Sliders – stoker – review (TV Episode)

Directed by: Jerry O’Connell

First aired: 1997

Contains spoilers

Sliders was a sci-fi series that ran for five seasons all told and was about a scientist Quinn Mallory (Jerry O’Connell) who created a device – called the timer – which opened up a wormhole bridge to an alternate dimension and allowed the user to slide to that other world. Things went wrong and his Professor, Arturo (John Rhys-Davies), his friend Wade (Sabrina Lloyd) and singer Rembrandt Brown (Cleavant Derricks) end up stuck out of their own dimension.

By the time this episode, which was towards the end of season 3, aired Arturo was gone from the series, they had with them Capt Maggie Beckett (Kari Wuhrer) and were hunting down another slider Rickman (Neil Dickson), who was feeding off compatible brain fluid from victims in order that he might stay alive. The Rickman side story in this episode was, pretty much, simply there to get some of the characters out of the way.

As each episode could be in an alternate world it allowed the writers pretty much free reign and, in this world, vampires were real. At a club the band Stoker are about to go on stage (they were classed as Goth, and obviously that was an alternate world version of Goth because they sounded fairly mainstream rock to me!) The drummer Harker (Duff McKagan, yes he from Guns N’ Roses and Velvet Revolver) is upset at a derogatory comment in a review.

Their helper Renfield (Danny Masterson) brings in a girl who wants to audition as a female singer for the band named Mina (Leslie Soule). She is willing to do anything but lead singer Morgan (Ryan Alosio) tells her that getting undressed is not necessary. He sprouts fangs. As the band plays they are watched by Wade and there seems to be some sort of connection between her and Morgan.

Now, you might be thinking at this point – pretty messed up using standard Dracula names in this, after all it is a little clichéd. Later, however, when Quinn meets Van Elsinger (Tommy Chong) we get a little bit of background to the vampire situation and the names seem less clichéd as the writers at least thought about it.

Quinn mentions Dracula and it draws a blank – the book was never written in this world. However, in 1897 (the year the book was published in our world) vampirism was officially recognised as a felony. As well as using some Dracula references there is a hint of reincarnation with Wade, ish. Morgan recognises her voice as being identical to one he has searched for over the decades and plays a recording on an old gramophone. This had overtones of the Dan Curtis created staple but used voices rather than portraits. Due to this he wants to turn Wade and have her join the band.

Things take on an even darker turn when Morgan hears about the timer and decides that he is sick of being hunted and hiding. He wants to get the timer and leave their world to find a world where vampires are nothing but myth. Wade becomes an accomplice in this as he develops a telepathic hold over her. So what other powers do the vampires have? Firstly, whilst they sleep during the day, either in coffins or roosted ala the Lost Boys, they can stand sunlight. Harker places Mina’s body in the critics car and then drives it with mojo into a wall, killing the critic, and this happens in daylight.

Wood through the heart, holy water ‘paint balls’ and crosses are the order of the day it seems. To be sure of the kill the vampire must be decapitated – although older ones will rapid rot. When Rembrandt holds up a silver cross, Harker is able to channel electric energy through the end of a guitar and conduct it through the cross – which seemed too clichéd really.

They are stronger than humans and, despite the fact that vampirism is a felony, they don’t seem to mind the limelight – Stoker have been around for years under various musical guises, and one wonders why no one (other than Van Elsinger) had worked it out.

The confusing part of the lore was based on how one became a vampire. Van Elsinger explains that when a body dies and the spirit is trapped within it, the dead person freaks out and needs blood to sustain itself.

All well and good but then Quinn suggests that they have to kill Morgan – the head vampire – before Wade makes a kill as that will turn her into a vampire. Perhaps this had something to do with the old recipe of wine Wade was drinking, which is pure Lost Boys again. However the 'kill the head vampire' goes against the original concept which saw the individual die and their soul become trapped - it would be too late once that had happened.

I have to say that I thought the show pulled back from the gore a little too much – despite being a network show, it could have had a little bit more of the stakage and blood flying around. But all in all this wasn’t a bad little episode, despite the lore confusion around turning. However, the Rickman sub-story served only to confuse if you were watching this as a stand alone episode. 4.5 out of 10.

The episode’s imdb page is here.

New Film: Blood Brothers

According to Bloody Disgusting Spyglass Entertainment is set to produce a new vampire buddy comedy, entitled Blood Brothers, staring Owen Wilson.

More when I hear more.

Breaking Dawn – review

Author: Stephanie Meyer

First Published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: “When you loved the one that was killing you, it left you no options. How could you run, how could you fight, when doing so would hurt that beloved one? If your life was all you had to give, how could you not give it? If it was someone you truly loved?

“To be irrevocably in love with a vampire is both fantasy and nightmare woven into a dangerously heightened reality for Bella Swan. Pulled in one direction by her intense passion for Edward Cullen, and in another by her profound connection to werewolf Jacob Black, she has endured a tumultuous year of temptation, loss and strife to reach the ultimate turning point. Her imminent choice to either join the dark but seductive world of immortals or pursue a fully human life has become the thread from which the fate of two tribes hangs.

“Now that Bella has made her decision, a startling chain of unprecedented events is about to unfold with potentially devastating and unfathomable consequences. Just when the frayed strands of Bella’s life – first discovered in Twilight, then scattered and torn in New Moon and Eclipse - seem ready to heal and knit together, could they be destroyed… forever?

The review: This is the final book, allegedly at least, in Bella Swan’s saga. The series, as many will know, are teen romance but – as a middle aged cynic – I still get much out of them. First and foremost because they are well written books – Meyers pulls a great character together.

To be honest, when you devour a 754 page novel in a few short days the book has to be well written (even if it is not great literature) and nothing can take away from that. However, before reading this I heard a lot of criticism of the book and I wish to look at that criticism and will heavily spoil some plot points in the process.

I heard criticism of the fact that the much vaunted culmination of Bella and Edward’s romance – the sex, not the wedding – was glossed over. To be fair this was for a teen audience and so what would you expect. It was kind of nice to read something where the sex plays an intrinsic part of the plot and yet is not overtly presented – it makes a change from the more explicit material out there (including my own novel).

The result of this coupling is the discovery (to everyone’s shock) that vampires and humans can breed. I then heard criticism that Bella’s decision to keep the child betrayed Meyer’s own religious beliefs; specifically that it was blatantly pro-life. Firstly, the decision was in total keeping with the character of Bella as developed over many a page and secondly the character made a choice – believe it or not that is as much a pro-choice decision as a pro-life decision and I, in no way, found the plot direction preachy. To be honest, the first paragraph of the blurb seemed preachier than the novel itself.

I heard criticism that the idea that Jacob the werewolf would bond (the werewolves are not actually werewolves, the book reveals to us at the end, but shapeshifters who are unrelated to actual werewolves. However they do bond with a single mate and it is on a mystical level) with the baby was too convenient. Actually it made definite sense, plot and character wise. Truthfully it was the obvious direction to go but not a daring direction to go. Throwing a doomed love curve ball followed by Bella’s lover killing her best friend, however, was not what Meyer had in mind and we have to respect that.

Finally I heard the suggestion that the book descended into soap opera. I don’t really think that was the case. The book was geared towards a happily ever after, given the target audience that was understandable. I don’t know if that equates to soap opera; saccharine, yes, and far too sickly if faced too often. Certainly not the normal dark doom and gloom I prefer to immerse myself in but not actually soap opera. Consider the way in which the pregnancy plot was handled in this, and the supernatural element and danger it presented, and compare it with the pregnancy plot in Danse Macabre - it is clear that Hamilton strayed into soap opera whereas Meyers avoided it.

These books are good books, in respect of their target audience, that chart the waters of teen confusions, first love and romance. They are light, in that respect, compared to the darker side of teen life, drawn in the simile of vampire lore, as portrayed in say Buffy the Vampire Slayer but they are fair for what they are aimed at – this as much as any of the others in the series.

6 out of 10.

Vamp or Not? Killer X

This was a 1999 film directed by Mark Lambert Bristol and mentioned a little while ago by friend of the blog Ordovicius who left the following question “have you seen Killer X with David Carradine as a less than mentally stable FBI agent convinced that he is a vampire hunter?” Well, truth be told I hadn’t even heard of the film but, having spotted it for an incredibly cheap price, I had to check it out.

Now this would seem simple, in the ‘Vamp or Not?’ stakes, as in The Rules of the Game I suggest “Sometimes it is not necessary to have someone pretending to be a vampire or even believing themselves to be one. A film such as Isle of the Dead (1945) is most definitely a vampire movie, though there is not a single vampire in it. This movie relies on the hysteria that, in the past, probably gave birth to the legends of vampire outbreaks.”

Things are not that simple however. The V word is not mentioned in the film and perhaps what Special Agent Louis Dehoven (David Carradine) sees may not necessarily be a vampire – let us explore a film that is, in truth, more a quirky black comedy about serial killers than a monster flick.

There is an intriguing opening to the film. We start on a straight to digi-cam shot of a redneck hunting party. These were cousins of a man named Willie (Michael Bowen), who happens to be our serial killer. A documentary is being produced (presumably locally) about the killer. The film is interspersed with the documentary giving us a duel insight as we both follow the events as they occur and watch the aftermath in documentary style.

Cut to film rather than digi-cam and we see an almost Lynchian, idyllic town. Children skip and jump and a man reads a newspaper with the headline ‘killings continue’. I say almost Lynchian as whilst David lynch will juxtapose that almost idyllic small town America against the evil or corruption beneath (the opening of Blue Velvet is a prime example) this almost tried too hard, reaching for something that Lynch just does and thus is a little in your face whilst Lynch can be a lot more subtle.

Next we see a funeral for a victim and a TV crew outside. One of the attendees, Glenn (Darren Burrows), stops to be interviewed. In a house, at night, a man is bound, gagged and blindfolded, and yet tries to escape. He fails.

We have a host of styles competing here and, for the most part, they work. After the credits we see Special Agent Dehoven (David Carradine) enter the house and find the man, now dead. Having cut briefly to Glenn and his girlfriend Marie (Missy Atwood) talking about the murders we see the crime scene again. The police are there and Dehoven arrives, acting as though he had not been there earlier. He is not taking over the investigation – he says and promptly does so – and mentions the killer will be hard to find, his kills are not sexual in nature.

What we get is Willie, the serial killer (known as the Mailman) whose wife, Sally (Elizabeth Barondes), has just announced that she is pregnant. After bumping into each other in the park Willie has selected Glenn as his next victim. As it happens Glenn is also a, fledgling, serial killer who has chosen Willie as his first victim. However we, in the context of this article, are more interested in Dehoven.

First thing of note was Dehoven in his motel room praying for guidance. We are in full religious nut job mode. He self flagellates and has papered the walls with pages from the bible. However we also note that he prays that his weapons be blessed – his weapons being a pair of stakes.

Now Willie’s modus operandum is to take the head of his victim (and mail it) but Dehoven obviously arrived at his last kill and disturbed it. Dehoven arrives at the morgue and then tells the guard that the body has been desecrated. As the guard enters he knocks him out and sets to work.

He goes to the victim and sprinkles water over him – presumably holy water. The lips of the corpse seem to twitch. Then he changes, becoming some form of monster (Dehoven’s description). A pale, almost glowing, demonic creature with lots of sharp pointy teeth. It grabs Dehoven who starts staking it through the heart. Once staked it becomes an ordinary corpse once more.

Whilst the word vampire is not used and the form is a little more demonic we have a classic Van Helsing type scene here, a release of the soul of a victim through the stake, who was becoming the vampire by being killed by the vampire. Dehoven and the film never describe it as such – though the novel of Dracula is mentioned during the film as one of the classics (alongside Moby Dick). On the other hand it might be less release of the soul and more release of the body from whatever possesses it… as the film is not explicit both theorems could be valid.

Later Dehoven comes face to face with Willie and the man himself changes, taking on full demonic form – though not attacking. It is quite apparent that the monsters are in Dehoven’s head. However he does spot the killer, absolutely perfectly, through this method. Perhaps it is his subconscious telling the conscious what it needs to know.

Unfortunately it does mean that Dehoven tends to use unusual methods to bring his man in. Having shot up, and blown up, Willie’s car, we see the marvellous shot of Dehoven, in the sunset, with stakes ready as he prepares to pounce from his own car. His attack fails and I mention this as the death of Dehoven is interesting. He ends up staked by one of his own stakes. However, it is not through the heart but in the neck. This is, of course, reminiscent of the vampire bite.

Is the film vampire genre? Dehoven believes there are monsters. He does not mention vampires but the method he uses to dispatch them is pure vampire genre lore. I would have to say that this needs to go on vampire filmographies. As for the film itself, imdb thoughts seem split but I rather enjoyed it as a quirky black comedy.

The imdb page is here.

Some of your Blood – review

Author: Theodore Sturgeon

First published: 1956

Contains spoilers

The blurb: “Theodore Sturgeon’s dark and foreboding look at the vampire myth was an instant classic when originally published in 1956. When George Smith is arrested for assaulting a senior officer, a military psychiatrist is assigned to the case. The secret of George’s past is unearthed, and a history of blood lust and murder. Innovatively told through letters, interviews and traditional narrative, Some of your Blood effectively portrays the tragic upbringing of George Smith to his attempts at a stable life and the great love of his life to his inevitable downfall.”

The review: Some of your blood was mentioned when I interviewed Bret Wood as he tied a simile between an un-filmed concept behind his film Psychopathia Sexualis and an aspect alluded to within the novel.

I won’t spoil that aspect, however the connection is perhaps deeper than just a conceptual aspect as part way through ‘Some of your Blood’ we get direct quotations from von Krafft-Ebing’s 'Psychopathia Sexualis' – the medical text that inspired Wood’s film. It should be noted that the case studies quoted by Sturgeon are different to those used as inspiration for Wood’s film.

You see ‘Some of your Blood’ is an account of a vampire, as in some one with a psychological need to drink blood rather than an undead creature of myth or fantasy. However, whilst this is going to be off putting to those solely interested in the supernatural mainstay of the genre, for me it is part of the joy of the genre that the myth can be interpreted in so many ways. After all, this was written just two years after Richard Matheson created a wholly science (based) fiction version of the myth with I am Legend.

What Sturgeon clearly did was try to interpret the genre in a completely new way – much as Tim Lucas did, though with a very different slant, with the seminal Throat Sprockets. It was also clear that Sturgeon did not wish the reader to lose the connection with genre classic Dracula. There is a Freudian, oral obsessive aspect to this and Dracula, in many respects, is a Freudian text – though Sturgeon deliberately steers us away from a sexual interpretation, despite the Freudian and von Krafft-Ebing facets. The novel is, in part, epistolary – like the Dracula text – and is constructed as a case study of a psychiatric patient – like part of the Dracula text. I agree with Steve Rasnic Tem, who wrote the introduction for the edition I bought, that the use of the name Bela (George Smith is a pseudonym) was a step too far perhaps – though Smith’s parents were from the ‘old county’ and Bela is, through Lugosi, permanently tied into the Dracula mythos.

This will not be for everyone. It is more a piece of American literature than it is a genre piece, to me at least, and in many respects deconstructs the American dream whilst drawing a wonderfully sympathetic character – despite his murderous traits. It is, however, most definitely worth seeking out in my opinion. 7 out of 10.

I’m back, but slow….

Okay, so my landline issues have been fixed – it seems – and I find myself with a very slow internet connection… I mean top download speed of 15kbps (as opposed to the normal 300-350 kbps I would get). Upshot, I can keep up to date with the blog and mail but everything is very frustrating.

However, the broadband issues are now being investigated… so that’s good! In the meantime parts 3 and 4 of the blog as a book are now available via lulu.com and don’t they look pretty on a bookshelf (top picture) and, the great thing is, they aren’t reliant on phone lines and the indexes cross reference to previous volumes. Essential for looking up vamp movies when the internet has vanished!

Hopefully, all will be fully sorted very soon!

Honourable Mentions: Little Red Riding Hood and the Monsters

When it comes to film like this one I really do wish I had chosen a better title for this section. Honourable doesn’t seem to cut it, offering a sense of nobility about a specific piece of media that this one certainly didn’t have. Known as Caperucita y Pulgarcito contra los Monstruos in its native Mexico, this 1962 monstrosity directed by Roberto Rodriguez is one of the most bizarre flicks you’ll ever see.

Now to be fair the version I saw was the K Gordon Murray edited US version and thus the wacky dubbing will not have helped. The film is a musical in parts and whoever they had dubbing Red Riding Hood (María Gracia) during the musical numbers was clearly an adult. That said, just looking at the film, you know the original dubbing is not going to help much.

Over at the evil castle there is a trial of the wolf (Manuel 'Loco' Valdés) and the Ogre (José Elías Moreno). It seems that they are classed as traitors because the wolf made friends with little red riding hood and the ogre became obedient rather than eat Tom Thumb (Cesareo Quezadas). Their refusal to be bad has brought on the displeasure of the Queen of badness (Ofelia Guilmáin).

The trial is precided over by the vampire (Quintín Bulnes) as prosecutor, whilst the jury is made up of the child kidnapper, carrot head, Frankenstein’s monster, hurricane and two-in-one (a conjoined twin, one of whom seems to be a Neanderthal). During the trial we get a mention that the vampire looks bloodless – and a counter accusation, by the wolf and ogre, that he is the traitor as he hasn’t bled anyone.

They are, of course, found guilty and sentenced to be tortured and executed at the next full moon. The Queen of badness (who, it is mentioned, is Snow White’s step mother and the look certainly owes something to Disney’s concept of that character) also wishes to get revenge on Tom and Red. She therefore concocts a potion, that she puts in the water supply of the village, which turns the villagers into monkeys. Tom’s family she turns into mice.

The sentence is overheard by Stinky, a talking skunk who happens to be the wolf’s squire. He goes to warn Tom and Red but he is too late and the kids have to go to the castle to save the village and the good monsters. As Tom is too small to adventure, he is magically made big by the Fairy of the Dawn – believe me there are some Wizard of Oz concept infringements flying around, when it comes to that character, as well as the Disney infringements.

We see no more of the vampire until the end of the film, when he attacks the heroes within caverns near the castle. At this point we get some more lore. He claims to have eye mojo and tries to mesmerise and control the ogre. This seems to work, but the ogre is faking and hits the vampire, knocking him out. The wolf then threatens to stake him, but we don’t see that.

Absolutely bizarre. The imdb page is here.

Kiss of the Vampire – review

Directed by: Joe Tornatore

First released: 2006

Contains spoilers

When this premiered on Zone Horror, in the summer of 2008, you just knew it wasn’t to be confused with Hammer’s classic Kiss of the Vampire. Indeed the channel aired it as Immortally Yours, but the title screen of the actual film stated Kiss of the Vampire and so that is what it is being reviewed as.

Now, one of the first things that struck me was that this didn’t appear to be a digi-cam shot film, which was a shock in itself. Actual film appeared to have been used, betraying a level of budget and indicating a certain level of competence. Up front I’m going to have to say that the initial appearance of competence appears to have been little more than a confidence trick.

The film begins with a man running down the road, pursued. He is attacked by vampires. How do we know this before we see them (other than the fact that it is a vampire flick, of course)? Because the filmmakers decided to make the vampires sound like Raptors from Jurassic Park, an all too common modern affliction and affectation that has crept into the genre.

Elsewhere in the city Estelle Henderson (Katherine Hawkes) arrives at the opera with her father, George (Nick Jameson), her mother (Olga Hawkes) and her rather drunk fiancé (Andrew Bowen). In the opera she meets the eye of a stranger, Alex (Daniel Goddard). After the performance, and outside the venue, the fiancé punches her father and Alex comes to the rescue. He takes Estelle to dinner.

Elsewhere again and a young girl is followed, as she leaves a YWCA, by a man named Rex (Costas Mandylor). He is willing to kill witnesses and takes the girl alive. We cut to a nightclub. Alex has abandoned Estelle and is there with a group of people in the VIP section. Two women dance with a man, then they sprout fangs and attack him. All those in the VIP section descend upon the man except Alex, who fights the hunger.

There is a police raid of the club, looking for drugs, what they find is the murdered young man and then manage to surround Alex and his friends outside. The vampires vanish into thin air, much to the police’s initial confusion, and appear at a mansion where daylight helper Michael Bates (Phil Fondacaro) leads them to their coffins. The police realise they have vampires on their hands.

The police call in Marshall Pope (Matthias Hues), an ex-mob hitman turned Interpol vampire hunter (I kid you not), but what about Rex and the kidnapped girl? Well she has been taken so that her heart can be transplanted, against her will, into Victor Price (Eric Etebari) – leader of the Illuminati. At this point I gave up. Illuminati, for God’s sake, what are you thinking. It isn’t big or clever, its just clichéd.

This is a scripting/plot problem – we’ll return to them soon – but for now let us say the police are hunting vampires and get involved with the Illuminati aspects. Alex falls for Estelle but can’t be with her as he is a vampire. Her father is working as a research scientist, trying to uncover immortality for the Illuminati, and agrees to help him become human – hoping that the key to immortality will be found as well.

Lore wise, Alex has a virus; although obviously it is one that allows him to vanish in a puff of smoke at will. A stake through the heart will kill a vampire – though it does seem that a stake through the stomach will do the trick as well. Perhaps that is slightly unfair, after all plenty of vampire genre films fail to locate the heart, but this film bugged me and so this failure to understand anatomy was a bigger problem in this film.

Sunlight is deadly, as are sun lamps. There was a fight between cops and vampires towards the end which really underlined some of the problems inherent in the flick. The vampires would have won early on if they hadn’t been posing, posturing and hissing in a Raptor-like way. The cops, on the other hand, would have won without losses if they hadn’t gone toe to toe but had someone stood by the switch, when the vampires came in, that put the sunlamps on. Our main vampire killed this way (at the end of the fight) smokes, whereas one already staked melts.

I mention script and plot and the plot is preposterous – dealing with the Illuminati by turning their leaders into vampires and then Alex using his vampire powers to transport them (or their heads at least) into space where they can rage (and not freeze for some reason that I could not fathom) for eternity was ridiculous for many a reason including the fact that, of course, we would expect beheading to kill a vampire! But worst than this was, perhaps, the scripting.

Lines appear that are cringe worthy. “Alex was right,” says a vampire chickadee to which the retort is, “Silvia, how can you imply that Alex was right?” She did not imply (hint, without stating directly) she actually stated. Please learn English before you write a script in it.

Yet, even shoddier than the script was the actual acting meant to deliver it. Perennial favourite Phil Fondacaro seems to be going through the motions and little else, but as I made notes I wrote in big capital letters Estelle (by which I obviously meant actress Katherine Hawkes) can’t act. Seriously she was awful, she had one expression (kind of a serious look that descended into patronising, sickly smile) and a sub-soap opera delivery. Then I realised that she not only starred but was the writer, I therefore have had a bit of a go twice - seriously though, both criticisms (acting and writing) were valid. The rest of the cast were nothing to write home about. Matthias Hues was less vampire hunter and more a refugee from Status Quo.

Altogether a waste of time and effort. 1.5 out of 10.

The imdb page is here.

Vamp or Not? Fiend

This was a low budget movie from 1980 that was written and directed by Don Dohler. Dohler was writer and producer of later low budget vampire flicks Stakes and Vampire Sisters.

This film was less obviously within the vampire realm, much less than those later films, hence us investigating it under ‘Vamp or Not?’ – but whilst it was a low budget film there is something different about this… A chunkiness is the best way to describe it and it might have something to do with his direction or simply the filming medium. More modern digi-cam films can, I guess, feel thinner.

This film begins in a graveyard in Seville County, it is March. A red glowing thing floats over the skyline of a cemetery. What is it. According to the DVD box it is a ‘mutant mosquito’ – though the film never says that. Later, in film, we hear about a spirit known only as a Fiend and it is one of those. It sinks into a grave.

A couple Steve (Steve Frith) and Angie (Lydia Vuynovich) are in the graveyard. Angie seems a little less than impressed with the location and is cold. She sends Steve to the car to get a blanket. Unseen by them a red glowing hand erupts from the soil. The Fiend has possessed the corpse (Don Leifert) in the grave.

He comes up behind Angie and begins to strangle her, his visage is rotting. However, as she dies, we see his hands and then his whole body begin to pulsate red. He is stealing her life force, draining it. His face becomes younger, uncorrupt. This seems like some form of energy vampire then.

The film storyline is somewhat unimportant thereafter. He moves to a house, under the assumed name of Eric Longfellow, and his suspicious (and fully dislikeable) neighbour Gary (Richard Nelson) becomes wary of him and starts to investigate him. Meanwhile the surrounding towns are gripped by fear of a serial killer who strangles his victims (and who is obviously our boy).

During Gary's investigation we discover that the house Eric moved to actually belonged to Eric's distant cousin and the profession he takes up, violin teacher, was his living profession. The fiend activates the memories and talents of the corpse. We discover that he begins to rot if he doesn’t feed and likes cold damp places (the cellar) as it reminds him of the grave.

He is a serial killer. He can drain anyone but prefers females and has a shrine in his basement. He stalks his victims, it seems, and then slices up their voyeuristically taken photographs when he has killed them. This showed malice and forethought. He tries to cover his tracks as much as possible, this includes killing those who might be classed as loose threads.

There is a confusing aspect within the film surrounding the name Dorian. This seems to have been Eric's name when alive and, now dead, he names his cat Dorian - almost as an easy clue for any suspicious neighbour! However a book on witchcraft and demons actually ties the name Dorian in with the Fiend in a (in-story) traditional sense. This aspect simply served to confuse the viewer. We do discover that he is strong and that a sword through the torso can kill him (or drive the fiend out of the corpse at least) though we don’t know a logical reason as to why this would be the case.

This isn’t a great film but there is something compelling about it on a bad B movie level. However, is it vamp? Whilst Dohler created a new creature we should look at the evidence. It is a reanimated corpse, it rots (and looks older) without feeding and that foodstuff is life energy. It has memories and is clearly sentient. It is very strong and the love of cold, damp places is reminiscent of the native earth myth – broadened and generalised.

I would say that this is an energy vampire, either that or an angry Ready Brek eater. The imdb page is here.

Skulduggery Pleasant: Playing With Fire – review

Author: Derek Landy

First published: 2008

Contains spoilers

The Blurb: “With Serpine dead, the world is safe once more. At least that’s what Valkyrie and Skulduggery think, until the notorious Baron Vengeous makes a bloody escape from prison and dead bodies and vampires start showing up all over Ireland.

“With Baron Vengeous after the deadly armour of Lord Vile, and pretty much everyone out to kill Valkyrie, the daring detective duo face their biggest challenge yet. But what if the greatest threat to Valkyrie is just a little closer to home…”

The Review: You might recall I gave an honourable mention to the first book in this series. With a higher level of vampiric activity in this – thanks to a vampire named Dusk and his infected minions – this gets a review.

Stephanie is now Valkyrie – wizards change their names so as to not allow others to have power over them – and is now thirteen years old. The blurb probably gives as much story as I want to spoil – bar looking at the lore.

We saw, with the first book, that vampires in this are very different lore wise to the genre standard. They have two layers of skin, with the first – day time layer – they are just human, albeit stronger. When the sun sets they rip that layer of and became hideous, relentless killers searching for blood and blood only. Dusk has a hypodermic of potion that can prevent the change and this allow him to serve his masters at night.

They are immune to most of the standard vampire apotropaic, but running water has a degree of truth. In actuality they are violently allergic to salt water. We meet a character that has carried salt water in a vial round his neck for years – unfortunately he never thought to work out how he would get a vampire to drink it.

We also meet the infected, those who have been given the vampire virus. These people become mindless slaves of the vampire who infected them and this state lasts two days. During those two days they can be cured but after that they turn into full vampires and are lost.

As for the book itself, well I said for the first book “There is a distinct level of darkness through it but there aren’t the nuances that would necessarily make it accessible to an older audience.” When I started reading this I found that I just hadn’t retained details from the first book, which underlines that it perhaps hasn’t got that certain something an adult audience would look for. That said the writing is strong for a children’s book and I am sure kids will love the dark aspects.

As an adult looking in, 6 out of 10 but one to definitely bear in mind for the target audience.

The Flintstones Meet Rockula and Frankenstone – review

Director: Ray Patterson

First aired: 1979

Contains spoilers


The Flintstones was one of the first adult aimed syndicated cartoons. In a way it feels as though this had more of an awareness of the child following the show had gathered but, in truth, it is probably that expectations have changed over the years. This special was released on VHS but not (at time of review) on DVD – though it still airs on Boomerang, from time to time.

The show starts with Fred (Henry Corden) and Wilma (Jean Vander Pyl) getting ready to go out – in fancy dress. Fred is, essentially, a prehistoric chicken, and Wilma a rabbit. They are aiming to go to the TV show Deal or Don’t, with Monty Marble (Casey Kasem), where contestants are chosen by costume. Barney (Mel Blanc) is dressed as a daisy and Betty (Gay Autterson) is a bumble bee.

The first contestant chosen is Barney, he is given $1000 and asked whether he will trade it for what is behind the curtain. He doesn’t, to Fred’s disgust. Fred is then given the same opportunity and choice… he is about to keep the money but, having been called a chicken, takes the curtain. He has won an all expenses trip to Rocksylvania and the grand opening of the tourist hotel. Barney is offered the same prize and accepts.

They arrive and are met at the station by Igor (Don Messick) who drives them to the hotel. There is the sound of wolves but Igor assures them there are no wolves only werewolves – the one thing that Count Rockula (John Stephenson) was scared of. To protect himself he built a Frankenstone Monster (Ted Cassidy) – hereafter referred to as Frankenstone as that is what the cartoon called him. Rockula vanished 500 years ago.

The party at the hotel is a costume party and their costumes have been provided, Fred and Wilma are Count and Countess Rockula, and Barney and Betty are Frankenstone and the Bride of Frankenstone. The boys end up in Rockula’s laboratory at one point and see the real Frankenstone – though Fred believes it to be part of the hotel’s theme. Unusually, the awakening of the monsters is not down to Fred and Barney.

A lightening bolt awakens Frankenstone and he wakes the Count up – 400 years later than he should have done. Of course the Count is less than happy with party revellers in his castle and scares everyone away. Everyone, that is, except the Flintstones and Rubbles as they went to bed early.

Now the show does owe a little to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello meet Frankenstein - though in gags and not in storyline. Actually the inclusion of a mummy gag has more to do with the Monstrous Monkee Mash. It would have been very easy for the writer to go down a borrow a brain for the monster line – honestly either Fred or Barney would have done!

However the crux of the story is that Wilma actually looks like the Countess. There is a moment of mistaken identity but that is quickly sorted out. Instead the Count decides she will be his new bride and, given that even in Rocksylvania it is illegal to marry a woman already married, she needs to be a widow.

Lore wise we don’t get too much. There is reference to a werewolf/vampire divide – though as I mentioned it is the vampire fearing the werewolf. Rockula can turn into a bat (and this is achieved with quite a pyrotechnic effect). He must be in his coffin during the daylight hours (thus a rooster impersonator can be a boon in evading vampires!). That’s about it.

Of course, there is how the vampire is defeated but… well I won’t overly spoil that for you but it is less a vampiric issue and more a battle of the sexes! This is fun, but is vampire-lite as it were. I think the cartoon treads the line between adult and children’s entertainment badly and it falls, now, definitively on the children’s entertainment side. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I don’t think it was designed as that. 6 out of 10 as a kid’s cartoon.

The imdb page is here.