What We Do in the Shadows Review

I had a friend show me What We Do in the Shadows (2014) the other day. It's a mockumentary vampire movie from New Zealand that has a whole lot more wit and humor than it initially appears to have. Drawing from different vampire mythos, it puts together several mismatched varieties of vampires and has them cohabitating in a rented flat together. Interestingly, it makes some unexpected social commentary while showing us some absurd humor.

Follow the lives of Viago (Taika Waititi), Deacon (Jonathan Brugh), Vladislav (Jemaine Clement), and Petyr (Ben Fransham) - four flatmates who are just trying to get by and overcome life's obstacles-like being immortal vampires who must feast on human blood. Hundreds of years old, the vampires are finding that beyond sunlight catastrophes, hitting the main artery, and not being able to get a sense of their wardrobe without a reflection, modern society has them struggling with the mundane like paying rent, keeping up with the chore wheel, trying to get into nightclubs, and overcoming flatmate conflicts.

The concept of a documentary crew following around four mismatched vampires in their everyday lives is silly as can be and generates a whole lot of situational humor. Like many reality TV shows each of these vampires will speak to the camera about themselves and what they think of the situations they're in. Their insight is often interesting and sometimes ridiculous, such as lamenting the lack of a reflection to see how they look when trying to dress up for a night on the town. Other times it's about frustration with their flat mates about pulling their weight by helping to pay rent or doing the dishes. The absurdity of the situations this creative concept generates simply lends itself to hilarious situational humor. This movie is about the "real," mundane lives of vampires. Almost like a behind the scenes view of James Bond when he'd have to, say, go to the bathroom, shop for grocieries, or clean his house. All the things that would not be put into a Bond movie simply because it's not that interesting. Here, we are shown a behind the scenes look at the lives of vampires and all the banal things they have to do unrelated to being a monstrous creature of the night.

The four characters here resemble established vampire characters from pop culture. We basically have Count Orlok from the classic black-and-white film Nosferatu, Count Dracula, Lestat from Interview with the Vampire, and David from The Lost Boys. All have different values and means of hunting, each has different goals, and each one tries to keep the other in check for their collective well being. And blessedly, the characters in the movie even make fun of Twilight and how that it simply does not depict real vampires; that alone earns several bonus points in my book.

This was an independent film, and the visual effects and camera work are delightfully cheesy. Getting the characters to float in the air is obviously a simple means of wires attached to actors. What little CGI is used was not great, even though it was well implemented. One genuinely excellent bit of horror-style cinematography featured the camera following a victim through the vampire's flat as he tries to escape. The intensity of this scene was broken up with some silly antics such as Jemaine Clement's face superimposed on a black cat's head in a rather campy looking way. In one scene, two vampires get into a physical fight with each other and are tumbling around the hallway walls and ceiling, lunging at each other. Up until that point the special effects were so low quality that this scene caught me off guard and made me wonder how they did that. Having a rotating hallway set to create the illusion of the actors flying around the ceiling seemed a much more expensive stunt than what other visuals leading up to it suggested the movie had a budget for. There was a lot of shaky camera work to suggest an improvisational quality of this "documentary." It was a little annoying after a while, but fortunately it was not so erratic as to give me any kind of motion sickness.

What We Do in the Shadows is far from being preachy or taking itself so seriously as to have a deep meaning or philosophical idea holding it together. However, I saw this as commentary on male bonding. As adults, men don't seem particularly adept at making friends with other men these days. I could go on a nice long rant speculating why, but that's not the point. The vampires in What We Do in the Shadows are a small group of friends trying to get through life together and find women to have relationships with. Life keeps throwing challenges at them, but they keep going making the most of their situations. Even when arguments arise between them, they will make a display to try and intimidate the other (as vampires this takes the form of floating in the air hissing at one another), but neither of them want to actually come to blows with their flat mate and friend. I doubt anything new you hadn't seen before relating to male bonding would come of viewing this movie, but men being friends together in a heterosexual sort of way and sticking up for one another seems to be the unifying theme of the movie and it worked well.

What We Do in the Shadows was a funny movie. It's a cleverly constructed riot that delivers constant laughs from its premise without bleeding it dry. It's a smarter, fresher, and funnier take on vampires than I've seen for some time now. They do vampires right, even if it is in a humorous way. There are competent actors delivering some witty humor, a skilled director who knows what he's doing with camera work, and some deceptively skilled visual effects artists. It's well written enough that it's hard to tell how much of it was improvised or there was improvisation at all. What We Do in the Shadows is a good, solid movie that is worth seeing.

Red Riding Hood Movie Review

I have praised the recent dark fairy tale movies that have come about recently, Snow White and the Huntsman and Jack the Giant Slayer were both creative and decent movies. The first of these dark fairy tale movies to hit theaters was Red Riding Hood (2011), so in the interest of seeing the movie that started the trend, I finally got around to watching it. Big mistake.

Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) is a beautiful young woman torn between two men. She is in love with a brooding outsider, Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but her parents have arranged for her to marry the wealthy Henry (Max Irons). Unwilling to lose each other, Valerie and Peter are planning to run away together when they learn that Valerie's older sister has been killed by the werewolf that prowls the dark forest surrounding their village. For years people have maintained an uneasy truce with the beast, offering the creature a monthly animal sacrifice. But under the blood red moon, the wolf has upped the stakes by taking a human life. Hungry for revenge, the people call on famed werewolf hunter, Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), to help them kill the wolf. But Solomon's arrival brings unintended consequences as he warns that the wolf, who takes human form by day, could be any one of them. As the death toll rises with each moon, Valerie begins to suspect that the werewolf could be someone she loves. But as panic grips the village, Valerie discovers she has a unique connection to the beast -- one that inevitably draws them together, making her both suspect and bait.

So I didn't realize it at first, but Red Riding Hood was directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who had directed Twilight three years prior. I'm not entirely sure Hardwicke realized she was directing a different movie; both movies feature supernatural killers, a love triangle between unbelievably simple and shallow characters, long moments where the plot seems to go out for doughnuts while the movie keeps going, and a very likely abusive relationship framed as if it were romantic. To its credit, Red Riding Hood was better than Twilight, but not by much.

Amanda Seyfried is a pretty talented actress. She was great in In Time, she was a lovable spunky young lady in Mama Mia!, and she was an excellent Cosette in Les Misérables. Gary Oldman is a stellar actor who is often the best part of most movies he's in. To be honest, they were both very good in Red Riding Hood, it's just that the script they had to work with was as insipid as it was dull. I can't imagine what drove each of them to be in this movie, I'm hoping they somehow didn't get to see a script before accepting the role or something. And get this; Billy Burke, who played Valerie's father, also plays Bella Swan's father in Twilight. He's not much better in Red Riding Hood.

The script was pretty awful. Valerie spent a lot of time fretting over what to do about the two men who want to have her in their lives. Peter and Henry have to act manly, virile, and try win Valerie's attention in each scene. Even the dialogue was awful; they actually talk about having crushes on other characters. They actually use the word "crush." This is the dark ages, not a modern middle school! This is what makes up a bulk of the script. Fortunately it's interrupted on occasion to remind us there is a werewolf in the movie; I think we actually get to see it two times. I liked the McCarthy-Era type paranoia they tried to incorporate as the villagers grow more distrusting of one another during the werewolf hunt. Uninteresting love triangles have become a trite cliché in movies recently. Red Riding Hood is not bad in scenes where the love triangle isn't the main focus, but unfortunately it is the main focus for a lot of the movie.

They did work in the classic elements of the original Little Red Riding Hood story in creative ways; the "what big teeth you have, Grandma" line, the red hooded cloak, don't talk to strangers in the woods, etc. You expect to see them in the movie, but when they do appear, they don't show up in a way you'd expect. It also made some allusions to other fairy tales that feature a "big bad wolf," which was neat. It's really about the only thing to get excited over.

Red Riding Hood was a disappointment. It could have been a good werewolf movie with a strong female protagonist, some great werewolf fight scenes, and a new twist on the classic fairy tale that so many enjoy. But no, this is basically just Twilight set during the dark ages. The special effects were lackluster at best. The werewolf was little more than a large CGI black wolf; no half-man-half-wolf thing going on at all. The whole village may as well have been middle school students by the way they talked. You may like Red Riding Hood if you're a fan of Twilight, but otherwise don't bother with this movie; it's just awful. It's not even worth borrowing from a friend.

Are there GOOD movies with a love triangle in it? I'm getting pretty fed up with them. I'd love to see one that was actually good, not overwrought and weepy. Can you think of one? Comment below and let me know!

Warm Bodies Movie Review

Gentlemen, I have good news! If you've ever had a girlfriend make you sit through an appalling Twilight movie, then you will definitely have grounds to make her watch this supernatural/romance/comedy/horror movie with you. It's hard not to compare Warm Bodies (2013) to Twilight, but I guarantee Warm Bodies is a fun movie that you will both enjoy.

With much of the future world's population rendered into an undead horde, R (Nicholas Hoult) is a young and oddly introspective zombie. On a feeding encounter with a human gathering party, R meets a human named Julie (Teresa Palmer) and feels an unusual urge to protect her. What happens with that is the beginning of a strangely warm relationship that causes R to start to regain his humanity. As this change spreads throughout the undead population, Julie and R eventually find they are facing a larger issue even as their friendship is challenged. Caught between paranoid human forces and the ferocious "Bony" zombies who are a mutual threat, R and Julie must find a way to bridge the sides of the fight for a better world no one thought possible.

There isn't much of a way to describe Warm Bodies without it sounding silly and cheesy. It's a romance story between a girl and a zombie amidst a zombie apocalypse. Yes, that sounds just like Twilight with zombies instead of vampires. That is a completely justified reaction, but there is more to it than that. Warm Bodies is creative, funny, and doesn't take itself too seriously. It's also got some highly interesting social commentary on interpersonal connection and dating. Twilight didn't do anything beyond the dreadful relationship, but Warm Bodies does. Besides, I think most of us could believe a story where a girl falls in love with rotting corps rather than a sparkly one.

This is the first time that I can think of where we get to see the zombie apocalypse from the zombie's perspective. R has some remarkably hilarious inner monologue as he thinks about the state of the world, the dull repetition in his life, and longing to connect with people. It's not really clear why R still has complex, civilized thoughts but still shambles around eating people.  The setting isn't quite detailed enough to explain that, but that's a silly thing to get hung up on. The Bonies were too convenient of an antagonist; they are just there to be a mutual problem. I understand the zombies and humans needed a reason to unite, but I think a little more thought could have been put into it. R narrates the only functional difference between them and the zombies, "They call these guys Bonies. They don't bother us, much, but they'll eat anything with a heartbeat. I mean, I will too, but at least I'm conflicted about it..."

Good science fiction makes commentary on contemporary issues in a unique, metaphorical way. Early in the movie R is lamenting how he's surrounded by dead beings who don't communicate with one another and tries to imagine what it was like before the apocalypse. It cuts away to the same pre-apocalyptic airport with living people who are all aimlessly wandering around while focused on their cell phones and electronic devices and not making eye contact. Our technologies and portable instant gratification devices are killing our ability to converse and meaningfully connect with others; we really are becoming zombie-like in a way. Warm Bodies also comments on the awkwardness of dating. R is a dead decomposing corpse and is looming over Julie and thinks, Don't be creepy! Don't be creepy! Later, R is trying to impress and thinks to himself, Play it cool, say something intelligent. He groans out the words, "How...are... you..?" then thinks, Nailed it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't had a similar thoughts stemming from their own lack of confidence.

Warm Bodies makes some very subtle allusions to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. The two characters are R (Romeo) and Julie (Juliet) and they come from warring "families." Julie's former boyfriend is Perry (Dave Franco) references Paris, R's zombie friend M (Rob Corddry) is a reference to Mercutio, and Julie's friend Nora (Analeigh Tipton) is a nurse referencing Juliet's nurse. Julie's father (John Malkovich) is the hardcore military zombie-killing authority figure and kind of resembles Juliet's family who refuses to allow her to be with someone from the opposing family. There is also the infamous "balcony scene" parodied in Warm Bodies. These are pretty subtle; the movie isn't technically based on Romeo and Juliet, they just reference it in creative, subtle ways.

Warm Bodies features fairly simple but very relatable characters, zombie mayhem, some special effects that falter a little bit on occasion, some great social commentary, a well written script, some strangely sweet romantic scenes, good acting, and hilarious comedy. It managed to do this without screwing up our well-loved concept of zombies the way Twilight did with vampires. Yeah, there is some violent imagery but most of the nasty gore and such takes place just off screen; the imagery is suitable for its PG-13 rating. I took a friend to see Warm Bodies with me; she doesn't like zombie movies but she said she enjoyed this one. Warm Bodies probably isn't going stand the test of time. It's good, but not great; but still a better love story than Twilight. At just over an hour and a half, it's a nice, fun romp that never seems to quite fit into one genre. I'm going to say this is worth renting when it hits home video, however I enjoyed it enough to buy it on Blu-Ray.

Here's the trailer to show you how humorous Warm Bodies is:

Stephenie Meyer totally raped the concept of a vampire then left it wounded and crying. Warm Bodies put a slightly new spin on our beloved zombie model, but it's okay since it didn't twist it around into something shameful, deplorable, or irritating. Can you think of a movie or book that puts a new spin on a classic fictional creature idea that still respects the original? Comment below and tell me about it! I don't want to miss anything good.

Fright Night

After feeling betrayed by Hollywood with their recent array of rubbish vampire movies, I wasn’t excited to see Fright Night (2011), a remake of a 1985 vampire horror movie by the same name. That is until I heard The Doctor David Tennant was in it. It instantly became a much higher priority. I don’t typically care for horror movies, but this one was actually really good!

High School senior Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) finally has it all; he’s running with the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in school, Amy (Imogen Poots). He’s become so cool he’s begun avoiding his old friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). Trouble arrives when an intriguing character named Jerry (Collin Farrell) moves in next door to Charlie. Jerry seems like a great guy at first, but there’s something not quite right about him, and only Ed and Charlie seem to notice. After witnessing some very strange activity, Charlie comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on the neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone of the truth, Charlie has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself, even if that means enlisting the aid of a truly bizarre Las Vegas occult magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant).

One of the early scenes in Fright Night had a very paranoid Ed trying to convince Charlie that Jerry is a vampire. Charlie accuses Ed of reading too much Twilight. Reasonably so, Ed is offended by this, and argues that Twilight vampires are make-believe and really stupid. Not only was this hilarious, but it was communicating to the audience that the vampire in this film is not going to be the pansy, sparkly variety who knows what you’re feeling and wants to take you to the prom. THIS vampire is the way vampires are supposed to be: undead, demonic monsters from hell, bent of draining the life force of the innocent to sustain their existence as one of the damned. With all the romanticized and sexualized vampire movies, TV shows, and literature that has emerged in recent years, having a truly frightening monster out for blood was oddly quite refreshing! Besides, anything that makes fun of Twilight is good in my book.

I also have to give credit to a film that causes me to withdraw previous statements. I’ve said that horror and comedy are thematically at odds with each other and don’t fit well in the same movie together. Fright Night was a comedy horror movie, and it was a hoot! They argue that “Jerry” is a terrible name for a vampire, they complain about the quality of vampire hunting gear won on eBay, and Charlie’s mother (Toni Collette) makes references to the 1960’s TV show Dark Shadows.

Fight Night does horror really well, too. Since movies like Saw came out, the horror genre has degenerated from stories that induce feelings of horror and terror to stories that simply gross out the audience. There’s a big difference; getting a buzz saw blade lodged in your face is gross, holding your breath to try and remain undetected by a monster in its own lair is scary. There are scenes in Fright Night that filled me with dread while other scenes had me laughing.

Teens are the target audience for this movie. Most teen horror flicks feature characters that are intent on having sex, partying, experimenting with drugs, and underage drinking and the like. Fright Night was curiously much more conservative. The story focuses more on Charley’s changing relationship with Ed, rather than on Charley’s sexual interest in his girlfriend. On top of that, Charlie is trying to protect his single mother from making bad choices with bad boy next door. Charlie even becomes less interested in sex the more time he spends hunting down Jerry. The movie isn’t about sexual conquests of the adolescent male; it’s about Charlie making conscious choices to protect the women in his life from the “bad boys” out there. I don’t see this kind of thing in movies aimed at teens very often, it was a pleasant change of pace.

Fright Night is fairly clean for a horror movie. Since it’s a vampire movie, we get to see an abundance of blood splatter, but we don’t see much disembowelment and such. There’s some immodesty, but no full on nudity. There’s quite a bit of profanity, though, especially after the comically bitter and sarcastic Peter Vincent shows up. I didn’t care for that, but it fit into the character well, so I can’t really fault the movie for it.

Fright Night was a really fun comedy-horror movie, and the best contemporary vampire movie I’ve seen in years. It was fun, it had some good writing and directing, excellent actors, it was funny and scary, and had some great special effects and cinematography. Best of all, there are actual vampires in this vampire movie; it shows us, in a fresh and interesting way, the traditional vampires that people with any taste will know and love. Fright Night is worth seeing. I don’t even like horror movies that much and I enjoyed it enough to want a copy on Blu-Ray. Some content (such as the profanity) won’t settle well with some viewers, so be conscientious of that before seeing it.

What is your favorite Comedy-Horror movie? Why did you like it so much? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance Movie Review

Back in 2007 Marvel Studios released a movie called Ghost Rider. It was pretty dumb, but didn’t take itself so seriously that it couldn’t be enjoyed. It was corny with a silly setting, but Nicolas Cage helped make it kind of fun. I even bought a super cheap used copy because it was just a silly and fun superhero romp that no one in their right mind could take seriously. Nicolas Cage must have been put on a contract for a sequel or something. I can’t imagine why anyone, let alone a big Hollywood name, would want to be associated with Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012).

Years ago stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) sold his soul to the devil to save his dying father’s life. In exchange he became a hell blazing vigilante to help fight the devil’s battles. Having finished the errand given him by the devil, who goes by Roarke (Ciarán Hinds) when in human form, Johnny is on the run to make sure no one is harmed by his alter ego, The Ghost Rider. He is approached by a monk named Moreau (Idris Elba) who tells Johnny that he can help free him from The Rider. But first he needs Johnny’s help to protect a boy named Danny (Fergus Riordan) whom Roarke plans to use to give himself a more powerful body.

If you saw and remember anything about the first Ghost Rider movie, you’ll probably see some discrepancies between it and this plot summary. The back story was different from what we saw in Ghost Rider. Johnny Blaze wasn’t trying to rid himself of The Ghost Rider, he was going to keep it and use it against the devil. The devil doesn’t have a weak body that becomes weaker when he uses his powers. The Ghost Rider doesn’t feed on the evil of his victims no matter how small the infraction, from genocide to a white lie. This movie took place in Eastern Europe. Ghost Rider’s thing was to be a supernatural western of sorts, set in the US Midwest. Why set it in Europe?

The screenplay was written by David S. Goyer, Scott Gimple and Seth Hoffman, who are all probably 10 years old and have never seen the first Ghost Rider movie. I could just see them saying to each other “Dude, wouldn’t it be cool if we got Ghost Rider to ride a big wrecking machine? We should write a movie about that!” The dialogue was just terrible, the characters were stupid, and it follows none of the previously established rules and setting. Much like the demonic characters in this movie, I’m pretty sure this script came from hell.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the movie was directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, who I assume are film school drop outs. The editing was ridiculously dreadful. It made Ghost Rider seem to be spastically teleporting all over the set, and twitching constantly when he wasn’t teleporting. This makes Ghost Rider seem a lot more like a crazy convulsing skeleton man rather than a dark, powerful being from hell. Even his costume was remarkably bland and ordinary.

To make things worse, they did cut-away gags, like you would see on Family Guy. For example, Moreau solemnly tells Johnny that his brothers are all dead, and that would be too if not for the grace of God. Then it cuts away to a green, leafy tree in broad daylight with Moreau sticking his head out of the leaves and giggling to himself. Then it cuts back again to Johnny and Moreau. There are several gags like this and it contrasts with the tone of the movie so much that I rolled my eyes every time it happened. If I wanted Seth MacFarlane style humor, I would have gone to Hulu.com.

Nicolas Cage is reprising a previous role, but he still acts very differently than he did in the previous movie. In the first movie he was calm, collected, sarcastic, and arrogant. In this one he seemed to be combating schizophrenia and nervous tics. I blame the writers for screwing up the character; I hope Nicolas Cage was simply doing what the directors were instructing him to do. And what they were telling him to do was terrible! I suppose he did a good job of acting insane, he just had horrible material to work with.

One of the thing that ruffled my feathers was when they were attempting to remove The Ghost Rider from Johnny. I appreciate the fictional angels and demons sort of mythology, but there’s only so far you can go with it before it begins to becomes religiously offensive. To initiate removing The Rider from Johnny, Moreau prepares a sacrament for Johnny. This is taken so lightly and even comically that I began feeling slighted by it. Viewers who take religion even more seriously than I do would probably get very bent out of shape by it.

With a horrendous script, sloppy directing, disregard of movie it claims to be a sequel of, uneven CGI work, and Nicolas Cage acting insane, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was total crap. I’ve seen B-horror flicks that were better than this! I think it was trying to be trashy fun, but ended up just being trash. I would call this the worst movie of the year if I didn’t know there was another Twilight movie coming out. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE! It’s a waste of time, and insulting to watch. Even if you’re a fan of Marvel Comics and their movies, you will be sorely disappointed by this one. Even though I’ve never read a Ghost Rider comic, I’m pretty sure this movie violates cannon in almost every regard. If you’re not a Marvel comics fan, I doubt you’ll even make it half way through the movie before shutting it off and using the disc as a $20 cup coaster.

Sequels are rarely as good as their predecessors. What’s the worst movie sequel you’ve ever seen? Comment below and tell me why!