Dracula Live From Transylvania is a live Halloween TV special hosted by George Hamilton. The special, which focuses on both the history and mythology of Dracula and vampires alike, aired on October 25, 1988.
I was lucky enough to catch it live on channel 20 WTXX-TV, an independent station out of Connecticut. I actually recorded the special and still have that tape, complete with commercials. The special is a lot of fun and really hits those nostalgic feels for me. There are copies of the special floating around on YouTube, so if you are looking to dig into something spooky, kitschy and fun during Summerween, Halloween, Springween, Christmasween, or any other ‘ween you can think of, then I definitely recommend giving Dracula Live From Transylvania a TWIST! Sorry.
This TV spot advertising the special was taken from Dailymotion, which I actually cleaned up a bit. Please enjoy.
P.S. Hi! It’s been a bit. Maybe I’ll post something later on so we can catch up a little. Love you.
"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'sfirst 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.
Now that's the kind of eye-catching title that'll draw in the crowds! Can't wait to see the Google keyword searches that bring people to this post. So yeah, I am here to share with you my latest review over at the newest issue of BThroughZ, the Halloween issue of BThroughZ, if you will. As you might be able to guess by the incredibly subdued title of the post, I wrote a review for a film that has British females that play vampiric lesbians and get naked like it's their job. Actually, it was their job, thus the movie Vampyres (often subtitled Daughters of Darkness, or, Daughters of Dracula)was born. If you would like to read my thoughts on this little slice of heaven, then I encourage you to take a a trip to BThroughZ and make it a part of your day. And hey, while you're there, why not check out all the other goodies that the newest issue has in store for you. M'kay? Now that's the spirit!
Very recently, I was lucky enough to finally sit down and watch one of cinema's most provocative and discussed films, Twilight. It's almost weird even typing the name, as I would never have expected to watch and review this movie, let alone do so with a sort of high anticipation. Let me explain: I remember this one day I was at my old job, and everyone was telling me about this disgusting online video that was sure to make me hold back a drop or two of vomit. Some were saying that I just had to see this video, while others warned me, saying it is so gross, and not to put myself through the horrid imagery. Curiosity killed the Matt, and I went straight home and watched 2 Girls 1 Cup, and forever will I think differently about soft serve.
What I'm trying to get at here, is no matter how much I was warned about just how nasty this video was, I had to see it for myself. That is kind of the same thing that happened with me having to watch Twilight. Part of me was willing to put my taste at risk, to see something that I knew would be just plain awful. But just how awful could it be? That's the draw. I heard every complaint about Twilight more times than I would care to, but that may have just added a little fuel to the fire, making me want to see the movie even more.
Now, I have more than once expressed my love for bad cinema. While I am constantly on the hunt to expand my celluloid horizons by watching all types of film, and as much as I love a Harold and Maude, or a Rashômon, I almost equally love something like The Room, or Trick or Treat. At times, my bad taste even extends to a certain enjoyment of films that are pretty much terrible. I can find something about them that keeps me watching and interested. I actually thought that Twilight might be that movie in the dark moments leading up to my maiden voyage, however, I was quite wrong.
Strangely, I am really wanting to see New Moon and eventually Eclipse, because I have to see just how bad it can all get. While I can find great joy in laughing at a movie that has me scoffing about terrible performances, moronic puke faces, terrible cinematography and awful music, I didn't find much joy in Twilight. I should love this film for how terrible it is, but it is just that horrendous that it cannot even find appreciation from someone who might possibly give it some. I don't even care about the bastardization of vampire mythology, I am someone that really knows the mythology quite well, but it still doesn't bother me all that much. Let them have their vampires be as girly as they want, it makes for a great laugh and it doesn't change the mythology outside of the Twilight tweeniverse.
What does bother me most is that some people really do think that Twilight is a great movie. Twilight is flat out insulting to the intelligence of the general public, but not that insulting if they eat it up with a glazed look in their eyes and a smile. Now, if you're a 16-year-old chick/dude with a taste for eyeliner, I have no issue with you liking it. It's made for you. Actually, I have no issue with an adult liking it, so long as they can at least admit that it's not a good film. There is such thing as a guilty pleasure, I have many, and guilty pleasure grants a very free and open pass to like garbage. I, shamefully, love Dawson's Creek. I didn't always love that awful show, in fact, I thought it was completely moronic and talked all sorts of shit about it. Then, thanks to syndication, one late night I got roped in well after the show had gone off the air, and born was a very guilty pleasure and a life choice…Dawson or Pacey.
I could have gone 900 different ways with this review, and there are 900 different things to say about this film, which is funny, because nothing even happens until the last 45 minutes? But Twilight has been torn apart by so many in so many different ways that I need not tread the details. It's way too easy. Though, a caption post would have been great, or even one about the epic Kristen Stewart hospital performance that was recently recreated by Mindy McCready on Celebrity Rehab. Maybe now that I have seen Twilight, I can talk about it and mention how bad it blows, but realistically, I couldn't care less when it comes down to it. In the end, the only things I got out of watching Twilight are the fact that I conquered one of the most infamous films ever made, and that girls really shouldn't shop at Eddie Bauer.
The Hunger may have very well been the first movie added to my Netflix instant queue, and the reason I say that is, it’s been the first movie on that ridiculous queue for well over a year. I wanted to see it and even started watching it at least twice, but it was late each time, and I passed out very early on. To be honest, it didn’t really seem like anything special from what I saw of it before dozing off. Then finally, after some pressure from the old lady - who was tired of seeing the same movie sitting there at the beginning of my queue for more than a year - I broke down and watched 1983’s The Hunger.
I had completely forgotten that it was a Tony Scott movie, probably because I added it so long ago, but I'm sure his name was a selling point for me adding it to my list originally. I like some of his films, not all of them are great but he has done some solid work and having his name pop up in the opening credits to a Vampire film (and his first) from the 80’s, certainly is appealing.
As for the opening scene that I had previously fallen asleep to (and almost did this time, but I fought like a lion to stay awake, son!), the same opening scene I deemed lackluster, I quickly realized that I must have fallen asleep in the first minute or two those other times I tried to watch the film. The Hunger's beginning is about as far from lackluster as it gets, as it starts off in a sort of Goth club, with a music video style performance intercut with an introduction to our two main characters, Miriam (Catherine Deneuve) and John (David Bowie), the film’s opening left me very surprised and excited to move forward.
It’s a very flashy introduction, totally absorbing in how it just comes at you, showing how Miriam and John pick up another couple for a night of partner swapping, but their motives are much more sinister as you witness them slice open their prospective lay’s and drink the sweet lifeblood as it leaves their unsuspecting victim’s bodies. These event’s aren't presented in a straight forward fashion, instead, they intercut in such a chaotic way and without dialogue, just physical acting and quickly edited moments to show the viewer what is happening. This opening tells you everything you need to know about Miriam and John in such a simple and indirect way.
I was simply impressed with this very unconventional and stylish start to the film, but what’s even better is, The Hunger never goes near anything like that again. It is just a set up to show what John and Miriam have been doing for what would be a very long time in order to fulfill their needs. The Hunger then becomes a pretty slow moving character study, and even the filming style and the look of it become almost like a modern version of a gothic styled horror movie. Very cold and quiet with much of the film set in John and Miriam’s flat which conveys a sense of solitude and almost looks like a museum, filled with a rich history.
“The Goth club” John and Miriam as seen in the opening kill scene are much different and use that facade to find prey. In reality, they are elegant and in a way seem to live a classy life style that would come from living for numerous centuries and through a multitude of culture changes that reflects in their taste and how they live. They seem much older than they are, which is actually the case. That is where the film’s conflict would come into play, when John begins to suddenly age very rapidly. He seeks the help of Dr. Sarah Roberts (Susan Sarandon) who specializes in age research, but she chalks his rapid aging problems up to insanity and brushes him off.
However, Miriam seems to be infatuated with Sarah after seeing her talk about her research on television, and now with John fastly aging to the point of nothingness, she appears to be ready to move on to a new partner in her life. There is no sure reason for why John ages rapidly, but it’s very clear that Miriam knows what is going on with him, and it becomes apparent as to how she knows later on in the film in what is a fantastic reveal. This reveal also drastically changes gears for the characters in the movie, and when you think it’s going one way with the story of John’s sudden descent into old age, it turn’s into a seduction tale with Miriam swooning the Sarah character.
While I said that The Hunger is a Vampire flick, it is hardly like many of the better known films that the genre had to offer in the 1980’s. These “Vampires” are not affected by the sunlight (though they are never directly in the sun at any point in the movie), they do not sport fangs nor is there a coffin anywhere to be found (kind of). With that said, The Hunger still works like a Vampire film but an original and fresh take on the genre, almost like Romero’s Martin was when it came out in ‘77. Unlike Martin, however, there is a strong supernatural element to the characters, with Miriam living eternally and how she has the ability to mesmerize her potential victims. These atypical Vampires are not creatures or even monsters in their appearance, but for whatever reason, they need blood or at least have a hunger for it.
For something that is sort of a Vampire movie, it is not, as is the case with how it works as a horror movie. It is, but it isn’t. While there is some bloodshed at times, overall, it is a slow moving film that takes the time to get to know the characters and the world that they live in, instead of focusing on the animalistic aspect of Vampires and/or their mythology. It looks at more the power that Miriam has over John and Sarah and how she uses that power to whatever best suits her slightly selfish needs.
A complete fresh breath of air, The Hunger was a big surprise in what it is, compared to what I expected of it initially. Even when I thought I had my head wrapped around it, the story (based on a Whitley "alien rape" Strieber novel) would take a turn and bring in something new, keeping everything from getting stale. Though, the ending is a little off from the overall feel of the movie and almost takes a silly E.C. Comicsish turn, it’s a fun and highly satisfying way for it to finish the way it does for all of the characters.
So, while I don’t have to look at this film every time I fire up watch instantly and go to my queue, I do know that it will not be the last time I see The Hunger, that’s for sure.
Earlier in the week I was asked to participate in a blogger opinion article for GeekBlips, and the question posed was one of epic proportions - Which are more dangerous to the human race, Zombies or Vampires? Being I am a fan of both Zombies and non-Twilight Vampires, I was more than happy to participate in such a task. There were a handful of other bloggers that joined in on the fun and the end result is some great answers that make for anentertaining read that goes perfectly with the ongoing Chucktober celebration. It's funny, I was asked to try to keep my answer under 200 words, and I really did try, but I'm so full of hot air, I ended up a little over the required word count. About 400 words over to be exact! Way to impress the people over at GeekBlips by not following directions!
If you do not know what GeekBlips is, well, it is a collection of all the hottest Geek related news stories via websites and blogs. If you like a particular story, you can Vote It Up! and give it a little boost in the rankings. The more people that vote for a story, the longer it stays on the front page and the more chances that others may see and read that post. Also, links from other blogs and sites help with a stories placement along with the actual blogs/sites positioning on the overall blog rankings list. Other than GeekBlips, there are plenty of other "Blips" to be found and enjoyed, such as MovieBlips, TVBlips, and of course my fave, HorrorBlips (just to name a few). HorrorBlips is one that I check out the most, and I should note that I have a pretty nice consistent ranking with in the top 10-15 on there for this fine blog that you are enjoying right this very second!
If you want to read my answer to the age-old question of who is more dangerous to humanity, Zombies or Vampires, I would be very upset with you if you didn't head over to GeekBlips to read my definitive answer! While you are there, check out all the shit you can find and if you find it in your heart, I would love if you took the time to vote for my posts over at HorrorBlips and GeekBlips (which I just joined) along with any others that may tickled your pickle! If you have a blog and aren't on board, then I would suggest giving it a try too. It's good for traffic and gets more eyes on what you write, which is kinda the point, right?
Here is a direct link to the article on GeekBlips, and if you wanna go the horror route, you can find it through HorrorBlips too! Hope you enjoy my answer, and I would love to hear your opinion on the subject...especially if it's an opposing one - cause there aren't many!
