Genre Discussion: VAMPIRE Movies

[I_Cassini]

There was a show I liked that came on TV that had C. Thomas Howell in it- but I cant remember the name of it. He was a police detective I think working with vampires.

[Matt]

that was the 'Kindred: the Embraced' show, Cass. It was based on the White Wolf games (which were totally ripped off by the 'Underworld' films)

[Matt]

and I kinda liked 'Forever Knight' when it was on.

[Lisa]

Oooh, great thread!!

Top one, no argument - "Lost Boys". Nothing else comes close.

"Salem's Lot" - I like the first one enough to own the DVD. Liked the second one okay, they didn't do a terrible job with it. The only thing that kind of ruins them for me is that the book is so fucking spectacular that it creates problems with bringing it to film. It's just the ultimate vampire story.

I did love "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Forget Keanu and Winona. Oldman and especially Hopkins were awesome! And Sadie Frost was really great and creepy after Lucy becomes vamped out - she doesn't get nearly enough love in that movie. That scene where she's stolen the baby, and she's walking back to her crypt with her, wearing those scary, over-the-top burial clothes has always freaked me the hell out. And the most two unnerving parts of that scene are: one, that the baby's really crying hard, like she knows what's about to happen to her. It's not normal baby-crying - this little girl knows Lucy has plans for her. And two, Lucy's shushing her and trying to soothe her, like any normal mother would, despite the fact that she's about to eat her. Just chills, man.

LOVED "Interview with A Vampire" - top notch, start to finish. It's the opposite of "Salem's Lot" for me. I loved the movie WAY more than the book, which I positively hated. Great casting, loved everyone in it.

"Daybreakers" - one of the more modern vampire flicks that takes some liberties with classic vampire legends, but it still works. Really really great - if you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

"Twilight" and its spawn can go suck a dick. I mean, okay - I've rented the first two, and to be fair, the cinematography's gorgeous. So much so that I think I'd like to see at least one of them on a big screen. But I can go to a museum and see gorgeous scenery. The stories - no pun intended - are toothless. I've seen the first two, and frankly, any vampire movie where nothing scary happens and not a single drop of blood is shed isn't worth it.

[Anderson]

Vampires always sucked. Bram Stoker found an inventive way to take a classic horror legend and frame it within the conceit of mass communication of the time.

In a way, his original work was the Cloverfield of its time.

Even Stoker didn't get why that many people gave a fuck about the story. His reluctance to allow any films or extra work to be made of the story led to the production of Nosferatu. Thus began the start of a Vampire Horror cottage industry that eventually birthed Twilight.

The point is...fuck vampires.

[V]

Coppola's Dracula was noteworthy for Oldman and Sadie Frost's tits.

And not in that order.

[Nathan]

Coppola's Dracula was noteworthy for Oldman and Sadie Frost's tits.

And not in that order.

Truth.

[IggytheBorg]

I was hoping to be the 1st one to mention Deathmaster, but Tim beat me to it. It was just a laughably bad movie, IMO. A vampire that's been around hundreds of years, and went toe to toe with Napoleon and Hitler, taken out by a hippie that knows kung fu? Really?

Also, no love for True Blood? I dig the shit out of it, although I'll be the 1st to admit it's got faults. BUt any series regularly featuring naked Anna Paquin's gotta get SOME props, no?

[Timothy225]

From the few episodes I've seen, I enjoyed True Blood. I only made the commitment for the third season, and still have to watch the first two seasons all the way through to be brought up to speed, but also to catch up on the beauty that is naked Paquin.

[Abraham Smashington]