Stake Land: Putting Teeth Back Into the Vampire Genre

"It's JUST like Zombieland but it's not funny, and instead of zombies it's vampires that are causing everyone so much grief!"

Barf.

I don't know how many fucking times I read that description whenever reading a review for Jim Mickle's latest film, Stake Land. The two films (Zombieland and Stake Land) have NEVER had ANYTHING to do with one another, and I believe that should have been obvious (especially to horror fans) right from the film's first teaser trailer that was released before Zombieland had even come out. Sure, there are some similarities with the post apocalyptic setting, something that was never done in any other film outside of Zombieland. The Last Man on Earth, Omega Man, Phantasm II, The Road Warrior, 28 Days/Weeks Later, Night of the Comet, Carriers, etc. None of those films were set in a time when the world was riddled with either zombies, vampires, infected, crazy people or even some concoction of the four. Is the name Stake Land is a bad choice? Well, it's not a great movie title by any stretch, but the film was initially conceived around the same time as Zombieland, so the comparisons are simply ridiculous if you ask me, especially when every Tom, Dick and Harry felt the need to make the exact same comparison when reviewing the film. 

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest. Shit has been bothering me for months. Let me reign things back in here and get back on track now that I've probably offended someone I like...

Directed and co-written by Jim Mickle - who made a nice little splash with his solid, original take on the zombie film with 2006's Mulberry Street – Stake Land is set sometime after the world had become infected by a deadly virus. But this isn't your typical airborne type of contagion; instead, the deadly plague comes in the form of vampires. Without any back-story to how it all started, the vampires have quite easily taken over the planet, leaving few survivors behind and their victims to come back as their allies.  

Now, these vampires aren't the type of chiseled abs adorned hotties that make out with chicks and style their hair (You know, like me). Nope, these are vicious, man-eating vampires filled with aggression and a certain level of survival smarts and tactics. The idea of a plague by vampirism is a smart choice, as most of us are already aware of how vampires work and how they can turn people into fellow vampires. Therefore, there is no need to explain how the disease has spread; it's a part of the monsters mythos. Though, there are some things that separate the film from the by the book characteristics of vampires, one of them being that they seem to either have evolved or there are at least a few differing breeds of them with some being more powerful than others.  

Stake Land follows a man simply known as Mister (co-writer, Nick Damici) and a teenager named Martin (Connor Paolo) who Mister befriends after saving his life from a vampire attack that left Martin's entire family dead.  Mister – who hates being referred to as Mr. Mister – is what you could call a badass motherfucker who is skilled in the ways of vampire slaying. He and Martin are traveling to Canada (which has been dubbed New Eden) which is supposedly a refuge free of vampires and filled with at least a small sense of normalcy.  

Not at all the most original of ideas in anyway. Regardless, I will always attest to the fact that originality is not an issue if a film can bring something to the idea. There is a reason why classic stories are classic stories. In the hands of the right filmmaker, a classic story can always be told well. That would most certainly be the case with Stake Land. 

Despite the lack of background - which is actually appreciated by myself - Stake Land is a cinematically poignant and deep film that resonates in its situation. Despite the vampiric elements, the circumstances feel real as do the characters. I found myself drawn to the people of Stake Land, as they are somewhat relatable as is the way in which they are dealing with their plight. The characters are who they are and they aren't filled with overly dramatic traits that would mean to alienate the audience or even themselves. I specifically enjoyed the subtle father son relationship between Mister and Martin that is vastly more enduring and somber than any single moment found in the highly overrated and often compared to, The Road. The emotional impact is better conveyed because it's not being forced upon the viewer; it happens naturally. 

Stake Land is filled with very strong performances by all those involved, but the stand out in the film is certainly Nick Damici, who also stared in and co-wrote Mickle's Mulberry Street. What I love about Damici is the fact that he is a real person, a man's man, someone that you would find littering tough guy cinema of the '70s. He's a rarity in these cinematic times, and to see someone like him in a film such as Stake Land is simply awesome. I also must give credit to his character of Mister. He is a true tough guy, but he breaks the mold and never acts so tough that his exterior cannot be broken. Without hesitation, he is compassionate, sympathetic to others and is not at all selfish despite the fact that it could result in his own undoing. He isn't simply trying to selfishly survive, he is trying to fight back the evil that surrounds him.

Mickle has constructed a film that is technically nice to look at on what is supposedly a teeny-tiny budget ($625,000 from what I have read). Stake Land isn't some slick, blue hued vampire film that is overly stylized and hyperkinetic, nor is it a sepia toned apocalypse movie littered with slo-mo shots. It's a straightforward and nicely crafted piece of cinema, filled with wide landscape shots that convey the rural, vast and almost completely devoid of life world that Stake Land is set in. Between the character of Mister and the way in which Stake Land is filmed, it has almost has a Western sensibility to it.   

In what is yet another case of the 'unoriginals', the whole 'people are so much worse than the monsters' commentary is in full effect here in Stake Land. It does work for the most part, but it is a tad over done and also feeds into a portion of the film that might be a point where it loses its footing a little. However, where the film does falter is minute and not nearly enough to affect my thoughts on the film as a whole. Which to me is a near perfectly made and very subdued modern horror/vampire film. There was a time when I was young and vampire films and the creatures themselves were some of my favorite things about horror. Therefore, I am incredibly ecstatic to have a film such as Stake Land come out. Stake Land shows us that the vampire can still be used in a way that is interesting, and proves yet again that the genre is alive and well. We just have to look outside the cinema to find it. 

Halloween Pooh

My original Destination on Friday night was meant to be a Final one, but due to an error, my buddy picked up tickets to the 2-D showing of The Final Destination as opposed to the "in yo face" version of the film. So with time constraints lingering over our heads, we opted to check out Rob Zombie's second incarnation of his rebooted Halloween series. I am one of the few that didn't completely hate the first Halloween remake, I thought the theatrical version had some solid moments, but the film mostly suffered from too much being crammed into one uneven story. The DVD release on the other hand, was different enough from the theatrical release to almost make the film unbearable, but I would rather not spend time on remake past, so I'll just get into my thoughts on Halloween II already.

I'm not planning on spending too much time on this film, because it is clearly not worth spending too much time on, and I would gather that most that have seen the film would agree with me, though I haven't seeked out any one else's thoughts on the film to really know what other horror fans think. I actually liked the first 35 minutes of Halloween II; it was going along at a good pace as it took off right where the first film had ended. There are some grotesque little touches that were satisfying to the sadistic horror fan in me, and the way everything is shot and presented is quite impressive. Halloween II's first act, if you will, works as a pretty solid Slasher film, a Slasher that is very mean spirited with some harsh moments strewn about, but then, the 35 minute mark hits.

If you have, or if you will see Halloween II, you will know what happens at the 35 minute mark that made me think to myself "Are you fucking kidding me right now?!" And things just went downhill from that moment and just continuously got worse the longer the movie went on. Story wise, Halloween II is basically Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) coming back to life, where he then proceeds to spend almost the entire film, making his way back to Haddonfield so he can have a sort of "family reunion" with his kid sister, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton). With her parents murdered in the first Halloween, Laurie is now living with Sheriff Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif aka CHUCKY!) and his daughter/Laurie's best bud, Annie (Danielle Harris) who survived a brutal attack via Myers, but lived so she could serve the plot of the very film we are discussing here.

The other main character from the first Halloween making a return is Dr Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), who amazingly still has eyeballs after what seemed to be his demise in the first film. To me, Loomis seems to have absolutely no point in this film except to serve as the catalyst for Laurie finding out that Myers and she are siblings (via his new book). Other than that, he serves no other real purpose except to be a separate story line that is just meant as filler material for when Myers wasn't eating dogs, or when Laurie wasn't hanging out in crusty bathrooms covered in graffiti and draped in bad florescent lighting.

Another recurring character is Misses Voorhees err...I mean, Misses Myers as played by Sheri Moon Zombie. I personally have no problem at all with Rob Zombie using his wife in his films, she's not a great actress, but at times she is serviceable, plus I think she's pretty hot, though she unfortunately refrains from showing her butt crack in this movie. Butt...her character in this film is that of a ghostly apparition, and how her ghostly appearance serves the plot is just plain terrible, on top of her showing up five times too many - with a horse to lame it up a bit. I won't go into detail as to what purpose Mama Myers serves, but it is one of the bigger issues with Halloween II's story line.

Another big problem with the story is situations are created for the soul purpose of having someone to kill for Michael Myers. This happens in plenty of Slasher films, sure, but it seems like it happened more in Halloween II, than in your average film of the genre. I did get a kick out of the kills for the most part, they are very mean spirited, and there isn't anything silly, or unrealistic about them - every murder is very harsh and simple, but still disturbingly satisfying. I was honestly kinda shocked at how much violence got by the MPAA, and for them to garner Halloween II an R rating is a big surprise. While I did like these kills, I think many horror fans will find them off putting, especially in the context of a Halloween movie. I don't mean Zombie's Halloween, but the original series. It may offend some of those fans, but this isn't the original series, so I'm fine with it.

Michael Myers look is something that should certainly get a shit load of classic Halloween fans all riled up. I think it's funny to be honest, so many complain about the essence of the original Michael Myers being completely disregarded, and how it's a travesty and an embarrassment to the original Boogeyman character from Halloween past to handle Michael Myers the way that Zombie does. However, if Zombie had made his films in the same vein as the original series, and stuck to those characteristics of Michael Myers, we would have something like Gus Van Sant's Psycho all over again...how did that one go over? I appreciate that Zombie has tried to make the character different, and his own; going a different direction gives us something new to watch, instead of treading the same shallow water that has been gone over numerous times in the original series. On top of that, in the sequels, Michael Myers usually looked pretty shitty in comparison to the '78 Carpenter film, so I would prefer a drastic change to the characters look over a moronic over sized mask like the ones found in the middle of the original franchise.

Personally, I thought the new, revamped, Myers looked very badass and it was nice to see a realistic take on the character. There are three different versions of Myers to be found in this movie - the first would be the classic look, the second would be the homeless Myers, and thirdly, a hybrid of the two styles. As I said, I like the realistic aspects of the character, and when you see Myers walking around in the woods without his mask, but rocking a seriously dope beard, it may be a little strange for some. But why would Myers be wearing a mask when he isn't killing people and no one is around? In addition, having a beard is much more plausible than having him shave - out in the woods - with no bathroom - let alone a mirror or a place to keep his Mach 3 and shaving gel (his skin is very sensitive).

As for how the movie is actually made, on a technical level, Halloween II has some seriously impressive scenes, with a style all Zombies own. This dude has real talent, and people who say other wise are being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious. There are moments where his grimy white trash look shines through in fantastic ways, but there is this other side of him that drops the ball completely. It's almost like Zombie has two styles: One being the very pleasing to the eyes, subdued, gloomy, trashy look that shows his strength as a filmmaker. On the other hand, he has a repugnant side that is an overblown version of his trashy style of movie making. This is the style that was very prevalent in the utterly terrible House of a 1,000 Corpses. These are the scenes when everything becomes orange and the camera gets all wacky and wild! so distracting, and unbecoming of what is done in the rest of the film.

These loathsome techniques are mainly found in the strip club scene...yes, Zombie has once again found a way to fit in a strip club scene. But he really didn't find a way to fit it in, as it has nothing to do with the story line of the movie. Then there's the party scene. Ugh...I was so all done by time the party scene came to be - what part of Haddonfield would I look to find a place with hot girls dancing topless on separate stages, while some rockabilly band plays music...that everyone seems to like?! The scene reminded me of the Titty Twister found in From Dusk Till Dawn. However, the Titty Twister was in the deserts of Mexico, not in a fucking suburban area neighborhood!

In the end, I really wish that we had gone to see The Final Destination instead...at least I know what I'm getting out of that movie, and it is something that I usually really enjoy. I am a very forgiving person with my cinema, and can find some good in many movies that I probably shouldn't. With Halloween II, even though I dug some of the kills, Myers' look was appealing to me, and I liked most of Zombie's film style, there just wasn't enough good to offset the bad. I wouldn't say not to see Halloween II though, it may be worth it for some of the positive aspects I mentioned, and maybe you will be more forgiving than I. I'll probably watch it again, and chances are I will like it a little bit more, now that I know it sucks, and my low expectations are completely nonexistent.