Dracu-zzzz

So back in October, I intended to chronicle my MST3K-esque journey watching Dracula.
Unfortunately life (and NaNoWriMo) intervened for a little while, and while I do have recaps of episodes 2 and 3, by the time I got to episode 4, a disturbing trend emerged (and no, I'm not talking about the continued character assassination of every canonical individual, which is still happening). The trend became this:
Character A does something to or for Character B.
Character B turns into a whiny bitch about it.
Character A apologizes, makes amends, or turns into a whiny little bitch, too.
Lather, rinse, repeat.

Just sit and mope with me, Renfield. I'm too emo to do anything productive.

We're now just past episode 8, and this is still happening. More than global energy subplots involving mysterious sociopolitical/religious orders and tragic pasts, more than the hunt for Dracula (Vlad Tepes, Vlad the Impaler, who we have to repeat all three titles every time we mention his name in case someone didn't know who he was) by a clandestine society of rich white guys who get a woman to do all their heavy duty fighting, more than the potentially emotionally engrossing story of young people exploring their feelings, desires, and sexuality in a healthy, honest way, the show has pretty much turned into a (really bad) soap opera with a vampire. And Dracula is pretty much the king of whiny, bitchy, tantrum-throwing moments.
It's really difficult to even feign interest in a series when every character is horrendously unlikable -- and not because they're wicked or evil or devious, but because they're selfish, whiny, assholes incapable of behaving like rational adults for more than a single episode arc. If I wanted to watch crappy daytime TV I'd watch crappy daytime TV. Don't try and feed me that swill on primetime network television and act like I'm supposed to think it's engaging.

Once you have sex with Mina, will you get rid of the ascot and ridiculous facial hair?

Aaaaaand that is why my next post is going to be dedicated to the complete opposite of Dracula: the utter magnificence that is Sherlock (whose main character is frequently a selfish, whiny, asshole... and yet you love him).

Dracula Bingo!

Or: Why I’m going to need gallons of alcohol in order to make it through this show. 

 (And yes, I've read the book. Repeatedly. So several gripes will be of a strictly canonical nature.)

 

Unchecked dramatic pauses such as: “Ladies and gentlemen, I give to you tonight… POWER!”

Dramatic pauses of such nature are only allowed from one person.
 

Dracula as sexy-romantic (anti)hero.
"Sometimes, the people we are meant for take us by surprise."
 

Lengthy tracking and/or close up shots of Dracula watching people
 

Overt attempts at inserting modern feminism ideals into female characters (who will still probably fall in love with the mass murderer known as Sexy-Drac)
 

Dracula licking/wiping his lips

Non-canonical romances

Dracula as over-protective stalker douche (but I’m sexy and ily so it’s OK, right bby?
 

References to immortal love of any kind (including the ‘immortality is a curse I would never bestow upon you’ spiel -- usually followed by making said beloved immortal)
 

References to Dracula not eating or drinking

Bosoms heaving for no other reason than boobs look awesome when stuffed inside corsets

Anytime a character comments on a new invention of the ‘modern age’

Dracula is talked about/portrayed as the ‘mysterious American’ (and if they don’t keep that facade for long, then being the ‘mysterious foreigner’)

Random shots of predatory/ominous animals (yes, including bats and wolves -- if they don’t actually interact with people ever and serve a real purpose but are just there for ‘mood’)
 

Dracula described as ‘unlike anyone I’ve ever met’ or any variation thereupon

Heavy fog orgy

Van Helsing being crazier/more manic than Renfield
 

Complete annihilation of canonical character traits (Lucy as a sex pot)

Insertion of contemporary music (this includes original score that features synthesizers and/or electric guitar)
 

Anyone seductively consumes food or drink

FLASHBACK

Bad vampire makeup

Recreational drug use

Use of creative ‘swearing’ or ‘cursing’

Ridiculous rationalizations/explanations for people dying

So, in order to cope with this insanity, I did what any rational modern viewer would do: I made a BINGO game! Copy it. Print it. Share and drink to it with friends

I'm am returning...

I know... it's been a long time. I wish I could say many important, cool, exciting, and/or life-altering things have occurred in my absence, but that would be an utter lie.
However, in the next few weeks I plan to resurrect this blog as a place to air some creative/life grievances and offer some opinions and silliness and fangirling and ranting over the upcoming fall season of new (and returning shows.

First up: Dracula Bingo! (Or, Why I'm Going to Need Gallons of Alcohol to Survive This Show)
Coming really, really soon...

October is "Read More, Bitch" Month

...and update your blog more, too.

I need to read more. Again. My mind has once again become stagnant and dulled. It begs for life to be breathed into it and at best I've been able to manage a weak sigh.
So last night I sat down, took out a fake Sharpie and a piece of construction paper (because sometimes for important lists you have to be eight... that's just how it is), and wrote down a short-ish list of book to read for next month. Seeing as how it's going to be October, and I love all the fallishness (or what I remember of it, since southern California doesn't have seasons) and Halloween funtimes that go with it, it's a pretty Gothic-centric list.
However, to keep myself on task, I'm tacking on the added challenge of blogging a review of these once a week, hopefully on Tuesdays. That way I satisfy two goals in one, and help my poor story-starved brain recover from its lack of imaginative air.

If you want to peek in every week to check my progress, please do so -- and if you want to know what I might will be reading, here's the list:

Hell House - Richard Matheson (re-read)

Northanger Abbey - Jane Austen

The Vampyre  - John Polidori

Roald Dahl's Ghost Stories - Roald Dahl

Dracula (graphic novel) - Bram Stoker / Marvel Comics*

Bonus Book TBA

*The Dracula graphic novel review will actually show up over at The Comics Observer, likely on 10/29, but I'll post a lil' tidbit and lingage here on that date.

Read along with me... IF YOU DARE. MUAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAA!
(See. Halloween. Love it.)

One of the few times I get snobbish and truly rant...

I thought I had included this entry in the early days of this blog, but upon review I found that I merely found another tangent to follow on the topic. However, with the advent of my first interview on vampire lore, I find myself tasked with amping up my rant quotient. Thus, my rant (to date) to end all rants. Even though it was written over two years ago, my feelings have not changed -- though I will say that Nolan's 'Batman' trilogy has advanced some of the cinematic ideas regarding baddies and those who just want to watch the world burn.


Writer's Block Query: Is there a book you really loved that was subsequently turned into a movie? Did it live up to your expectations? Why or why not?

Hoo boy... settle in, readers. You just opened the door for me to talk about 'the abomination' that is the film industry's attempt to ruin my favorite book. Over. And over. And OVER.(andaoveandoverandoverandover about 3,000 times -- number of times only slightly exaggerated).
For the newer peeps, random visitors, or those who just may not have been paying attention, my favorite book is Dracula. I blame my father. He told me at sixteen that this was 'the great unfilmed novel.' This is the last thing you want to say to a gothic-horror-loving teen who is a voracious reader, writer, film buff and has a passion for creative endeavors including film-making -- unless, that is, you want to create an obsessive monster.
Now, as movie adaptations of books go, I'm not a complete purist. I understand the need to clip some things, adjust others, creatively interpret descriptions and thoughts and situations. I get it. The execution doesn't always work for me, but I understand the need for it. So I want to make that clear before I start in on my rant. I also want to make it known there are some adaptations of books to film I think are great, one of which I'll close on after my scathing commentary. I love the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy. I love (most of) the 'Harry Potter' movies (Seriously, what happened between OotP and HBP? How did the director go retarded in that short span of time? Different rant...). I adore the 2005 'Pride & Prejudice' film, as well as the miniseries with Colin Firth. There are also a lot of adaptations that make me twitch (*cough*Kubrick's 'The Shining'*cough*), but we'll avoid those this time since I'm about to go full-force snark on one of the 'greatest living directors' of American cinema.

Francis Ford Coppola, you raped my book.

What disturbs and angers me foremost about 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is that it's the only film to carry the author's name in the title and is so obviously not the book. This is made worse by the fact that when you watch interviews or read literature on the film, Coppola actually thinks he DID film the book. Now tell me, scholarly director, where in that book does Mina go on a date to the movies with Dracula? WHERE? And when precisely does she profess her undying love for him and shaft her husband in favor of Drac's scary bouffant hair and red dress? You want to know what this movie is? It's the Karloff version of 'The Mummy' adapted with vampires along with the characters and some scenes from Stoker's novel. Granted it is, so far, the only version of 'Dracula' to include all three of Lucy's suitors. Unfortunately, as is the case with most of the characters, they aren't really the type of men they are meant to be (or, in the case of Billy Campbell's quite wonderful portrayal of Quincey, he's so 'actually the character' that he seems out of place next to everyone else's wackiness). Barring their titular inclusion, the characters are written and portrayed basically nothing like they are in the book. Mina's a blushing bride turned wanton love slave of Dracula. Lucy's a man-chasing whore. Van Helsing's a complete crack pot. Seward, a brilliant young doctor, can't possibly run an asylum on his own without being unbalanced himself (oh, and a morphine addict because everyone in Victorian society was addicted to sex, morphine, absynthe and/or opium). Jonathan Harker is a giant pussy (and Keanu? Seriously? WTF, casting directors?). Arthur is probably the only one besides Quincey who is somewhat true to character (and a complete waste of Cary Elwes who, in an ideal situation, would have been the PERFECT Arthur). Dracula himself is a whiny, manipulative, cuckolding bat-man who just wants to find love.
Excuse me? Dracula travels all the way from Transylvania to England to seduce and romance a girl who looks like his suicidal wife from 400 years ago? HE JUST WANTS TO BE LOVED?!? F that S! What the man wants is to settle in to a quiet life in England where he can blend in and kill people at his leisure in a society that, unlike those superstitious gypsies, embraces modern science and reason and therefore will dismiss his crimes as something rational and explainable. When this is threatened by the men in this book, he turns on the vengeance and wreaks havoc on their lives. Why? BECAUSE HE'S EVIL.
This is a huge problem I have with this movie (and a lot of movies, adaptations or not) -- the resistance to the concept of evil. It's not necessarily that bad people are glorified, or mistreated and misunderstood (though that happens), it's that there is a lack of ability in film-making, and in society as a whole: to believe that some things, some people, some entities simply desire nothing more than to kill, to hate, to destroy and ravage and wreak havoc. The reverse, sadly, is also true (though to a lesser extent) -- that no one can be good for the sake of just being good. No one is pure of heart. No one will fight for goodness simply because they are good and believe in the goodness of others. (Anyone understanding now one of the reasons I love Doctor Who?) Everyone has to have dark motives, want something selfish, be an addict, covet their neighbor's ass and go for it. I'm not saying people should be portrayed without flaws or dark deeds and always taking the moral and ethical high road. What I'm saying is there aren't enough Aragorn's and Samwise's in our media.
Those being the major issues -- and they are MAJOR -- there are lesser problems I have with the movie. For instance, the Dracu-babes making time with Harker in the castle, biting on him and nearly giving him a BJ... yeah. Never happens. Not even close. There are also so many minor-seeming adjustments to situations, and how characters react to them, that when you know the story simply point to the creative minds not knowing how to portray a moment and so masking it with over-the-top constructs (Dracula as the giant talking bat, anyone?).
I could keep going. For hours. Some people have seen/heard me do this. However, I'll spare you the minutiae of everything that's wrong with this movie. As a film, it's not terrible (it's not particularly good either). As an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, it's an abomination.
This is however, par for the course with Dracula interpretations. There is no film in existence, of the hundreds that have been made which are somehow connected to the source, which even remotely begins to resemble the actual novel. I attack this one the most because it's the highest profile, the most recent 'straight interpretation' of the novel made for wide release, and because its title should be stripped from the record and replaced with "Francis Ford Coppola's The Mummy with Vampires and Characters Loosely Based on Bram Stoker's Dracula."

Welcome to Fright Night, Guy...

Let's get this out in the open right away: this is not your dad's (or cousin's or older brother's or your childhood) Fright Night. Yet it is still Fright Night.

It's fun and scary and over-the-top juuuuuuust enough to balance the serious moments. Yes, there are some flaws, sometimes in character logic, but it's a horror movie. Such is the world those people inhabit. Inevitably you make one distracted decision which throws someone you care about into potential danger and you don't realize it. And one over the top scene contains the least subtle acting I've seen in... a long time, and yet it sort of works. Don't want to spoil too much, but my crew deemed it the Hey Guy Can I Get a Few Beers Predator Check scene.

The writing is sharp, smart, sardonic, and even bittersweet when it needs to be. The setting (Vegas and its suburbs) is perfect for what they're trying to accomplish with plot, tone, and style.
The performances and direction cater to the writing and the actors. Yelchin balances former-geek-into-wannabe-popular-dick very well. Mintz-Plasse makes a strong argument for why listening even to your former friends when they tell you someone is a vampire is a good idea (and his post-transformation shtick is equal parts saddening and hilarious). Poots and Collette handle typical chick roles in horror with wit, charm, and grace. Farrell is the Stanley Kowalski of vampires -- a role which is crafted well with his abilities: hot, alpha male, douchebag who knows he's the shit. He's pure predator with an arrogance carried from hundreds of years knowing other men pale in comparison to his prowess and his pecs. Tennant is... magical. Yes, I'm a fan, but there are reasons and several of those are prevalent in this flick. Timing. Chemistry. Ability to switch from drunk wimp to drunk bad-ass in seconds. Multiple creative uses of the word 'fuck.'
It even has a few good surprises... and Chris Sarandon in a great little cameo.

It ain't perfect. It is very different from the original, but it succeeds on its own merits. It's one of the few movies since Scream to hit the balance between comedy and real horror right on target.
Also, it's just freaking FUN.

Now, if you want your horror films all scary and intense, I recommend you wait for The Woman in Black. As several sites have pointed out, the latest trailer manages to combine a myriad of ghost story cliches and yet still be tense and creepy. See for yourself.

Poots-a-rific!

This is not a post referencing bodily functions... unless, like in my world, geeking out is considered a natural physical reaction to something awesome.
Or, as deemed yesterday, Poots!ing.
The reference relates to the very pretty and talented Imogen Poots and her presence in the upcoming Fright Night movie. One of my male friends needed some reason to have the same swoony, geek out feelings toward the film as I do... and I offered him Imogen Poots. Not only was this acceptable, but this fine young woman's name is now interchangeable as a verb (as in: I'd totally Poots that!) and an exclamation of awesome (see title).

Fun times with Poots!ing aside, one may ponder why this movie excites me so... well, sit a spell and I'll tell ya, Sal. (Not sure where that came from. I'm going to blame the Bonanza concrete truck spied this morning on the commute to work -- a red and yellow cement spinner with cowboy hats painted on it. It inspired a conversation of treating cement mixer trucks like cattle on the prairie and bucking broncos; we all must do something to stay awake before our morning caffeine fix.)

A full rundown/review of the movie will post on Friday after basking in the glow of the Thursday night screening, however, in anticipation of the release I feel it my duty to express why I am more excited for this movie than just about any film this year.

1. It's a real vampire movie -- with real vampires vampiring. None of this wussy Cullen sparkly mopey Anne Rice crap. Alternately, none of this utter predatory, near-wholly animalistic creatures with more resemblance to Gollum than to human. One of the previews contains a perfect assessment of what Jerry is, and what vampires were created to be: he's not brooding, or love sick. He's the shark from Jaws. That assessment alone excites me.

2. As I duck objects being hurtled at me, the original Fright Night isn't all that. It's fun. It's got some great moments. The cast is good. The writing's solid. However, if you're going to remake an 80s horror movie, this is one that, in the right hands, could use some TLC -- especially in our current climate of aforementioned lack of 'real' vampires in vampire movies. Put it this way: the original is good, but it's not The Lost Boys. And if anyone goes after that (again), I may have an aneurysm.

3. The cast. One of the aspects that first excited me about this film is the cast. All solid actors: and only one of them American. It does amuse me that a story about a suburban kid in suburban America fills itself with a wordly cast.

4. Marti Noxon. One of my favorite BtVS writers, who already in the previews has given a couple nods to Buffy-isms in the crafting of the script. Mostly in Peter Vincent's lines.

5. Peter Vincent. OK, the Vegas magician thing may seem like a Hollywood ploy to get more business into Vegas. Or just some cheap gimmick. And yet... we don't have the late night horror fests on telly anymore, especially ones hosted by has-been horror actors. We don't really have anything similar to it on TV, unless you count nostalgia clip shows which don't usually have hosts, only a series of semi-has-beens talking about said items in the clipfest. We do, however, have Vegas: the place where good, decent, and terrible-yet-popular acts go to die a long and slow death, possibly over the course of years. And let's face it, Celine Dion isn't likely to have great knowledge of the undead, and those Cirque people may be able to kick some ass but their mind-bending acrobatics are almost as creepy as a guy who wants to seduce you just so he can murder you via exsanguination before the morning. Magicians, though... those are the kind of buggers you can see having a dark past and perhaps just a little too much insight into the realm of the paranormal -- at least as much as any washed-up horror movie actor. I mean, any guy who drinks Midori straight is either a nineteen year old girl, or has some serious early adult life issues he's working through...
And, yeah, OK... it's David "My Doctor" Tennant. I would be going for this fact alone, but thankfully every article I've read and preview or interview I've seen has given me plentiful reasons for wanting to see this movie besides Shirtless!Doctor in 3D.

Got a little Lycan in you? Would you like some?

While doing some cleaning and organizing this weekend (both mental and physical), I happened to spend a ridiculous amount of time with the telly on in the background, flipping between Indiana Jones trilogy (There are only three. Just three. Do you hear me? Only three movies exist!), and the Underworld trilogy.
Now, much as people might react with surprise and dismay, I am not really on the Underworld fan-wagon. Why not? Well, a) not a fan of Kate Beckinsale. She just does nothing for me. B) For being movies crammed with cool action sequences filled with almost as much gore-splatter as a Tarantino flick, they move at a snail’s pace. Every time I watch one I feel like six hours of my life have gone by; I don’t know what it is but the pacing on those films is so awkward. C) Vampires vs. werewolves stories need to have something really compelling for me to engage in them (like Taylor Lautner with his shirt off, or Ian Somerhalder being the NewSpike, or Seth Green as a tiny-man-by-day-wolf-badass-every-full-moon kind of guy, or Ian Somerhalder with his shirt off… you know, deeply compelling stuff). Actually Underworld has a rather compelling take on the whole vampires vs. werewolves mythos, it’s just buried under horrid pacing, electric blue contacts, and Kate Beckinsale’s dripping wet latex suit. So why did I spend a not-insignificant portion of my weekend with this train wreck of a series in the background of my life? Simple: Michael Sheen.
Don’t get me wrong, the Brit actors in these movies kick a ton of ass: Tony Curran, Derek Jacobi, and Bill “I’d watch him read the phonebook” Nighy, but they all behave pretty much as one might expect them to behave in this kind of genre. Waltz on, Michael Sheen, and it’s goodbye Tony Blair, hello tortured badass Lucian. The first Underworld features Suave Badass, except for the brief scene where he tells Michael about the start of the war and his forbidden love affair with Viktor’s daughter. I just spoilered you for the whole series -- Whoops :P That one sequence earns him the cred to have his own movie where he gets to Maximus Decimus Meridius his way through the whole movie, except Michael Sheen’s such a badass that he lives through it all, damaged though he may be, to carry on another seven hundred years (just spoiled Gladiator, too. Don’t think I missed that). Also, unlike many of his lycan comrades (and nowadays seemingly EVERY vampire), Lucian never gets whiny about his situation. His life blows massive food-poisoning-from-KFC sized chunks, but he deals with it. He takes one look at his lover’s dumbfuck daddy and says, “All right, old man, you want to have at me for centuries for loving your daughter? Bring it. ‘Cause Im’ma throwdown with a vengeance you think only you possess… and then I’m going to even the score and blend the races like I did with your babygirl, just to piss you off.”
Now, I admit to my affinity for tall, lanky, (generally) pale English blokes, but I don’t typically go in for Michael Sheen. Yet you lather that man up in movie sweat, give him some longer-and-dirtier-than-Strider hair, tan & buff him up a bit and turn him into a badass Lycanthrope and I will watch the slow-moving hours tick by content with my British werewolf hunk keeping me company.

Jane the Vampire Writer

Just before I succumbed to the Death Flu, I managed a feat I have not achieved in an embarrassingly long time: I read an entire book in one sitting. Granted, it was literary popcorn – quick, tasty and easy to consume – but after my reading drought I consider it quite an accomplishment.

I read Jane Goes Batty, the second in what now looks to be a series (or at least trilogy) of books about Jane Austen as a vampire. It’s a refreshing take on the supernatural Austen genre simply because it puts the author herself in the present day (in a fictional-yet-similar world to our own) as a vampire. It pokes good-natured fun at the Austen clones and supernatural takes and includes a couple of Austen’s literary rivals and contemporaries. I really enjoyed the first book, Jane Bites Back, because it was a fun, quirky, intelligent little mind-candy novel. The second book was much the same, though not quite as engaging, mostly because of the more Hollywood, as opposed to literary, storyline -- and I mean this literally. The first book was all about Jane trying to be published (again), and then dealing with the success while trying to hide her vampirism (especially from the man she likes). This one deals with the now-standard transformation of book to film aggravations, as well as hiding her vampirism from her now boyfriend and his creepy mother.
I enjoyed the characterization of one of Jane’s contemporaries that I won’t detail here only to avoid spoilers from book one… but I will say his escapades at times held my interest more than Jane’s. While the new characters were colorful, none of them interested me as much as the original characters and I would have preferred more with the starting line-up than the newcomers. I hope the next book gets back to the more literary aspects of the first book with a more streamlined and focused story, still for a popcorn read on a Saturday afternoon it satisfied my novel craving.

And if you're curious about book one and don't mind snark and spoilers, you can read my review of it.

I promised you an eternity of misery, so I'm just keeping my word.

Since I apparently still possess the obsessive power of a twelve-year-old (at least emotionally, if not fiscally or with as much devoted time and energy), I decided that I could no longer wait the span of mere days in order to indulge my love of The Vampire Diaries. Thus, I caved and used some hoarded gift cards to purchase series one on DVD.
Surprisingly, my memory for this show only lasts about half a season as many things I noticed in watching just the first few episodes I completely forgot about. This either means I’m getting old, or I really did dismiss the show utterly in the early days and only focused on scenes Damon was in… or both (scary thought).
So here’s a few items I jotted down last night in my pre-NyQuil haze that struck me as Things Maybe I Should Have Noted and Retained From the Beginning:

Naïve Bonnie is Naïve – who’s the first person to notice Stefan? Soon to be anti-vamp-everything Bonnie. Her spew of how good he looks from behind is even more laughable when you know how much she grows to despise him (and it doesn’t take that long)

Emo Jeremy is kill this stupid child now – Elena has a line early on about how she knows who Jeremy really is and it’s not this guy. She’s right. Real Jeremy is the HotJailbaitMan we have now. Whiny, lovesick, druggie, emo Jeremy is just an annoying dick… almost as annoying as Tyler.

WTF fog? Damon! Really? Why doesn't he use this more. It's pretty freaking cool. – No, really, why did we get rid of vampires having the ability to control fog (and animals)? It’s a traditional and pretty awesome power. Plus, it’s like Damon’s slinking around Elena before Stefan even knows he’s in town, which is pretty brill.

Weeping angel statues For the Terror! – Forgot about those early cemetery scenes with G-D angel statues that are going to burst through the television and displace me in time or snap my neck as soon as I stop looking at them. Damn you, Steven Moffat.

Seriously... the Vicki/Tyler/Jeremy triangle makes me want to hurl – ‘nuff said.

Caroline doesn't change much and I kinda love her for this. Other characters I can't wait until they evolve, or die, but Caroline's basically a sweet but shallow, tactless twat from the get-go and I pretty much adore her.

I epically forgot about Logan... probably because I have infinitely more love for Alaric.

The pilot has Kevin Williamson all over it: teen delinquency, quippy one-liners, mystic symbolism... and that whole 'no teens actually talk this way' dialogue.

The diary device worked well in the early episodes, but I'm glad they did away with it. – Even by episode three I was tiring of it. It’s good establishing technique to see what Elena and Stefan are coping with internally, but as the writing and acting improve, it becomes rather ridiculous.

Wuthering Heights? NOOOOOOOO! Too cliché! – I mean, of course Damon knocks Twilight and Edward, but then why must Stefan give Elena a copy of this book? Not only is it a vampire cliché now, it’s a PIECE OF SHIT NOVEL.
Yes, the queen of anti-snobbery has a big vendetta against this book, but that’s a rant for another day.

Still WHINING, Louis...

Attempting to keep the horror-train creeping along at the pace of a depressant-drugged-up snail, I watched Interview with the Vampire on Blu-ray for the first time. Even without an HDTV I must say that the sumptuous costuming, lighting, and production design made it worth the $12 I spent on a movie I already owned on DVD.
I hadn't watched it in probably four years, and there was much in it I remember loving that I still loved... and issues with it I still have. I mean, I love me some Antonio Banderas and will gleefully gave at his Spanish hotness regardless, but who the hell thought casting him as an ancient French vampire in an American-laded movie when he could barely speak English was a good idea? Pretty, yes. Smart, no.
However, for all its faults and oddities, I truly prefer the film adaptation of this novel to its source material. The pace is better, there's less of Louis whining, and aging Claudia up a couple years makes her relationships with Louis and Lestat much more believable (and less creepifying in a reverse-child-predator way). There's also a level of attention to detail in creating the world that the film excels with in a way most 'horror' movies would have ignored.
Plus, it has one of the best endings of any vampire movie ever. Lestat jumping out from behind the reporter after he's fled Louis, feeding, taking the convertible's wheel, making appropriately disparaging comments regarding Louis' emo tendencies, turning on his charm, then driving off into the night blasting an epically awesome Guns 'N Roses cover of "Sympathy for the Devil" -- it doesn't get much more fawesome.

Holy Vampires, Jarvis!

Herein begineth my assessment of the Priest trailer...

The opening shots look like Equilibrium meets Blade Runner... with clergy.

First lines: I come before you because I need my authority reinstated. This was a vampire attack.

So we learn:
a) Paul Bettany is a fallen priest. I have ideas on how this happened, though likely the real reason is not so sexy and sordid as I would like to imagine...
b) 'Priest' in this world = sanctified vampire slayer
c) Vampires = evil

All of these facts pique my interest, so I don't need much more convincing to see this movie, but there's two minutes of preview left.

Cue said vampire attack featuring a Sookeh-less Stephen Moyer trying to protect his family, though his screaming daughter seems to indicated he is made of fail in this situation.

Cue VO by Christopher Plummer (now becoming interchangeable with Max von Sidow, which I don't think is bad for either of them) as the head bishop/pope/guru stating how all the people are so safe and trusting that the clergy do all they can to protect them from the horrible vampires (thus confirming the 'priest as sanctified slayer' status).
Horrible Vampires, btw, that seems to resemble elongated cousins of Gollum. Far more evil and therefore likely more enjoyable than mopey vampires, but not nearly as hot.

Pope Plummer threatens excommunication and exile of (massively ripped... semi-tanned... nubile........ I'm back) Priest Bettany if he decides to take slaying matters into his own throwing-star crosses. Thus, Emo Preist and his face-splaying cross-tattoo climb on his futuristic Harley and like a cowboy on the Batbike he's off into the unknown to dust some vamps.
Apparently joined by the requisite Hot Asian Babe, Hot Young Blonde and Really F-in Hot Borderline-Nutjob Rogue, they travel into the heart of Gollumvampland in search of revenge and sexy time.

See above re: vampires not being hot in this film. It is more than made up for by Emo Priest and BN Rogue (and for those who enjoy Asian chicks and Cam Gigandet, they're in it too). The costumer seems to have reached into the illustrations of The Dark Tower and pulled out Roland's clothes for Karl Urban to get his psycho-sexual-rogue on in... and yes, I am one of those people with a 'hot priest' fetish. You've got some random costume exciter in your fantasies as well, so don't judge. Thus, Bettany in priest garb, even with the giant facial henna cross makes any of the cheesetastic, groan-inducing potential of this flick obsolete. I mean, I actually enjoyed Legion so I think this will suit my need for another ass-kicking, ripped-Bettany ride just fine.

"Kiss me or kill me. Which will it be, Damon? We both know you're only capable of one."

At the risk of exposing myself as a helpless vampire junkie, I'd like to take a moment to explain why I'm hooked on The Vampire Diaries.
To preface: I have not read the books, and honestly from reading the breakdowns on the back of each novel, I'm not terribly tempted. There's something about this series that, for me, requires seeing people enact the ridiculous premise... and it's worth it. Yes, it's cheesy, though it has improved over time (not as quickly or to the level that some would have you believe. I make no allusions that it's a great show, or even a solid show. It's a good show most of the time, and holds more eye candy than a Halloween trick-or-treating pumpkin holds mini jawbreakers). Yes, it's obvious most of these actors couldn't pass for college students IRL much less high schoolers. Yes, the show is often great one moment and terrible the next -- and home to some spectacular overacting. However, all of this is surpassed by the following: it's sexy, it's actually scary sometimes, it's paced extremely well, it's sexy, it's funny, the cast is obviously enjoying themselves, it's sexy, vampires are actually villains who kill people and even the good guys -- vampire or human or other -- are all flawed... and did I mention it's sexy? Yes, I am partial to the naughty Salvatore brother (aka Damon, aka Boone from LOST) and he's by far the driving sexual force in the show, but really there's someone for all tastes (or was until they started killing off the Asians, but hopefully they'll repopulate).
For all The Vampire Diaries' silliness and wacky antics, why do I return week after week? I wish I could claim my love for vampire-related media causes an inherent drive to continue viewing, despite knowing there are far better ways to indulge in vampire 'culture.' I mean, that's what obsessions are for, right? *sigh* No, my obsession with this show ties into something far more primal. It's Damon.
From about the midway point of last season, after I'd already accepted that my addiction to this show would not be abating anytime soon, I pondered what kept me coming back. Every time I contemplated this, I got the same answer: Damon is the new Spike. There, I said it. I've been saying it for several months now, just not so publicly. Damon's character is selfish, manipulative, calculating, unpredictable, violent, unstable, insanely good looking... and yet capable of deep emotions -- deeper in most cases than those of who he's chosen to associate with -- sound familiar? He's the bad boy, but he's the bad boy you want to have screw you, then screw you over, and if he ends up killing you, oh well -- at least you had a go with him a few times. He's deliciously evil in every sense of the phrase. I want Damon to develop a bit more of a conscience, but not much, because if he becomes too self-aware and involved emotionally in the torment he wreaks on other people he'll turn into an emo-vamp (like Edward Cullen or Angel or Louis) and there's no fun in that. The fun is in the unabashed, unapologetic nature of a vampire who is just as likely to kill you as kiss you -- unless he really loves you. Following the analogy this might seem to equate Elena/Katherine to Drusilla, but sorry ladies, you're just not that interesting. Though an argument could be made for Elena equating to Buffy. She's got her hunk of remorseful love Stefan (Angel), and the badass who starts out gunning for her and end up falling for her in Damon (again, sound familiar?).
With such a comparison one might be tempted to yawn themselves away from what may be seen as a retread of better vampire shows. I'm not here to argue that The Vampire Diaries ranks at or above a show like Buffy, and I never will. The fact remains, however, that it's been a long time coming (especially with the Anne Rice-inspired Twilight insanity) since we've had a vampire character capable of being good when it suits him but at his core is not a good man -- and yet the audience still loves him. I didn't even vote in the Entertainment Weekly poll for best 'sexy beast' (and in a poll that included David Tennant's Doctor I would not have voted for anyone BUT him) yet Damon topped everyone. Everyone. He surpassed Hugh Jackman, Taylor Lautner AND RPatz. So it ain't just me loving on the evil hotness, or expressing a modicum of shame at admitting to preferring (at least fictionally) the bad boy to the good one, but momma needs her Spike fix, and Damon as Spike 2.0 feeds that addiction very well.

Quincey, Save Me...

Dracula-related materials have once again stirred a voracious appetite in me, and of all my obsessions it is the one I will least deny. I purchased Dracula, My Love and suspect I shall complete it within a week. Then, on Twitter, I discovered this: Dracula In Love. It sounds basically like the novel I just bought, only smuttier and with a more overt uber-feminist attitude. Either that or it'll turn into another Vampire Lesbian Spank Inferno interpretation, possibly minus the spanking. If the brief excerpt is any indication, smut or not, this will be another book that causes as much indignation in me as amusement.
Here's my issue with the ultra-feminist take on Dracula (I'll get around to the po-mo sexuality issues at a later date): it fails to regard the fact that for a man, writing about female characters of which -- even as a theatre guy -- he likely had little comprehension of, Stoker managed well. He certainly managed better than most men (and women) of his time in creating a female character whose intelligence, good nature, selflessness and humility stand markedly above other female characters in that age. Mina experiences more freedom as a Victorian woman than most did and yet sees herself as being quite traditional. The journal excerpts written from Mina's perspective in no way demean her own value, nor do they hint at some deep, burning desire for sexual release, equality (which she is given to an extent in the novel, again far above many female Victorian characters), or Dracula. She pities the dark creature more than the men, and as a female that is understandable -- this does not mean she harbours secret desires to go to the movies with him and make him her cuddle bear.
THAT aspect more than any other annoys me; the concept that in order for Mina to assert herself as more of an equal to the men in the book, to truly ascend as a feminist, she must embrace her sexual desires and fall in love with a Byronic vampire hottie whom she hopes will worship her forever. This is the best feminist writers can come up with to empower Mina? Have her fall in love with an arrogant, self-serving, demonic being who only goes after her as revenge on the team thwarting his progress to make London his undead playground?... genius. Is the best expression of female empowerment we can come up with to have Mina become Bella Swan, swooning over the gorgeous stalker who thirsts for her life? Already in Dracula, My Love she dreams of Dracula coming to break up her wedding with Jonathan claiming her as his own. In what way does that allow her freedom? That only transfers what some see as oppression in Mina's treatment from the hunters to Dracula -- it still makes her a victim of his and devalues (or ignores) the selflessness she naturally possesses in the original novel. Especially considering that no matter how the story is told, the simple fact remains that Dracula kills people. Plural. He's a serial killer. These authors are causing a supposedly intelligent, compassionate woman to fall in love with a murderer -- because that's so much less twisted and easier to comprehend than the same woman being in love with a book-smart, rational, caring, albeit a little vanilla guy who does actually develop and grow into a real man when his beloved (and humanity) is threatened.
It's not that there should be a rational explanation for all fiction, especially when you get into the murky waters of the supernatural, because life and love are not rational. However, when a human falls in love with an other-being there's a fair amount of 'splainin' that should accompany the human's journey to love, besides the other-being possessing the awesome powers of major hotness and having a master's in stalking. Otherwise at the end of the day all these re-imaginings do is create a fiction epidemic of Bella Swan clones. Sooner or later that will (I hope) make people wish for vampires that do nothing but kill whiny, self-involved little masochists who yearn for their dark lover's touch.

The Universe Giveth...

The Universe Giveth...

Me something to rant about to distract me from the problems of life.

Dracula, My Love - Gag Me with a Stake

(We now have Emma and the Vampires, as well)

I don't even know where to start with the wrongness... The sad truth is I will read it. I will probably even buy it when it's released. However, that doesn't keep me from wanting to scream to the heavens: WHY DO YOU KEEP LETTING PEOPLE RUIN MY FAVORITE BOOK?!?!
I'm sure there's a not-small group of Austenites who feel the same way about so many re-imaginings of her novels (supernatural or otherwise), and I want you to know that as much as these reworks entertain me, I feel your pain. Really. Feel. It.
It's not that someone holds a different perspective on the novel and wants to express and explore that perspective. That's cool. Get down with your own biased opinion. What is not cool to me is the continual breaking down of the characters and themes in this novel and warping them into something completely different than what Stoker wrote.
To change one character changes them all -- this is something I have seen in EVERY re-working of the novel I've read. The characters changed most often from their book persona are Van Helsing and Dracula. I get that, to a point, for those who want to make both characters seem a little less archaic (though that is kind of the point in the novel anyway). However in instances such as this, what possesses me to throw a grand mal hissy is crafting a story in which Dracula is set up as a romantic hero (or even anti-hero). The amount of *headdesking* this inspires in me gives me headaches, because here's the thing: DRACULA. IS. EVIL.
He's not a tortured soul looking for redemption. He's not a crestfallen former warrior wanting to return to the good old days of having multiple wives and (literally) spiking dignitaries (OK, maybe a little bit of that one). He's not a seductive, sexy creature of the night who just wants to love and be loved. He's an evil sonofabitch who, not satisfied with continuing the barbarous ways he engendered during his 'youth,' seeks to make a new life in a new country where he can blend in and kill at will without having to worry about interference from pesky, superstitious gypsies... and if he gets to make a few companions to go tearing through the English countryside and bustling London with as well, so much the more fun.
The concept that the human heroes and sheroes of Stoker's novel could be so enchanted by Dracula that they begin to love him is utterly ridiculous. Yes, Skippy (aka Jonathan Harker) may not have the biggest brain or the most common sense, but he does improve as the novel goes on, and more than anything he improves greatly once the life of his beloved is at stake (no pun intended). Mina is a devoted wife, a new woman in more ways than she realizes, and not the sort of person to abandon her husband -- or even contemplate abandoning him -- to make time with the creepy foreigner who killed her best friend for sport.
Dracula's motives are simple: kill people, take up residence in England and blend in... so he can kill more people. The other characters have far more complex motivations which drive them to hunt down Dracula (as if stopping a mass murderer who kills and transforms a woman all the main characters love into a soulless, bloodsucking fiend isn't motive enough). Above everything else their motives are driven forward most forcefully by love. Not pity, not jealousy, not even revenge that they have every right to desire. They destroy Dracula because he is a plague that threatens not only them but everyone in England, and the world.
I can stomach a lot of tweaks and silliness people write about in regards to the themes in Dracula. Yet I always draw the line in two specific areas: evil and love/sex. Anytime someone tries to devalue the passionate, evolved take on good versus evil and/or attempts to turn every glance or suggestive word into an orgy, I instinctively leap on my soapbox and turn into a screaming nutter.
The sad truth is people today want to relate everything to a sexual act or feeling when they cannot understand a motivation (and I'm not just talking everyday folk here, I've seen people with advance degrees in literature pull this BS). This reduction in the value of platonic human bonds makes me more than sad, it makes me livid and depressed. The even sadder (and frankly, scarier) truth is that society now deems it irregular and bizarre to hold a belief in such an idea as evil. Everything needs an explanation or motive other than a sinful desire (and really I use sinful as a contextual word to encompass a concept many people no longer believe in, not necessarily reflecting a religious connotation... because I could use a word like 'taboo' and easily be misunderstood further).
Due to my riled, frenetic mind at the insanity of these 'beliefs' I am drawn, as usual, to words someone else wrote that express an idea better than I can do at present.

Methos: Do you really think there's no such thing as evil?
Fake: Only fear.
Methos: So what? Genghis Khan and Hitler were just children playing up?
Fake: They were men, driven by fear to commit evil acts.
Methos: And if their mothers had loved them truly, it would have been a different world.

Right, because genocide fueled by blind hatred is not evil. It's just fear.

If you believe that, then you probably do believe Dracula isn't such a bad guy and deserves to be loved...

Admiration

In the world of writing intelligently about 'fandoms' (I really hate that term sometimes), there are only a handful of people who really inspire me and make me gooey with admiration -- a good kind of respectful gooey, not a naughty gooey. These people tend to write about topics and fandoms which are... let's say 'age inappropriate.' Or perhaps a better way of saying it would be these are people who possess the intellect and reasoning capabilities to appreciate much higher forms of art and entertainment, but prefer (usually) to spend their time with what their equals and superiors in such areas of study might refer to as dreck, or utter trash.

Here is an entry on Eclipse, and Twilight in general, which exemplifies what makes me gooey for those who could obsess and write about 'high' art and choose the trash instead.

Slay Me, Please

Whilst delving into my newest read (Jane Slayre), I find it appropriate to discuss the recent influx of paranormal-centered re-imaginings, rewrites, 'sequels' and such of both 'classic' literature and historical figures.
Sure, everyone's heard of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, and (like its Austen counterpart) the not-quite-as-popular Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. P&P&Z author Seth Grahame-Smith has metaphorical tentacles (I hope they're metaphorical, I haven't actually seen the man in person, so who knows?) stretching into the historical zone as well with Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. However, are you aware of Mansfield Park and Mummies? How about Queen Victoria Demon Hunter? Or the dueling Alcotts, Little Women and Werewolves vs. Little Vampire Women? Lest I forget, there's also the Austen-centered vampire mania of Jane Bites Back and Mr. Darcy, Vampyre.
Obviously I have more than a passing interest in these books or I wouldn't be writing about them. Yes, I've read several. Several others stir in me conflicting emotions of being equal parts morbidly curious and more-than-slightly nauseated at the (to an English major) blasphemous nature of these stories. What probably would offend purists and English major snobs most is that eventually my morbid curiosity will overtake the appalled nausea and I'll end up reading the ones I haven't already.
So why this new-found obsession/fascination/fanaticism with the supernatural and classics? Sure, it's a post-modern hallmark to reinvent and retell past stories in a new way. Sure, the young adult section of your local bookstore has turned into the paranormal-pseudo-bodice-ripper section thanks to Stephenie Meyer. Sure, it's easier in some respects to bastardize adapt someone else's work than create your own. Yet the influx of this style hints more at a cultural shift than a bunch of copycats trying to make a quick buck (though there's plenty of that, too -- and I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that, either).
For one, in my non-snob-ish opinion, while I'm all about people reading as much as possible to further the general idea that reading = essential to life, I also think some of this writing is popular because it's like the supernatural cliff-notes to books 'normal' people don't want to read in the first place (read: people who hear the term 'classic literature' and flinch while running off to find the latest trendy bestseller) . However, now that it has become acceptable in our culture to enjoy the more, shall we say 'macabre,' forms of entertainment (and boy is that a rant for another day), toss a few zombies or vampires or werewolves... or a robot into Anna Karenina, and suddenly it's more accessible to the masses. (Seriously a rant for another day: how/why/when vampires, zombies, and other assorted night-creature miscreants rose to the height of popular entertainment.)
In the case of Austen, re-writing and expanding her work is nothing new, in the relative sense that people have been doing it for decades. I suppose it's only natural that she really be the first to have her works re-vamped to fit present trends (pun intended). One could draw a comparison between Austen's work and the many interpretations, sequels and the like, and those of Shakespeare -- who himself is no longer above joining the ranks of the undead. Though in the Austen re-imaginings her characters and tone are more or less honored in a way that Shakespeare's frequently are not.
While I'm only at the beginning of Jane Slayre, I'm already intrigued by the concept of what possibilities lie ahead for young Jane as she discovers her slaying capabilities while still dealing with the tumultuous emotional fires stirred by Rochester. Granted, I'm not much of a fan of the original novel, or its author (Anne got all the sense in that family), though I have developed a respect for it over the years. From my personal perspective this particular book could use a little spicing up.
However, I think that's the inherent problem in the cavalcade of this type of writing: the assumption that a work, or figure, which has been worthy of accolade for decades, perhaps centuries, can be 'improved upon' or 'made more interesting' by adding some supernatural beings, violence and, in some cases, steamy scenes. I'm not saying we don't sometimes like a little more pepper or garlic in our classic dishes, but if a person's initial introduction to such culinary delights indulges some spices to the point where the flavor of the original dish is tempered and lost, they may never be able to truly relish the first bite of the 'real' meal...
Granted, I have just spent several paragraphs repeatedly saying I don't take much issue with the existence of these kind of books. I take issue more with the idea that people are reading these before and instead of their source material, and fear that in doing so when (or if) they eventually read the original it will seem 'too boring' or 'bland' or 'too hard to follow' or any number of a dozen excuses many of these books already get without the hack-and-slash treatment current popular fiction is giving them.

To sum up a long-winded rant, when someone who is as voracious about reading as I am sees each of these books, I get both exhilarated and queasy. Sea Monsters don't really interest me, so I won't be going down that road, but mummies invading Mansfield Park sounds fun. My biggest hope is that someone unfamiliar with the original stories and lives now presented in glorious alternate universe gore will be able to one day return to the zombie-less Pride and Prejudice and enjoy it on its own far more considerable merits.*



(*I spent the better part of this entry praising the talents and longevity of Jane Austen. A certain former English professor of mine would be so proud...)