayed at his house with Andrea. Eventually, having noticed a scar on Andrea’s wrist (that is not mentioned again), Brandy asks about Brian. He is dead. Eventually Andrea tells her friend how Brian had asked her to marry him but his parents had freaked and forbid them to see each other. Brian killed himself.

The film builds the friendship of these two rather well but it would only work dependant on the actresses. Despite this being their first film they manage to inject the characters with believable life. Their performances, to be fair, are not perfect. Occasionally the dialogue becomes flat but these are occasional blips in otherwise rather well constructed performances – kudos for that.

Whilst Brandy is away for the Thanksgiving weekend, Andrea decides to buy her a present for her upcoming 21st birthday. She is in a wine merchants and a woman (who has been lurking and whom we recognise as Carmilla) ensures that the store attendant recommends a certain brandy. Clearly, therefore, it is meant for Andrea. When Brandy gets back from her break, andrea is out and she spots said bottle, reads the card, opens it and glugs some. She smashes the bottle as she drops it, due to the pain now ripping her apart.

The brandy she has drunk changes her into a vampire and there are definitive and immediate changes. Her body temperature drops, her eyes gain dark circles as her skin becomes pallid and vivid blue veins cover her body. When sunlight touches her finger it begins to smoke and burn.

When she looks in the mirror she sees that her reflection is fading. The college nurse (Zalika Thomas) later checks her temperature and tries to detect a heartbeat. She was on the verge of saying that Brandy should be dead when the girl sprouts fang and feeds upon her. The problem is that whilst we see what is happening we are never told why.

Carmilla seems to haunt Andrea and offers her more brandy when she discovers that the first bottle was broken. on the other hand, Carmilla doesn't even seem to register Brandy’s plight (though she does appear in a dream that Brandy has). Andrea rings her uncle (Richard Gray, offering a poor performance compared to the two leads) who clearly has a bottle of the brandy before him in Prague. He has research on vampires that he has left in his US home, as well as a book on the noble families of Romania. Did he set his niece up or is Carmilla using her to get to him? We never discover.

That element is frustrating but we should allow for the fact that the thrust of the film is the relationship of the two girls and the plight they stumble into. That aspect is generally really well done. An interesting, indie micro-budget film, the pacing of which perhaps falters occasionally but generally the production makes a positive impact. 5.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Timeline

I have started the onerous task of creating a Vampire Timeline. Most of this is taken from this site and so links to film and book reviews. I have also added a few key dates, which are unlinked.

I will update the timeline every so often and it is posted over at posterous in word format. There will be errors, glaring omissions etc. Any thoughts comment here or mail me at the address in the side bar.

Vampire Taxonomy – review

Author: Meredith Woerner

First published: 2009

Contains Spoilers

The Blurb: Whether you accept it or not, the world is overrun with vampires – behind you in line at the store, ‘living’ in the house next door, walking their undead dogs. Not content to live quietly in the shadows, the appear blatantly in every medium from television and movies to books and comics. With so many species running amok, it’s hard to know whether the next vamp you meet will marry you or have you for dinner. With this guide, however, you can easily identify which type of bloodsucker you’re dealing with and how best to approach (or avoid) it by understanding:

Physical Attributes: Recognize each type of immortal with fang diagrams, dissections of the vampire anatomy, and other helpful classification tools.

Habitat: Does it venture out in the day (and look awfully sparkly when it does) or board up the windows in mysterious manor houses?

Demeanor: Is it a brooding loner waging a never-ending struggle against the temptation of human blood, or a carefree creature with a biting wit who views the world as its own personal blood buffet?

Weaknesses: Crosses, sunlight, cutting off heads – what will do the job?

Cultural Assimilation: Prime yourself with the appropriate response to any situation you may find yourself in with someone ‘long in the tooth.’

Read this book and when the vampires some calling, be prepared with either your heart on your sleeve or a stake in your hand.

The review: Vampire Taxonomy is listed by its publisher as humour/reference and it is, in essence, a quick look at the ever changing lore and trends within the vampire genre – written from the point of view that vampires are real and then finding identifiers within pop culture to illuminate the phenomena.

It is also published, clearly, hot on the heels of the current vampire popularity boom with Twilight fans definitely in mind. As such, this sort of book does worry me. No matter how many times Ms Woerner warns the reader that vampires are, at heart, creatures of darkness who only want your life blood, one feels that a) pandering to a delusion of vampiric reality and b) pandering to a fad rather than the genre is a) worrying to dangerous and b) limiting.

However, the book was reviewed over at Night Tinted Glasses and Zahir, who runs said blog, is a person whose thoughts and opinions I greatly respect. He rated the book, thus it went on my Amazon wishlist, became a Christmas present from my wife and has now been read.

As I opened the book I was filled with the same worry that the general concept of it gave me. However, as I read on I found myself enjoying the tome. Written with an easy, friendly style it became clear that Woerner knows her stuff (or at least had researched well enough to make it appear so) and was more than happy to place in references that were off the beaten track, so to speak. I did think, several times, of references I might have added in but the genre is so large that will always be the case.

The book splits the genre into areas, looking at romantic vampires, villainous vampires, tragic vampires etc. and for the most part this works well. Woerner focuses mainly on vampires from film/TV (though literature vampires make an occasional appearance). Anyone new to the genre will be subtly introduced to a whole raft of new experiences via the book, should they care to follow it up. The book even has a limited index – something lacking in some more scholarly tomes.

The humour is gentle, with a conspiratorial tone that allows you to be in on the joke, as it were, a device that works well. The actual content is lightweight, whilst varied, and is more a starting point for further watching/research. Again, for the newcomer to the genre, this is bob on. For the more longstanding genre fan, the tone makes the book eminently readable.

It seems almost churlish to point out one entry as a negative but it was just in the language used. “In fact, ‘Carmilla’, published in 1872 was around before Dracula ever hit his popular stride.” This makes it sound as though Dracula was already published – clearly it hadn’t even been written or even conceived in 1872 – a small point but it made me sit up and pay attention for the wrong reasons. Also, this illustrates the limitations in the index. Whilst it is great that it has one, when I tried to find the quote above I discovered that Carmilla (the novel) has no entry, indeed the only index entry for Carmilla is for the character in Lesbian Vampire Killers. Likewise Dracula as a novel or character is not listed to the page the entry is on – I found the entry by looking up Sheridan le Fanu.

So, limitations aside, this is a well written book. Not the greatest reference work ever but it is eminently readable and will draw new genre fans to more obscure areas of the genre – in my opinion succeeding in its primary function. 7 out of 10 for the target audience, drop it a point if you are already well versed in the genre.

Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl – review

Directors: Yoshihiro Nishimura & Naoyuki Tomomatsu

Release date: 2009

Contains spoilers

Boy, have I been waiting for this one. Ever since I first saw the trailer this has been on my must see list. After I watched Nishimura’s Machine Girl my desire to see this only increased. Described to me as Japanese Splatterpunk there was more blood in the trailer than the average vampire film has in its running time. My anticipation was sky high but anticipation can be a harsh mistress, ofttimes disappointingly so…

Not this time, I am pleased to say. This time I got what I expected, a zany off the wall Japanese gore and violence fest and the first thing to note with this is that the producers and director of Blood: the Last Vampire should have hung fire and taken a moment to watch this… perhaps that would have cured the more mainstream film of its case of the terminal boredoms.

The film starts at the end, as it were, after we are informed (presumably for the Western release) that it is traditional in Japan for girls to give chocolates to boys to profess their love. We see a boy, Mizushima (Takumi Saitô), and a girl, Monami (Yukie Kawamura), in the back of a truck. She has gauze over her eye and is bandaged. They leave the truck and we see three Loli-Goths ahead, their heads swivel all the way round and we see their faces are riveted. Mizushima runs at them but is tossed aside.

Monami gets hold of one on them and, with fangs bared, she bites into the constructed girl’s face and rips at skin and flesh, peeling it away to reveal the skull. The gory fight with the three underlines much of what we are to get in the film. The blood has healed Monami and she rips the bandages and gauze away. She is able to make long blades from her own blood and the final Loli is killed by ramming one of these up her skirt and forcing the skull from the adversaries head.

Cutting back to valentine day we see that the teacher, Uchiyama, went round the class confiscating chocolate from the girls. Keiko (Eri Otoguro) – head of the Loli-Goths – is less than impressed that the chocolates she was going to give to Mizushima had been taken. (We see a flashback that shows her informing Mizushima that they are going steady – whether he likes it or not). The resultant tantrum has her father, the vice-principle Furano, rushing to his daughter – though he fails to intervene.

The film parodies some of the subcultures prevalent amongst Japanese youths. It is within this some of the more controversial aspects of the film appear. As well as the Loli-Goths we also get a parody of the Ganguro subculture. Ganguro means black faced girls and is commonly typified by a deep tan and bleached hair. In this case it is taken to an extreme where the girls are clearly trying to imitate black people in a generally stereotyped manner. We also get a focus on a group of wrist cutting girls who are entering the national wrist cutting competitions. There is a reason within the film to concentrate on these groups.

Anyway Monami intercepts Mizushima and gives him her chocolate; the only one not confiscated. He considers the girl who wears a cape, which she explains is a keepsake from her mother, and is often not in class, with the excuse that the weather is too nice and the sun too bright. When he bites into the chocolate the centre is made of blood. We get a rather nice sequence of him turning and seeing people as no more than a mass of veins and arteries.

Mizushima has been absent from school for three days and ends up, on his return, in the nurse's office. The nurse, Midori, is described by him as over-sexed. He goes to a bed and discovers that Monami is in the bed next to him. She explains that she is a vampire and he is a half vampire, he must drink more of her blood to fully turn. She fangs her own lip and goes to kiss him with a drop of blood on it when Keiko bursts in and tries to slap Monami – the blood falls to the floor.

Anyway, it turns out that Vice-principle Furano is also a kabuki wearing mad scientist trying to be the new Doctor Frankenstein, helped by the psychotic Midori. This is a nice turn around as the new hunchbacked janitor called Igor is actually Monami’s slave. Furano is failing to create new life until he discovers the drop of Monami’s blood and is able to infuse screws with it, which he uses to rivet body parts together.

When Keiko discovers Monami and Mizushima kissing on the school roof, and sealing his vampiric fate, she accidentally falls to her death and her father is able to bring her back – giving her the athletic legs of the ganguro leader, the near impenetrable wrists of the wrist cutting leader and the pollution strengthened lungs of a Chinese professor (Takashi Shimizu). The reborn Frankenstein girl is determined to destroy the vampire and get Mizushima.

The film is great fun. Lore wise things are random, put in as pleases the film visually or storywise. For instance, in a flashback we see Monami’s mother (Eihi Shiina) fighting a Sumo from Hell, which is being controlled by a vampire hunter, and producing blood weapons. Yet she has given her cloak to Monami and Monami seems to lose her powers if she loses the cloak. A stake through the heart causes a vampire to burn up. There is some lore around Igor that I won’t spoil.

We also see her attack a lecherous man and her mouth splits open into a terrifying maw. This scene is absolutely blood soaked with sprays of blood everywhere and, whilst some jets come from odd directions (given it should all be from one man’s artery) it doesn’t matter. Stylistically it is wonderful.

This underlines why the film is so good. It is blood-soaked, un-PC and downright silly in places but it doesn’t matter. It does what it sets out to do and has some surprising moments, like some beautifully chosen filters to complement the cinematography. Over all, however, this isn’t about art, or good cinema, this is truly in the style of the great B movie and delivers what it is meant to.

So, relax, pop the DVD in and open up a can of your favourite frothy beverage – either on your own or with like minded friends – settle down and prepare to laugh, wince and cheer. The ride is painted crimson but it is a fun ride nonetheless. 7.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Honourable Mentions: Le Vampire de Düsseldorf

This was a Robert Hossein film from 1965 and looked at the case of Peter Kürten (Robert Hossein), the so called Vampire of Düsseldorf. We have previously mentioned Kürten in relation to the masterpiece M, although Lang denied that his film was about a real criminal.

In this case it is and focuses on 1930, at a time when Kürten was already being referred to as vampyr in the press and the end of his criminal career, if you like. This is already taking liberties with the truth as Kürten’s last murder took place in 1929 (he instigated several non-lethal attacks in 1930, though they were probably intended as lethal). However this ties it in with the German political situation in 1930.

The Kürten who is portrayed is actually quite a sad figure. He is quiet, almost old fashioned – to the point that he (and no other character) almost looks like he has walked out of a silent movie. We hear a story of his childhood that suggests he was, on at least one occasion, tortured. He is also very much in love with a girl named Anna (Marie-France Pisier).

She is a cabaret singer, by the posters across the city she is the hottest act there and she rebuffs his overtures at first. The frustration of this seems to be the trigger for his killing of women. Indeed when he actually kills a man it is through jealousy as he went back to Anna’s home. This does not sit well with the historical Kürten or indeed other aspects we see within the film.

The historical Kürten killed men and women, adults and children. During his trial he suggested that he was trying to strike at society, and that whilst he molested his victims it was not his primary reason for killing. However, whilst awaiting execution, he confessed that sexual stimulation was his primary motivation, that the number of stab wounds varied with the length of time it took to reach sexual gratification and blood played a primary role within the gratification.

In the film he does seem to molest one victim, Paula (Annie Anderson), but he also attacks out of jealousy, as I said, and to kill witnesses. There are no child murders in the film and part of his makeup is to taunt the police, personified by Commissaire Momberg (Roger Dutoit). He sends them notes, reveals the locations of victims and even, it appears, suggests where he will strike. The first victim found in the film is discovered because Kürten tells Momberg where she is and he observes her discovery from afar.

I mentioned the German political situation and the film begins with archive footage and discussion of the rise of National Socialism. Indeed in 1930 Hitler started to become a real political force in Germany, gaining some 107 seats in the Reichstag in the September of that year. We see marches for bread and work, we see employment riots and Kürten loose his job. We also see the Sturmabteilung or brownshirts smashing windows of bookshops and burning the books and beating a communist to death.

To me Hossein was making Kürten the representation of the spirit of the age. It was almost as though he was a physical manifestation of the evil of National Socialism. Indeed, at one point Kürten writes a letter to the police, mocking their attempts to catch him and bragging of the murder of an undercover police woman, and hides his missive within the pages of Hitler’s Mein Kampf; hiding evil within evil. The real Kürten claimed he first murdered at the age of five, in 1888/9, and his first provable murder occurred in 1913, years before the rise of Nazism.

Yet the film works well with the direction Hossein took it in and, during these days of recession, it is a stark reminder to the powers that be of the evil that can blossom within society especially when they ignore the base needs of the people to pander to the already all too rich. The imdb page is here.

Twilight Vamps – review

Director: Nicholas Medina

First released: 2010

Contains spoilers

The blurb on the back of the Twilight Vamps DVD first asks, “Who doesn’t like a good vampire Nudie Bar movie?” and with an opening like that you just know what you are going to get… No… well let us take the director.

Nicholas Medina. Never heard of him? You have, my good blog readers for this is a pseudonym of none other than Fred Olen Ray, master of cheese and pointless sex scenes! You know what though? This was fun and it was fun because it was entirely cheeky (and occasionally for being funny when it shouldn’t have been). Take the credits that inform us that the film is based on the famous poem by Edgar Allan Poe – now that is cheek.

After the drawn-effect credits we see the bordello like Nudie Bar, Shadows, and it is constructed via computer graphic! Once inside there is a girl a-dancing and guys throwing money at her. Now that has got to be the acting gig of the century, just sit and lob money on a makeshift stage in, what looks like, a converted warehouse. These girls are talented though, money is thrown down upon the stage and yet later one removes her skirt and a bill is already tucked in her thong!

So, upstairs in the VIP lounge, a guy (unnamed) is having naughties with a dancer, Amanda (Dena Kollar). Yes Fred treats us to many a simulated sex scene in this film, it is chock-a-block with them – but we’ll get to those soon enough. After they have finished said girl sprouts fangs and bites him. In comes Tabitha (Brandin Rackley, Vampire in Vegas) and they have a laugh about how much money they drained from his credit card downstairs and his, now unneeded, wallet.

Meet Jack (Frankie Cullen, Vampire in Vegas) he is getting ready for work when his girlfriend, Louise (Beverly Lynne, a perennial Fred favourite), comes down. He has been working every hour god sends and she, apparently, doesn’t work. Thus he hasn’t had any for a month and so suggests a little hanky panky before work. No, she hasn’t showered but… he’ll get some later that night.

At work his boss (Ron Ford) informs him that his work is not up to scratch compared to Roger (Tony Marino), who has just been promoted above Jack. Roger later suggests that they go to the new place Shadows to celebrate. Jack turns the offer down… after all he is on a promise. Let us just mention the dialogue and delivery. It isn’t good acting but it is fabulous… it is like Fred said, give me more cheese and the cast complied, all the way to camembert. It is sooo cheesy it is wonderful. Anyway, Louise phones him and says her friend Kyra (Jenaveve Jolie) has a fever and she’ll be going to care for her that night.

Actually, Louise is a lesbian, only with Jack to take him for his money but this leads us nicely into discussing the sex scenes… Louise has two, one with Kyra and the other with random gal Tammy (Michelle Maylene). Now the Kyra one was funny. Kyra was down on her, so high up that she could only have had her tongue in Beverly Lynne’s naval. Then we see Louise use her hand on what is clearly the upper thigh rather than anywhere intimate. That was amusing, but nothing could beat Jack at it with two vampire girls (a rocking threesome, as he describes it, straight to camera) and one is meant to be giving him head… except the camera moves round and we get a clear shot of his still flaccid bits, nowhere near mouth or hand in a… flesh coloured cock sock! Laugh, I almost wet myself. This film has its tongue shoved firmly in its cheek, but nothing else!

So… Jack and Roger go to the club. Tabitha makes a play for Jack and Angela (Christine Nguyen) goes off with Roger. Jack turns down Tabitha due to having Louise at home… but then gets a Dear John letter (and his savings emptied out). He has to i.d. his friend's body the next day and, later, the cop – detective Simpson (Ted Newsome) – fails to connect Roger's drained body with the other killings that have occured and arrests Jack. Before then Jack returns to the club and is told that it is Tabitha’s night off but given her address, 1313 Mockingbird Lane, how cheeky is that!

He is drugged by Tabitha and yet manages to have sex with her before waking at his desk unharmed. It is then he is arrested and has the blinding realisation that the girls are vampires! Where he gets this from we don’t know, but Simpson doesn’t believe him. Angela materialises in his cell and will help him on two conditions, firstly he leaves town and never comes back and secondly he rocks her world, so to speak, in the cell.

He doesn’t leave town though, rather he becomes amateur Van Helsing, researching the undead – in the big book of vampires. The level of the film is shown when he tries to find a stake, pulls a t-bone out of the fridge and wonders how it will help. He also discovers that holy water is useful against the legions of the night and, luckily, he has a bottle of holy water from Lourdes on hand, as you do.

It is, unfortunately, out of date… but I can spoil that it still works – for this is how he kills vampires in the film. That is about all the lore we get. Angela appears in his cell during the day but also makes a comment about Cancun not being good for vampires, presumably due to all the sun. All in all, this adds nothing new and exciting into the genre (and let’s face it the Nudie Bar seems to be a Fred favourite location, be it straight or gay).

I have mentioned the cheesy acting and I have mentioned the awfully simulated sex. Yet I sat with a big ol’ smile on my face because this film knew exactly what it was and revelled in it, making no apology. It was disposable fluff and was damn funny with it (as I say, often unintentionally but… well I’d like to think that Fred and the film editor noticed the cock sock and left it in for a laugh). The actual film stock quality was rather good. This didn’t feel like a camcorder classic.

It is not a good film, but it is disposable fun. 3.5 out of 10 is probably too generous a score but I can’t bear to give the film less. The imdb page is here.