As I’ve mentioned here, werewolves are my 2nd favorite monsters. So I’m going to review this werewolf show on the SyFy channel even though it’s vampire-less (so far). And that’s one of the things I like about it. It takes place in my world, except with werewolves. No vampires, zombies, witches, leprechauns or yeti. It seems like having werewolves in the world would be a rich enough source for storytelling that all those other things are unnecessary. So far, the producers seem to agree.
The show follows the modern approach to werewolves, emphasizing pack social behavior as opposed to the Lon Cheney Jr. loner approach. I like this approach although all modern werewolf fiction seems to be on board and all other styles have gone away.
So what do we have here. There’s only one female werewolf in the world and she’s trying to pass in the human world. Then she gets called back by her former pack to help investigate a murder. This turns into a series of murders and she gets drawn deeper into the pack that she’s trying to get away from. So far, the story is interesting, the characters less so. There’s some classic Romance as the female werewolf is torn between two men: the respectable, human lover and the scruffy, bad-boy werewolf. I think we can all figure out where this is going.
Overall, I’m giving this a positive review. The female lead is too gorgeous for the role. Whenever she walks down the street, I wonder why everyone isn’t staring at her. Well, this is TV and people are supposed to be better looking than you or me (no offense). If the worst I can say about the show is that the women are too attractive, that’s not all bad.
This is the sequel to Kim Newman’s “Anno Dracula” and it’s as good as the original. It uses historical and literary figures as characters and combines actual history with fantasy. If you like Alan Moore’s books about “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, you should give Kim Newman’s books a try. (If you liked the movie version of “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, shame on you.)
It’s 1918, the last year of World War I. Vampires and humans fight and die on both sides of the Western Front. Dracula is highly placed in the Kaiser’s government and he has a plan to win the war with a secret project involving the Red Baron.
It’s a terrific story that swept me along but also gave me greater insight into “The Great War”. I particularly liked the subtext of picturing the war’s leader’s and generals as vampires. The more you know about the actual war, the more you’ll get out of this novel. And reading Anno Dracula beforehand will probably be helpful. But I think you can enjoy this book regardless of your background.
Don’t confuse this film with the similarly titled TV series. This one is an artsy, British, independent film mostly shot with a handheld camera. The story? A filmmaker is shooting a documentary on the cult of vampire/goth wannabees in London. But one of them is different than the rest. She claims to be a real vampire!
This movie reminded me of Cloverfield. Yes, it had the the jerky camera work and clumsy cuts to make it look homemade. But it was also a relationship movie pretending to be a horror movie. Did it work? I think so. It was more of a chick flick but it kept my attention. Unless you’re a complete neanderthal, give it a try.
This was a webcast/mini-series/movie (I think it appeared in all 3 formats) produced by MTV in 2009. I missed it when it came out but just finished watching the version cut as a movie. A young woman (or maybe late teen) investigates her brother’s mysterious death by enrolling at the strange university where he was last seen. There, she finds dangerous fraternities, more dangerous sororities, an annoyingly clingy roommate and vampires. And then things get weird. The story gets ever more convoluted while the guys pursuing her get ever hotter.
I know I’m too old and have too many Y chromosomes to be the target audience for this movie, but I kinda liked it. It had a relatively fresh spin on vampires and kept surprising me with plot twists. No, it didn’t really make sense and had plot holes you could send a marching band through. The ending set up a sequel and I’m OK if it never gets produced. Still, I had a good time.
This is the latest novel in the “Deacon Chalk, Occult Bounty Hunter” series by James R. Tuck. And it’s probably the last one I’ll read. My Review Page has a fairly positive review of the first two novels but this one just fell flat. Tuck is not a technically proficient writer. His prose is full of stale cliches, awkward phrasings and odd pacing. I overlooked these flaws in the first two books because I loved the characters and concept. And Tuck writes with a lot of energy that carries the reader along.
Blood & Magick barely has a story. Let’s see, a trio of witches attacks Chalk and his friends at the start, then we get a whole lot of pointless action sequences and other padding, and then [Spoiler Alert] the good guys win. Every scene felt like I’d seen or read it a dozen times. Every plot twist was out of a Bible for generic action novels. But worse than all that, Tuck’s technical writing hasn’t improved since his first book. If Tuck wants to be a professional writer, he needs to work on his craft. He still writes with a lot of energy but sometimes that isn’t enough.
This is the latest novel in the “Secret Histories” series by Simon R. Green. I reviewed the series here. The latest entry is just as good as the rest. In this one, Shaman Bond and his girlfriend (Molly Metcalf, the wild witch of the woods) infiltrate a supernatural casino in order to prevent a war. They fight their way through ever more difficult games with lives and souls on the line. This time, vampires make a brief cameo but it’s not a vampire book. Still, if you’re a fan of supernatural action/adventure, you should be reading this series.
It’s long been the goal (or so I’m told) of porn movie makers to produce a porn movie with all the production values of a mainstream Hollywood movie. “Revamped” seems to have turned that scenario inside out. It’s got the script and production values of a porn movie without the sex.
How did they get some actors I’ve heard of (Fred Williamson, Anne Lockhart, Jason Carter) to appear in this piece of crap? Why didn’t they spend an extra $10 and buy a script?
The story? A depressed loser willingly becomes a vampire then gets killed. He’s revived (re-undeaded?) five years later and finds that the world has changed but doesn’t make any more sense than it used to. Vampires are both a hunted minority and vicious killers. The police that hunt them are both ruthless fascists and keystone cops. In other words, this movie has no idea what it’s trying to be. Part comedy, part thriller, part sci-fi, part action and all boring, the movie only succeeds at one of these.
This movie was painful to watch. It was even more painful to listen to since most of the audio consisted of screeching. How did they get an Oscar-winning actress like Louise Fletcher to appear in this movie? Why did they get a talentless has-been like Maria Schneider to make this movie even worse than it had to be? And how was a respected comedy writer like Tony Hendra able to write a completely unfunny comedy?
Story? Kinda. Fletcher plays Countess Dracula who must bathe in the blood of virgins in order to remain eternally young. Unfortunately, virgins are getting harder to acquire (Are you laughing yet?). So she hires a mad scientist to develop artificial blood and…actually I’m not sure what happened. this movie is so incoherent I was frequently baffled by what was going on. Look, I know it isn’t easy to produce a good vampire comedy. But did it have to be this awful?
I’m back to watching cheesy horror films available via Amazon Prime. So, do you like satanic cult movies or do you prefer vampire movies? Why choose when this one has it all? Do you prefer movies with strong production values like costumes, sets and special effects or do you prefer a strong story? Forget it, this movie has neither.
An archeologist heads for Transylvania in search of an ancient, mystic artifact. The first place he looks is Castle Dracula. What could go wrong? At first, nothing. The castle is inhabited by a beautiful countess (and a zombie housekeeper and a monstrous servant). Then things go horribly wrong, his twin brother shows up. Twin brother?
What we’ve got here is something similar to a Hammer film with some Italian, artsy erotica thrown in. The movie makes no sense, the ending seems to belong to another movie and the print is poor quality. OTOH, the version I watched was hosted by Elvira as part of Movie Macabre. Elvira can make any movie watchable. I wouldn’t try watching the movie without her and neither should you.
Nobody can say I didn’t give this show a fair chance. I mean, I bailed on The Vampire Diaries after the pilot. But I gave The Originals 9 episodes to win me over. So where did it go wrong?
- The acting was too hammy
- The characters were too annoying
- They never really used the full potential of New Orleans as a setting
- The vampire mythology didn’t work for me. Vampire/werewolf hybrids? Some vampires 1000 times more powerful than others? Some vampires can survive daylight but not others? No coherence, they just make up the rules as they go along.
- Most importantly, nothing really interesting happened. Every episode seemed identical to the previous one. Basically, the writers and creators lacked imagination.