'PLEASE KILL ME! I can't take this dialogue anymore!'

‘Now what?’

This is what I thought when I heard that Stephen Sommers had directed a movie called Deep Rising and it didn’t have mummies, vampires, or toys in it.

This is also the catch-phrase, if it constitutes one, of the main character, played by Treat Williams. It encapsulates perfectly everything I feel about this film, as well as the frame of mind this was produced under.

Firsty, let me say it’s lazy writing. Catch-phrases are intrinsically lazy, designed to choke an extra laugh from a sitcom audience without any extra writing, but this one is lazy even by catch-phrase standards.

Consider some of the best catch-phrases:

Aye Caramba!

Hi-Diddily Ho!

Excellent!

Yes, these are all from The Simpsons.

Now consider some of the worst catchphrases:

“Now what?

See the difference? The former are uttered under certain conditions, and in emotion – surprise, eagerness, evilness, and annoyance respectively  – while the latter is something someone might just say at any time.

[Side-note: In The Simpsons episode where Bart becomes famous for the lame catch-phrase on Krusty "I didn't do it!', the mundaneness of the catch-phrase is part of the satire, as is pointed out on the commentary for that episode. End side-note.]

Not only is it a bad catch-phrase, it says something bad about the state of film in general and this film in particular. These two simple words show audiences’ propensity to boredom and their need and desire to see something new, big and stupid thrown at them every few minutes.

The complicity in this mentality (often grudgingly so in his case, I feel – he could have a serious film in him), has defined much of Stephen Sommer’s oeuvre. This film is no exception. He feels the need to directly vocalise this through one of his characters to keep the audience’s interest up, and remind them why they’re there. The fact that I didn’t even notice how often it was repeated the first time around shows how much stuff was being thrown at the screen.

Taken in this context, this catch-phrase mocks the previous section, indicating that it wasn’t enough to sustain the whole film. And so the film is constantly shifting in tone and the use of familiar tropes to continually re-engage the audience. (One whole sequence of them swimming through a flooded area was lifted straight from The Poseidon Adventure, although sea monsters have been added.)

The problem with this is that each successive film has to be more and more different things at once in order to top the previous one, and we end up with a big ridiculous mash-up of many older, superior films.

I'm looking at you, Van Helsing.

But it doesn’t need to be like that. Ghost Ship, essentially the same movie but with ghosts, managed to stay suspenseful all the way through without tipping its hand and devolving into all-out ridiculous action as Deep Rising

Deep Rising is a fun movie. It’s like a creature feature, done with a decent budget (watch out for dodgy CGI water though), and some good suspense scenes.

I’d put it below The Mummy, but high above The Mummy Returns.

Vampiros e lobisomens estão em alta graças a saga Crepúsculo. Nela, os dois seres estão em guerra desde tempos imemoriáveis devido a uma disputa de terras e alguns desentendimentos. Então para os adolescentes fãs da franquia, vamos mostrar a verdadeira origem dessas criaturas da noite.

Existem duas origens para os vampiros e todas elas se relacionam com a Bíblia. Nas escrituras hebraicas, ou velho testamento, o livro bíblico de Gênesis conta a história de Caim, filho de Adão, que assassinou seu irmão Abel e foi marcado por Deus para que ninguém o matasse, além de ser condenado a vagar no deserto e viver do trabalho de suas próprias mãos. Caim é sempre apontado como exemplo de homem fraco, que sede aos desejos egoístas da carne. Em livros apócrifos lemos que Caim se encontrou com Lilith, que seria a primeira esposa de Adão, antes de Eva, que por não se submeter a chefia de seu esposo foi banida do Paraíso e se tornou a mãe detodos os seres do mal. Lilith deu seu sangue para que Caim continuasse vivendo eternamente ao seu lado, dando origem assim ao primeiro vampiro da história.

A segunda origem tem a ver com as escrituras gregas, ou novo testamento. Judas Iscariotes era um dos doze apóstolos de Jesus Cristo. Sua ganância o levou a trair Cristo por 30 moedas de prata. Arrependido, Judas tentou devolver o dinheiro de prata, porém foi rejeitado. As 30 moedas de prata se tornaram insuportáveis para ele, que as jogou longe. Judas não conseguiu suportar sua consciência pesada por ter levado à morte um homem inocente e se suicidou. A Bíblia também não nos conta mais nada daí em diante. Mas já podemos perceber de onde tiraram a idéia de que a prata é letal para esses seres e a estaca no peito lhes é mortal. Também o suicídio na lenda vampírica é um modo de se compactuar com as forças inferiores e se tornar um vampiro, morrendo para o mundo mortal e vivendo entre os mortos vivos.

Na literatura, Bram Stoker em 1897 conta a história de Conde Drácula através de jornais e diários. O livro conta que Count Dracula (seu primeiro nome não é revelado) vivia em um remoto castelo na Transilvânia, sendo uma pessoa com enorme poder sedutor e levando uma vida de luxúria. Além de hábitos não convencionais, como o de não sair à luz do sol. Cercado de mistérios sobre sua vida, verdadeira idade e o mais estranho, várias mortes envolvendo sua pessoa de forma não direta.

Bram Stoker na verdade se aproveitou de várias referências folclóricas que tinha acesso e as rearranjou, tornando Dracula o vampiro mais conhecido até hoje, tendo sua história recontada não oficialmente no cinema em Nosferatu, (Nosferatu, 1922) por Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. Mais tarde Tod Browning nos trouxe Dracula (Dracula, 1931) com a inesquecível atuação de Bela Lugosi. Desde então diversos nomes revisitaram e adaptaram a história dos filhos da noite. Alguns atores ficaram muito populares por dar vida aos sugadores de sangue como Brad Pitt vivendo Louis de Pointe de Lac em Entrevista com o Vampiro (Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles, 1994) de Neil Jordan, Richard Roxburgh como Count Vladislaus Dracula em Van Helsing (Van Helsing, 2004) de Stephen Sommers. Esse último traz várias criaturas da noite, como lobisomens e até o Frankenstein, personagem original de Mary Shelley.

Esses vampiros seguem as mesmas características básicas: se alimentam desangue humano, prata lhes causa dano, são mortos vivos com alguma ligação com o submundo e são seres do mal. Não saem à luz do sol porque podem ser reduzidos a cinzas, e nesse ponto os vampiros de Crepúsculo são diferentes, pois só não caminha ao sol porque brilham. É.

Diferente dos vampiros, que podemos ver várias referências a textos bíblicos e a livros apócrifos, os lobisomens tem sua origem na Grécia antiga com o mito do rei Lycaon. Em suas habituais visitas ao mundo dos homens disfarçado de viajante comum, Zeus passou pela corte do rei Lycaon. Reconhecendo o deus, Lycaon tentou matá-lo ao oferecer-lhe como alimento carne humana. Zeus reconheceu a intenção do rei e destruiu o palácio, além de condená-lo a viver pelo resto da vida como lobo. Provavelmente essa lenda tem origem devido a palavra grega lykanthrōpos: lykos – lobo e anthropos – homem.

Ainda sobre a origem dos homens lobo, desde o século 15 a Europa sofria com inúmeros ataques de lobos a humanos que trabalhavam em florestas. Não muito tempo depois o folclore contava que humanos amaldiçoados por demônios e bruxas más, se transformavam em lobos em noites de lua cheia. Aqueles que escapavam vivos de seus ataques com mordidas ou arranhões, também recebiam a maldição da licantropia. Como se livrar deles? Apenas com o tiro de uma bala de prata.

Os portugueses trouxeram a lenda dos lobisomens para as nossas terras. Segundo o nosso folclore, todo o sétimo filho de uma sequência de seis mulheres ou seis homens, é amaldiçoado com a licantropia.

Nos cinemas a primeira aparição dessas criaturas na grande tela foi em 1913, uma película de 18 minutos em que um índio americano conta a lenda de um povo com a habilidade de se transformar em lobos. Em 1981, Joe Dante dirigiu Grito de Horror (The Howling), um thriller em que a jornalista Karen White (Dee Wallace) após ser atacada por uma misteriosa criatura, vai para uma casa de repouso no campo sem saber que o local sofria constantes ataques da mesma criatura. Esse filme faz parte da chamada “trinca de clássicos” dos lobisomens. No mesmo ano, John Landis dirigiu (e também assinou o roteiro) Um Lobisomem Americano em Londres (An American Werewolf in London), uma comédia de horror apresentando os lobisomens e sua sede de sangue humano com muito humor negro. Em 1985 A Hora do Lobisomem (Silver Bullet), baseado no livro homônimo de Stephen King, que também assina o roteiro do filme, é dirigido por Daniel Attias e é considerado um dos melhores filmes sobre o tema. Não é apenas focado no lobisomem, o filme tem várias pequenas tramas muito bem desenvolvidas. Nesse filmeTerry O’Quinn, o Locke de Lost, faz o papel do xerife Joe Haller. Hoje temos o lobisomem adolescente bonitão Jacob Black, vivido por Taylor Lautner em Lua Nova (New Moon, 2009).

E sim, como na saga Crepúsculo, em mesas de RPG lobisomens e vampiros não compactuam de relações amigáveis. Lobisomens são filhos de Gaia, a mãe terra. Os vampiros são seres não naturais, impuros. Os homens lobo sentem a presença dessas criaturas com grande facilidade. Para poder exterminá-los, claro.

É interessante recordar as origens e ver as adaptações ao longo das épocas e como o público lida com elas. No caso da saga Crepúsculo, tanto os vampiros como os lobisomens tentam levar uma vida pacífica com os humanos, o que seria impossível, já que sua verdadeira origem é maléfica. E vale lembrar que o verdadeiro motivo de vampiros não poderem andar à luz do dia e dos lobisomens só se transformarem à luz da lua cheia, é a dicotomia luz e escuridão. A luz pertence ao bem e a escuridão ao mal. Logo, ver vampiros à luz do dia, caminhando com humanos é um pouco estranho. Mas são adaptações, leituras que vem para somar. Qual será a próxima releitura feita para essa nova geração?

Vampiros e lobisomens estão em alta graças a saga Crepúsculo. Nela, os dois seres estão em guerra desde tempos imemoriáveis devido a uma disputa de terras e alguns desentendimentos. Então para os adolescentes fãs da franquia, vamos mostrar a verdadeira origem dessas criaturas da noite.

Existem duas origens para os vampiros e todas elas se relacionam com a Bíblia. Nas escrituras hebraicas, ou velho testamento, o livro bíblico de Gênesis conta a história de Caim, filho de Adão, que assassinou seu irmão Abel e foi marcado por Deus para que ninguém o matasse, além de ser condenado a vagar no deserto e viver do trabalho de suas próprias mãos. Caim é sempre apontado como exemplo de homem fraco, que sede aos desejos egoístas da carne. Em livros apócrifos lemos que Caim se encontrou com Lilith, que seria a primeira esposa de Adão, antes de Eva, que por não se submeter a chefia de seu esposo foi banida do Paraíso e se tornou a mãe de todos os seres do mal. Lilith deu seu sangue para que Caim continuasse vivendo eternamente ao seu lado, dando origem assim ao primeiro vampiro da história.

A segunda origem tem a ver com as escrituras gregas, ou novo testamento. Judas Iscariotes era um dos doze apóstolos de Jesus Cristo. Sua ganância o levou a trair Cristo por 30 moedas de prata. Arrependido, Judas tentou devolver o dinheiro de prata, porém foi rejeitado. As 30 moedas de prata se tornaram insuportáveis para ele, que as jogou longe. Judas não conseguiu suportar sua consciência pesada por ter levado à morte um homem inocente e se suicidou. A Bíblia também não nos conta mais nada daí em diante. Mas já podemos perceber de onde tiraram a idéia de que a prata é letal para esses seres e a estaca no peito lhes é mortal. Também o suicídio na lenda vampírica é um modo de se compactuar com as forças inferiores e se tornar um vampiro, morrendo para o mundo mortal e vivendo entre os mortos vivos.

Na literatura, Bram Stoker em 1897 conta a história de Conde Drácula através de jornais e diários. O livro conta que Count Dracula (seu primeiro nome não é revelado) vivia em um remoto castelo na Transilvânia, sendo uma pessoa com enorme poder sedutor e levando uma vida de luxúria. Além de hábitos não convencionais, como o de não sair à luz do sol. Cercado de mistérios sobre sua vida, verdadeira idade e o mais estranho, várias mortes envolvendo sua pessoa de forma não direta.

Bram Stoker na verdade se aproveitou de várias referências folclóricas que tinha acesso e as rearranjou, tornando Dracula o vampiro mais conhecido até hoje, tendo sua história recontada não oficialmente no cinema em Nosferatu, (Nosferatu, 1922) por Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau. Mais tarde Tod Browning nos trouxe Dracula (Dracula, 1931) com a inesquecível atuação de Bela Lugosi. Desde então diversos nomes revisitaram e adaptaram a história dos filhos da noite. Alguns atores ficaram muito populares por dar vida aos sugadores de sangue como Brad Pitt vivendo Louis de Pointe de Lac em Entrevista com o Vampiro (Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles, 1994) de Neil Jordan, Richard Roxburgh como Count Vladislaus Dracula em Van Helsing (Van Helsing, 2004) de Stephen Sommers. Esse último traz várias criaturas da noite, como lobisomens e até o Frankenstein, personagem original de Mary Shelley.

Esses vampiros seguem as mesmas características básicas: se alimentam de sangue humano, prata lhes causa dano, são mortos vivos com alguma ligação com o submundo e são seres do mal. Não saem à luz do sol porque podem ser reduzidos a cinzas, e nesse ponto os vampiros de Crepúsculo são diferentes, pois só não caminha ao sol porque brilham. É.

Diferente dos vampiros, que podemos ver várias referências a textos bíblicos e a livros apócrifos, os lobisomens tem sua origem na Grécia antiga com o mito do rei Lycaon. Em suas habituais visitas ao mundo dos homens disfarçado de viajante comum, Zeus passou pela corte do rei Lycaon. Reconhecendo o deus, Lycaon tentou matá-lo ao oferecer-lhe como alimento carne humana. Zeus reconheceu a intenção do rei e destruiu o palácio, além de condená-lo a viver pelo resto da vida como lobo. Provavelmente essa lenda tem origem devido a palavra grega lykanthrōpos: lykos – lobo e anthropos – homem.

Ainda sobre a origem dos homens lobo, desde o século 15 a Europa sofria com inúmeros ataques de lobos a humanos que trabalhavam em florestas. Não muito tempo depois o folclore contava que humanos amaldiçoados por demônios e bruxas más, se transformavam em lobos em noites de lua cheia. Aqueles que escapavam vivos de seus ataques com mordidas ou arranhões, também recebiam a maldição da licantropia. Como se livrar deles? Apenas com o tiro de uma bala de prata.

Os portugueses trouxeram a lenda dos lobisomens para as nossas terras. Segundo o nosso folclore, todo o sétimo filho de uma sequência de seis mulheres ou seis homens, é amaldiçoado com a licantropia.

Nos cinemas a primeira aparição dessas criaturas na grande tela foi em 1913, uma película de 18 minutos em que um índio americano conta a lenda de um povo com a habilidade de se transformar em lobos. Em 1981, Joe Dante dirigiu Grito de Horror (The Howling), um thriller em que a jornalista Karen White (Dee Wallace) após ser atacada por uma misteriosa criatura, vai para uma casa de repouso no campo sem saber que o local sofria constantes ataques da mesma criatura. Esse filme faz parte da chamada “trinca de clássicos” dos lobisomens. No mesmo ano, John Landis dirigiu (e também assinou o roteiro) Um Lobisomem Americano em Londres (An American Werewolf in London), uma comédia de horror apresentando os lobisomens e sua sede de sangue humano com muito humor negro. Em 1985 A Hora do Lobisomem (Silver Bullet), baseado no livro homônimo de Stephen King, que também assina o roteiro do filme, é dirigido por Daniel Attias e é considerado um dos melhores filmes sobre o tema. Não é apenas focado no lobisomem, o filme tem várias pequenas tramas muito bem desenvolvidas. Nesse filme Terry O’Quinn, o Locke de Lost, faz o papel do xerife Joe Haller. Hoje temos o lobisomem adolescente bonitão Jacob Black, vivido por Taylor Lautner em Lua Nova (New Moon, 2009).

E sim, como na saga Crepúsculo, em mesas de RPG lobisomens e vampiros não compactuam de relações amigáveis. Lobisomens são filhos de Gaia, a mãe terra. Os vampiros são seres não naturais, impuros. Os homens lobo sentem a presença dessas criaturas com grande facilidade. Para poder exterminá-los, claro.

É interessante recordar as origens e ver as adaptações ao longo das épocas e como o público lida com elas. No caso da saga Crepúsculo, tanto os vampiros como os lobisomens tentam levar uma vida pacífica com os humanos, o que seria impossível, já que sua verdadeira origem é maléfica. E vale lembrar que o verdadeiro motivo de vampiros não poderem andar à luz do dia e dos lobisomens só se transformarem à luz da lua cheia, é a dicotomia luz e escuridão. A luz pertence ao bem e a escuridão ao mal. Logo, ver vampiros à luz do dia, caminhando com humanos é um pouco estranho. Mas são adaptações, leituras que vem para somar. Qual será a próxima releitura feita para essa nova geração?

Este es el trailer en español de la pelicula “Solomon Kane“, el cual es un heroe del siglo XVII. Creo que si les gustó Van Helsing esta tambien les gustara.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)
★★★ / ★★★★

Gary Oldman stars as Count Dracula, a man who found his love named Elisabeta (Winona Ryder) died after he arrived from the war. The priests did not want to give Elisabeta a proper burial because she committed suicide. This angered Dracula, denounced God and was cursed to live for eternity lusting for blood. Hundreds of years later, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) was assigned to help Dracula to buy some property in London unknowing of the vampire’s true intentions. Eventually, Dracula set his sights on Harker’s wife (also played by Ryder) because she looked exactly like his former lover and Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) stepped in to help. I’m not entirely convinced on whether to recommend this picture. While I did find the asthetics magnificent and the execution of the story to be just fine, some crucial elements did not meet my expectations. I thought it sacrificed a lot of the terror for the sake of romance. When I watch a movie about Dracula, I expect to be suspended in suspense instead of watching him yearn over a lover. I thought the best scenes in the film were in the first half. There was something extremely creepy about the whole vibe of the castle when Jonathan visited Dracula in Transylvania. Every shadow and dark corner of the room felt menacing as if something seriously wrong was about to happen. The soundtrack was used sparingly so that the audiences could hear every creak and footstep made in the castle. The second half of the movie felt exactly the opposite. There were overt sexual references, consistent loud noises and the pacing became static. While it still remained elegant, I began to feel more apathetic toward each character when I should have been rooting for them because lives were at stake. Regardless of its flaws, I was still curious on what was going to happen next because Francis Ford Coppola, the director, had interesting techniques when it came to presenting his audiences gothic imagery. Coppola spent too much of his time with the images and asthetics of the picture that he somewhat neglected his characters and where the story was going. I’m not sure how closely this followed Bram Stoker’s original 1897 novel because I haven’t read it. But I must say that it definitely took me back to that time period. So in terms of escapism, I think this movie did a good job. However, when I try to really analyze it piece by piece, I’m not that impressed with it. It’s the strangest feeling.

Sim, é galhofa pura. Matadores de Vampiras Lésbicas (Lesbian Vampire Killers) vem com vários clichês do cinema trash, desde a tipografia da abertura, passando pelos adolescentes de dezoito anos que são interpretados por atores de trinta até as diversas piadas sexuais do gênero.

A história é simples, um cavaleiro das cruzadas teve o amor da sua vida roubado por Carmilla (Silvia Colloca), a rainha das vampiras lésbicas. Revoltado, o cavaleiro McLaren forja uma espada mágica para acabar com a vampira lésbica, mas antes de ter sua cabeça decapitada, Carmilla invoca uma maldição na linhagem de McLaren e sobre a cidade, que teria todas as suas mulheres, a partir dos dezoito anos, transformadas em vampiras lésbicas. Jimmy (Mathew Horne) é o último da linhagem de McLaren que por manobra do destino, vai passar as férias na tal cidade amaldiçoada e a história se desenrola.

Mesmo com tantos clichês, Matadores consegue se sobressair e ficar bem interessante. Grande contribuição do carisma dos atores, principalmente Fletch (James Corden), o gordinho que só faz gordice e que não está nem aí para derrotar as vampiras e que faz algumas citações nerds. Além de ter uma nerd gostosa, Lotte (MyAnna Buring).

O diretor Phil Claydon, que tem apenas três trabalhos atualmente, deve tomar cuidado com os recursos utilizados como slow motion seguido de fast, que é usado irritantemente em demasia. Ponto positivo para as sutilezas para quem tem o ouvido apurado, como músicas que completam as cenas, ou pequenos efeitos sonoros, que enriquecem o filme. Temos que citar Friday The 13th, seriado dos anos 90 que serviu de inspiração para Supernatural. O filme tem todo o clima do seriado e fica bem colocado na tela grande da sala escura. Matadores me fez lembrar Grindhouse e creio que esse era o objetivo. E claro, um final digno de Van Helsing. Ok, não vou soltar spoiler! Agora nos resta ficar de olho na continuação, Gay Werewolf Killers.

Fica a dica de cinema descompromissado para o final de semana =)

O que esperar de um filme baseado na coleção de figuras de ação da Hasbro, os ‘bonequinhos’ do G. I. Joe? Explosões, gente bonita, e claro, te deixar com aquela vontade de entrar na primeira loja de brinquedos e comprar um bonequinho do Storm Shadow e outro do Snake Eyes assim que a sessão terminar!

Com direção de Stephen Sommers, que é conhecido por seus filmes que entretem sem compromisso, como Van Helsing e a trilogia A Múmia. Stephen brinca com o filme como se estivesse realizando seu sonho de criança. Os atores atiram, levam tiro, saltam, caem, brigam, beijam (beijos ridículos, só pra constar), e tem flashbacks. Vários. Sofridos. Na chuva, porque não tem como fugir do clichê.

O filme começa em um futuro não muito distante. O exército transporta uma nova arma com nanorobôs que destroem tudo o que é aço e só param quando são desativados por um controle remoto. O transporte segue bem até osCobra, um grupo de vilões com armas de tecnologia e treinamento superior ao do exército, atacarem o comboio atrás das tais armas. O capitão Duke, interpretado por Channing Tatum (que já foi stripper mas sem tirar a cueca, só pra deixar claro) e seu braço direito Ripcord, Marlon Wayans, que você provavelmente conhece pelas comédias Todo Mundo em Pânico, são salvos pelos G. I. Joe, uma divisão super secreta do exército internacional de inteligência, armas, tecnologia e treinamento tão avançados quanto os Cobra. É dado o ponta pé para várias reviravoltas, explosões e muita coisa acontecer ao mesmo tempo. Lógico que para haver uma, duas ou três continuações.

Com atores conhecidos, como Arnold Vosloo, interpretando o vilão camaleão Zartan e Brendan Fraser em uma participação muito rápida comoSargento Stone. Pois é, Imhotep e Richard O’Connell em lados opostos de novo! E claro,  Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (quero assistir uma entrevista com alguém dizendo o nome dele completo!) que os fãs de Lost conhecem como Mr Eko, interpretando Heavy Duty. Das gata-garotas temos a lindaSienna Miller, interpretando Ana, a baronesa. Sienna já deu vida a Victoria em Stardust. Rachel Nichols, é Scarlett, a nerd dos Joe. Rachel já atuou no seriado Alias, de J J Abrams. Será que isso pesou na escolha da atriz para a personagem?

G. I. Joe – The Rise of The Cobra (G.I. Joe – A Origem de Cobra) é uma rentável colcha de retalhos. Há diversos personagens que permitem diversas continuações tanto em grupo como histórias fechadas com um ou dos integrantes. Particularmente quero muito que façam um filme solo do Storm Shadow. Byung-hun Lee fez o personagem todo afetado, um verdadeiroElvis assassino from Japan!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338526/

So when this movie came out I really had no desire to watch it. But I heard nothing but good things about it. So after 5 years after it had been released I decided to give it a go. And let me tell you it was about as disappointing as Blade 2.

Now the intro was so friggen awesome that my hopes for the movie were sky high. All I could think was combining Frankenstein’s monster, werewolves and vampires was actually going to mix together extremely well. Not to mention the fact that the intro was all in Black and White, an art that is lost in modern cinema. See Black and White makes you concentrate more on the dialog and what is actually happening rather than how cool things look. It does not fit every movie, but this one fit it perfectly.

However shortly after the intro it all fell apart. First off Vampires apparently turn into Harpies when they ‘transform’ instead of bats. They also, according to this movie, need a silver stake to die. C’MON!!!! Silver stake? WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!? And the transformation thing just pissed me off. Oh yeah, apparently when vampires mate their offspring do not survive since its already dead. So what do they do with them? Hang them in a booger, no joke. For some sadistic reason they save all of the little bastards. Apparently once they can be revived they turn into Imps. Ya that’s right, imps. WTFF?F?F?F?F?!??!?!W?WEQW>DFSALFJ ALSJDV:LASJK!

Now they got Frankenstein’s monster on the dot, as well as the werewolves. Those were spot on.

Remember how awesome Blade was because there was minimal CG? Remember how awesome it was? Then remember Blade 2 and how there might as well have not been any actors since every fight scene was replaced with CG crap? Remember how much it fucking sucked? Alright well in this movie pretty much every scene is a CG fest. I cannot think of one time in the movie where it was not CG. I was expecting at least a little CG; most movies cannot help it nowadays, but every fucking scene? Suckage!

I am honestly pissed at how bad the storyline was. They tried to tie in Werewolves and Vampires and Frankenstein’s monster with Vampire babies and the entire story was a shitfest after it was all said and done. The only redeeming quality of this movie was the intro. Seriously, watch just that and turn it off. Hell you might even be able to find a YouTube video of just the first scene. Watch that and then turn it the fuck off. It’s not worth your time after that point.

Base Score = 5
+2 for an amazing intro, one of the best I have ever seen
-2 for royally fucking up vampires
-1 for CG’ing in all of the fights
-1 for a terrible story
-1 for trying to tie in 3 mythical beasts and failing.
=2/10

I finished up Rick Yancey’s The Monstrumologist over the weekend. It impressed the hell out of me. Certainly, it’s some of the best horror literature to come out this year, and as 2009 has seen new books from Sarah Langan, Dan Simmons, and Stephen King, that’s no mean feat.

I’m curious to see if it’ll end up being as successful as it deserves to be. Technically, it’s a YA novel, and I have trouble imagining it showing up in too many middle school libraries or Scholastic bookorders.¹ The Monstrumologist is an unequivocally R-rated book, both for the extremity of its violence and the darkness of its themes; sizable chunks of dialogue are devoted to discussions of eugenics and Nietzche’s Übermensch (timely topics in the book’s late 1800s academic setting). I don’t doubt for a second kids’ ability to handle the material, but I have slightly less faith in the adults who have a hand in choosing what they get to read. I worked in a bookstore for a few years with a children’s section run by an “expert” who seemed to be under the impression that anyone under the age of twenty-one was mentally and emotionally retarded.

Maybe I’m wrong. I readily admit to having no idea what’s going on in the world of YA literature. Maybe it’s more sophisticated than when I was a kid. The last thing I read that qualified as belonging to the genre was that Deathly Hallows book, which was pretty fucking dumb.

I’m getting sidetracked here. What I wanted to talk about was something that I realized while reading this book, the title character of which is a professor of (…have you guessed it?…) monstrumology, a little-known, little-respected field of study, well, monsters. Or, as Yancey’s website puts it:

What I realized is this: I fucking love monster hunters in tweed suits. Love ‘em. Possibly my favorite horror sub-genre, ranking even higher than zombie apacolypse. (Possibly. Don’t quote me.) I’ve put a fair amount of thought into it since then, and I’m not sure I can explain my affection. It might have something to do with getting to see the frail-but-intelligent getting to be the heroes for once. Perhaps I just like the idea of old-timey academia, monsters or no. Or maybe I just have a fondness for earth-toned suits.

Here are a few of the badassical bookworms I’ve dug on over the years:

Abraham Van Helsing

As far as I know, the man who took on Count Dracula is the original. In most movie versions, he’s portrayed as a vampire expert, but in Bram Stoker’s book, he’s an expert in just about everything (a category into which vampirism happens to fall).

Next to Dracula himself, I don’t know if there’s any other character in literature who has shown up in as many adaptations and sequels across all mediums as this guy. The worst, by far, would have to be the Hugh Jackman movie, in which V.H. is written as being some kind of cowboy/priest/angel…maybe a werewolf? Some shit. I don’t really remember. On a personal note, I saw Van Helsing in a theater in Prague, a city that appears in the movie at one point. Hugh Jackman looks out upon its unmistakable midieval skyline and breaths, “Budapest.”

Perhaps not the best, but at least my favorite, would be Peter Cushing in the Hammer series of Dracula films. Nowhere else is he portrayed as being so dapper, to the point of dandihood. The man’s just as likely to wear a tweed three-piece as he is to wear a purple crushed velvet suit worthy of Chuck Bass. You know he’s in dire straights when his immaculately slicked-back hair gets messy. A little.

It is unclear why the good people at Hammer Film Productions felt compelled to change his first name from “Abraham” to “J.”

Miskatonic University’s head librarian is one of the few H.P. Lovecraft characters to ever accomplish something other than going crazy or getting squished, and for this reason, some critics consider “The Dunwich Horror” to be one of the Mythos’s weaker entries. It’s true that it’s got a different adventure-to-horror ratio than much of Lovecraft’s writing, but the idea that this somehow makes it inferior is garbage. That there is an actual range of emotional and dramatic possibilities throughout the Cthulhu Mythos is exactly why writers are still dabbling in it decades later.

 Rupert Giles

The father figure/mentor of Buffy the Vampire Slayer certainly fits the academic monster hunter trope: tweedy attire, glasses, stuffy accent, works in a library. As tends to be the case with the show’s characters, though, Giles is written against type. As we eventually learn, he dropped out of Oxford at twenty-one to play in a rock band and practice black magic (which I guess leaves me a little confused as to what kind of credentialing he has that allows him to work at a California public high school). As tends to be the case with the show’s characters’ histories, it all comes back to bite him and the  people he cares about.

^–

¹ Do these still exist? Am I showing my age?

I’m still going to go back and do the analyses from three weeks ago two weeks ago, and this week, but I’ll start with this one and get back to the others.

Anyways, in this weeks release, a new planet has surfaced, with a very spooky, Mogloween, Friday the 13th-ish feel. Except this time it’s a permanent planet, and AE is promising its best one yet. How’d they start? Read on for my take.

Necryptos Planet: Town Lyceum

About

The town of Lyceum has opened on the newly discovered planet of Necryptos, and with it two NPCs, a new vampire enemy, a new quest, and new mecha were released. The town’s lead character is named Mina, and her story goes as such: One day she was walking through the Mortenwood Forest on her way home (why she did such a foolish thing the world may never know). Anyways, she was running late and as the darkness began to engulf her, the sounds of the forest overcame her, and eventually weird skeleton creatures came chasing her, which caused her to black out. The next thing she remembered was waking up at the edge of town in the morning, and she realized she had been bitten by a vampire. Mina speculates that she was probably bitten by the Lord of Mortenwood, the vampire Dimitri. She tells us that word around the street is that the only way to cure vampire bites is to kill the vampire that did the deed, which is of course where we come in. It is up to us to venture into Mortenwood and destroy Dimitri once and for all.

To help with the quest, Mina points us to the man across the screen, Van Helsing. Arguably one of the more deep and complex characters MQ has seen, Van Helsing has a fascinating history, one in which I would point you to read firsthand rather than listen to my summary. Basically, Van Helsing despises vampires and was once a vampire hunter himself back in his younger days. Nowadays, he is too old to fight vampires, but he does own some vampire-specialized mecha with which to help defeat them (which I will discuss in detail later on).

Then there’s the quest itself. Accessed from a handy map which presumably displays all the areas of the planet, the Mortenwood Forest quest uses a map walkaround system with a minimap radar in the top right corner of the screen, which is viewable at all times. The objective is to walk around and kill enemies to find the key to the crypt, which will be used to unlock the Dimitri boss fight. The quest introduces a new vampire enemy, with its only strategy employing four (4) DoTs and using each one to buff a heal over time for itself. So basically, it will eventually inflict four HP DoTs on your mecha, while each turn healing itself by an amount that will significantly add up over time. The Vampire Mecha is a very respectable option versus the vampire enemies, even though the buffs against them don’t directly counter the vampire’s specials.

Pros

I’m going to use a new system of pros and cons for releases analysis posts, using a list system to better organize the critique.

• Horror feel is captured very well throughout the town
  AE hasn’t always done a great job representing the feeling, emotion, and overall mood of certain areas in the world of Lore, but in Lyceum the trend is reversed. The backgrounds, background music, map layout in the quest, and artwork of the vampire mecha and Lyceum home screen were all created with a spooky, foreboding tone, and it really shines through in helping craft a well-rounded planet. This is the sort of thing that subconsciously plays in our minds as we form an opinion of a zone, and it’s worth pointing out when AE does this right.
• Vampire Minion enemy is challenging
  This is a good thing, as the Vampire Minion is difficult enough to force us to use actual strategies and think about what we’re doing while fighting it. It also isn’t impossible, and has many weaknesses with which to exploit. The drain/heal special was implemented well, and can be a real pain to counter. The animations and graphics of the Vampire Minion are also top-notch, as always.
• NPCs have personality
  Hard to believe coming from an AE game, where NPC personalities are as rare as a release without typos; in other words, it doesn’t happen very often. In fact, only one other time in MechQuest history have I seen the kind of dialogue depth and NPC interaction as with the two NPCs in this release: Back during the Crystal Asteroid War, in the Rec Room with the dream side-storyline. This time, it happens in the main storyline, and it’s a great sign to see. Van Helsing has a ton of text to read through, but it is all very interesting and truly gives him a personality and life of his own. Mina also has a nice personality (if not as developed as Van Helsing quite yet), but is off to a good start as she thoroughly explained her predicament and what happened. The depth of the characters will hopefully continue to evolve, as this oft-ignored aspect of releases was finally brought to the spotlight.

Cons

• Quest itself is boring and repetitive
  I don’t have many cons with this new planet, but I do take issue with the opening quest. Simply put, it is uninspired, lazy, and repetitive. The atmosphere and new enemy were both pros, but the fundamentals of the quest progression didn’t work for me. The key percentage drop is way too low and almost converts the quest into a vampire farming zone, and the simple walk around and fight enemies till you win structure reeks of lack of originality and creativity. The quest would have been much better if it had worked as a maze, with the end of the maze holding the key. The way it is now is way too run of the mill and boring.
• Overall small release
  One of the things I ask myself after playing a release is whether I feel there was enough content to justify the week of development. Over the years AE has set a standard for how much content to expect, and especially for planet introductions that bar has been set pretty high. Needless to say, Necryptos didn’t hold up. Only a one-screen, two-NPC town was released, with one new mecha model and one new enemy. And that’s about it. I expect more from a highly-anticipated new planet, and Necryptos just didn’t match the quality of other planet debuts (such as Westion and Gark/Lagos).

Grade of Release

7.5/10. There were a lot of good signs in Lyceum’s debut, from the engaging NPCs to the atmospheric environments. Unfortunately, much of the pros were offset by a dull feature quest and overall lack of “pow”, so it all evens out to an average 7.5.

Vampire Mecha

About

Van Helsing has s0me special buffed Mogloween rare mecha, and will be replaced with be permanent, slightly altered versions later this week. (UPDATE: These newer models have now been released, replacing the permanent versions. Both models are nearly identical though, and the permanent version is not weaker than the rare one.) The models come in non-SC, SC, and NG varieties, but the only version available for players below level 30 is a level 10 NG one. The mecha comes equipped with increased overall damage against vampires (especially on the shoulders), a very cool body combo (in which the more weapons you use before the body will buff the body’s attack more), a BoF of 20% extra damage on the head against vampires, and many more cool effects.

Pros

• Vampire-only effects improve the mecha greatly
  AE did a really nice job adding powerful but not overpowered extra effects onto the mecha to make it a force against vampires.  The vampire mecha is definitely one of the best options to fight the powerful vampire enemy, which is the main purpose of the mecha.
• Body special is unique and powerful
  MQ has never seen a special quite like that of the body default, which boosts its attack damage the more default weapons you use before the body. It’s a very unique, original special with the potential for massive damage if used correctly. This is definitely one of my favorite specials in the game, and definitely boosts my overall opinion of the mecha

Cons

• Mecha is very weak against non-vampire enemies
  I’m fine with the mecha being extra powerful against vampire enemies, but it seems AE forgot about all the other enemies the V-hunter can face. The mecha, is quite frankly, a terrible option versus non-vampire enemies, as the standard specials are very basic and include nothing to get excited about. It still fares well enough, but overall the strength of the regular attacks could have been more varied and powerful.
• Not enough level variety
  The only model below level 30 is of the NG variety (level 10), which is incredibly disappointing. Even with it being a rare mecha and it being located in a higher-level zone, it is straight up unacceptable for AE to forget such a major part of the level spectrum.
• Other specials are ordinary
  Besides the beast body weapon, the rest of the specials aren’t much to get excited about. In fact, all there really is are a bunch of standard specials, like a BoF, extra damage, DoT, and heal. I would have to liked to see some more variety, coherence, and creativity from the staff with the other weapons, and maybe a special or two specifically designed to target vampires’ weaknesses (not just vague overall buffs).

Grade of Release

8.0/10. Even with my problems, I was still satisfied with the Vampire Hunter. For an opening zone mecha focused on a specific type of enemy, the mecha serves its purpose very well, and I can’t honestly lower the grade more with a body special like this.

Overall Grade of Release

7.5/10. Ultimately, I just felt underwhelmed and unimpressed with the opening of the new planet, even with some positive signs. The mecha was nice, the atmosphere was chilling, the NPCs actually had personality, and the plot shows promise. Unfortunately, the release as a whole didn’t have enough content and the main quest didn’t hold up well enough for me to give the release as a whole higher than a 7.5. I’m hoping that the zone grows positively and shows AE’s capacity for making something great, because many of the pieces that don’t always show up are already in place.

Buffy, l'ammazzavampiri

A Piazza Irnerio, l’altroieri, si distribuivano crocifissi.
Qualcuno giura di aver visto Buffy, l’ammazzavampiri, con tutto il suo seguito, altri il Dott. Van Helsing che trascinava una pesantissima corona d’aglio. A quanto pare la città eterna, capitale di un glorioso stato un tempo laico, poi abbrutito dal cattolicesimo politico, è sotto attacco: orde di vampiri, provenienti da Strasburgo, sono pronti a succhiare fino alla morte il sangue dei poveri cristiani lì presenti perché, anche se capitale della repubblica Italiana, Roma è anche il centro del cattolicesimo.

La distribuzione dei crocifissi, ad opera del PdL romano, è stata accompagnata da una raccolta di firme, tesa a rigettare la oramai famosa sentenza della corte europea di Strasburgo. Hanno aderito in molti, alcuni in difesa delle presunte “radici cristiane dell’Europa”, altri con spirito più bellicoso, cavalleresco, muniti del crociato e larussiano motto “dovete morire” lanciato contro chiunque non la pensi come loro.
Intendiamoci, la distribuzione del simbolo religioso come segno di identità e di protesta è una cosa che ci vede favorevoli; ogni cittadino o ogni insieme di cittadini, se crede di aver subito un torto, fa bene a mobilitarsi. Quel che ci preoccupa è lo stile, il tono; pare che ogni cristiano sia diventato un martire che combatte, con la schiuma alla bocca, non per la possibilità di praticare il suo credo religioso o la sua libertà di coscienza (anche perché non è certo questo in gioco), ma per il puro mantenimento di quello che, diciamola tutta, è un privilegio di origine fascista.
Lo stato laico, quello del Risorgimento, non aveva crocifissi né nelle scuole né nei tribunali, dove vi era solo scritto il motto “La legge è uguale per tutti”. Poi, gradatamente, con il ventennio, il crocifisso è arrivato ovunque, anche in quei luoghi in cui il nazareno medesimo non avrebbe messo volentieri piede, forse perché disgustato dagli effluvi di olio di ricino.

Detto in altri termini quel che ci preoccupa è che in nome delle presunte radici cristiane (dimentichiamo la classicità greca e latina, secoli di cultura e di identità a dir poco pagane, anch’esse a fondamento dell’occidente!) con il crocifisso si possano distribuire i paletti da conficcare nel cuore dei vampiri che, si sa, ammantati di rosso sangue ed avendo solo la vita (quindi applicando con rigore il materialismo storico), sono anche un po’, come dire, … comunisti.
Quella che sta montando, e che io vedo con estrema preoccupazione, non è la difesa di un credo religioso, ma del vile privilegio; non è tanto in gioco l’identità cristiana, bensì l’arroganza di una maggioranza bramosa di schiacciare tutto quello che è diverso da lei. Non vorremmo, insomma, che su questa strada si aprisse la caccia all’ateo e all’agnostico. Del resto, se un ministro del nostro governo dice che chi non vuole il crocifisso deve morire, la cosa è preoccupante.
Atei! Agnostici! Cristiani riformati e seguaci della teologia della liberazione! Tra un po’, forse, dovremmo chiedere asilo in Olanda, esattamente come si faceva nel ‘500, sempre che le maledizioni di Ignazio La Russa non ci colpiscano prima o che non ci raggiungano i suoi contadini transilvani armati di forcone.

Arguzie a parte, il clima non è buono; l’integralismo cattolico, fomentato da destra, è parallelo al pullulare di gruppi e gruppettini neo fascisti e neonazisti che, da quando il buon Alemanno, cui riconosciamo il merito di aver dichiarato di non essere “fascista”, bensì “missino”, è stato eletto come sindaco di Roma, hanno repentinamente alzato la testa.
Potremmo anche parlare del clima omofobo, ma sarebbe troppo semplice…
Roma è una città fin troppo civile. I disordini susseguiti alla scomparsa di Stefano Cucchi, la cui morte è avvolta ancora nel mistero, non sono nulla rispetto a quello che poteva succedere; fosse accaduta una cosa di questa gravità e viltà a Parigi, nelle periferie sarebbero stati già presi d’assalto i commissariati.
Roma è una città civile e reagisce con civiltà, avendo, esattamente come la famiglia del Cucchi, la nobiltà civile e la fede nel diritto. Roma non merita che vengano distribuiti paletti da conficcare nel cuore dei vampiri.

Mi sia consentita un’ultima riflessione: lo stato esiste per garantire la vita dei cittadini. Lo diceva Thomas Hobbes e almeno la metà della storia della filosofia politica. Questo principio è anche alla base della nostra costituzione. Come fa un ministro del governo ad augurare la morte anche ad uno solo dei suoi governati? Questo fatto è di estrema gravità, anche se i media tendono a farlo passare in secondo piano. Ancora più grave è il fatto che chi dovrebbe garantire l’applicazione della costituzione e dei principi che ad essa sottendono, è rimasto in silenzio.
Lei, Giorgio Napolitano, presidente della Repubblica, doveva prendere Ignazio La Russa per un orecchio e dirgli: “tu questo non lo puoi fare … chiedi scusa”. Del resto, come garante supremo, lei è un po’ il padre di tutti noi e per età potrebbe essere benissimo il genitore di La Russa; in ambedue i casi avrebbe potuto farlo.

Quel che ci preoccupa non è la faccenda del crocifisso; se i cattolici vinceranno il ricorso non se ne farà un dramma. Noi, a differenza di altri, rispettiamo le sentenze. Ci preoccupa invece un clima da inquisizione in cui una vile maggioranza chiassosa e con le mani che prudono, dalla scarsa intelligenza e cultura (altrimenti non parlerebbe con tanta leggerezza delle radici europee), reagisce con rabbia a qualsiasi cosa possa intaccare il proprio predominio.

Se continueremo così, saremo tutti realmente in pericolo.
Mario Michele Pascale
coordinatore regionale del movimento dei Radicali di Sinistra

Sim, é galhofa pura. Matadores de Vampiras Lésbicas (Lesbian Vampire Killers) vem com vários clichês do cinema trash, desde a tipografia da abertura, passando pelos adolescentes de dezoito anos que são interpretados por atores de trinta até as diversas piadas sexuais do gênero.

A história é simples, um cavaleiro das cruzadas teve o amor da sua vida roubado por Carmilla (Silvia Colloca), a rainha das vampiras lésbicas. Revoltado, o cavaleiro McLaren forja uma espada mágica para acabar com a vampira lésbica, mas antes de ter sua cabeça decapitada, Carmilla invoca uma maldição na linhagem de McLaren e sobre a cidade, que teria todas as suas mulheres, a partir dos dezoito anos, transformadas em vampiras lésbicas. Jimmy (Mathew Horne) é o último da linhagem de McLaren que por manobra do destino, vai passar as férias na tal cidade amaldiçoada e a história se desenrola.

Mesmo com tantos clichês, Matadores consegue se sobressair e ficar bem interessante. Grande contribuição do carisma dos atores, principalmente Fletch (James Corden), o gordinho que só faz gordice e que não está nem aí para derrotar as vampiras e que faz algumas citações nerds. Além de ter uma nerd gostosa, Lotte (MyAnna Buring).

O diretor Phil Claydon, que tem apenas três trabalhos atualmente, deve tomar cuidado com os recursos utilizados como slow motion seguido de fast, que é usado irritantemente em demasia. Ponto positivo para as sutilezas para quem tem o ouvido apurado, como músicas que completam as cenas, ou pequenos efeitos sonoros, que enriquecem o filme. Temos que citar Friday The 13th, seriado dos anos 90 que serviu de inspiração para Supernatural. O filme tem todo o clima do seriado e fica bem colocado na tela grande da sala escura. Matadores me fez lembrar Grindhouse e creio que esse era o objetivo. E claro, um final digno de Van Helsing. Ok, não vou soltar spoiler! Agora nos resta ficar de olho na continuação, Gay Werewolf Killers.

Fica a dica de cinema descompromissado para o final de semana =)

    Kathryn Bailey Beckinsale, conhecida como Kate Beckinsale  é uma  atriz inglesa nascida em Londres nos dia 26 de Julho de 1973

    Seus pais também eram atores, e sua mãe Judy Loe apareceu em vários programas televisivos e seriados britânicos. Seu pai, Richard Beckinsale, estrelou durante os anos 70, alguns filmes britânicos.

    Ficou famosa apos fazer o filme Pearl Harbor, onde fazia par com Ben Affleck, dai para frente vem se destacando em vários filmes, como nos dois primeiros filmes da série Anjos da Noite e no filme Van Helsing.

    É casada com o diretor estadunidense Len Wiseman. Tem uma filha chamada Lily Sheen, nascida em 1999, do relacionamento que teve com o ator Michael Sheen.

     Em 2009 Kate foi eleita pela revista Esquire com o título de “Mulher Mais Sexy Viva”.

   Podemos dizer que Kate é bem estilosa, no dia-a – dia gosta e usar e abusar de jeans rasgados combinando com blusas básicas e sobreposições de peças, em algumas ocasiões usa vestidos longos e estampados.

     Nos eventos que não exigem um visual tão requintado ela aposta em vestidos mais curtos ou na altura dos joelhoes, os mais curtinhos em geral são pretos e acompanhados de meia calça da mesma cor; os modelos mais comportados sempre possuem cortes diferenciados.

       Suas produções para o Red Carpet são incríveis, ela invste em vestidos glamurosos, com tecidos fluidos, bordados e volumes, varia entre cores mais claras como branco e bege e mais escuras em tom de preto e cinza.

      A kate também não tem medo de mudar o estilo do cabelo, sempre aparece com um corte ou uma cor nova nas madeixas.

Até a próxima , Beijo Jéssy

Vampires are mesmerizing beings. They’re labeled the undead, since technically they are neither dead nor alive. They mostly have a great sense of style and just are hot. Of course there is the whole ick factor of blood-sucking and all, but overall, they bring charisma, charm, lust and seduction to the screen. Many actors have taken on roles as vampires either in TV shows or movies, but right now this is a movies blog so we are going to go strictly film on this one. Now of course it is impossible to cover them all, so I am going to mention some of the most remarkable ones and if you disagree or think I’ve left some important ones out, well- please share

1) Interview with the Vampire (Based on the novel by Anne Rice)

Tom Cruise as Lestat in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire

The first Vampire I met on screen was Anne Rice’s Lestat, portrayed by the skilled Tom Cruise:

link for the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGkBMe3j-Sk

Now, the trouble with Tom Cruise’s portrayal of Lestat- probably it has to do with the script, I haven’t read the novel, so I wouldn’t know how Anne Rice meant him to be- he brings humor to the story. Lestat isn’t scary. Oh sure, Brad Pitt’s Louis was rightfully scared when Lestat was sucking the life out of him, but Tom Cruise with blond hair and terribly white skin does not equal something of a cold, Scandinavian or in our case a vampiric beauty. Tom is good with jet black, short or a little longish hair like he has in Mission Impossible 2 or Jerry Maguire. Well, I hadn’t initially found Tom’s look funny, I just thought he wasn’t exactly scary or desirable. But here’s what happens: He picks Brad Pitt as his life partner. I have no objections as in picking a guy like Brad to spend eternity with, let’s face Lestat could do a lot worse. But, need I remind you Lestat is a male undead? Sure, a vampire is a sexual being and he could be as gay or as bi as he damn pleases. But a male vampire (Tom Cruise) siring another guy (Brad Pitt) is not exactly a girl’s fantasy. Well, it is not mine anyway. You haven’t picked up on the vibe? Watch closely. Lestat addsa little girl played by Kirsten Dunst to the group  and she keeps acting like a total brat. So Lestat gets pissed and threatens her with bringing home a sister. Dad Tom, Mommy Brad – and kid Dunst. One small, weird vampire family. Well, it didn’t hurt that the movie also features Antonio Banderas as a Vampire with beautiful long hair. But mind you, Banderas’ Armand is not nearly as destructively gorgeous as his El Mariachi in Desperado. There’s something wrong with the vampires in this movie. They are pretty. But they are not sexy.

Brad Pitt as Louis in Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire

Antonio Banderas as Armand in Interview with the Vampire

Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst in Interview with the Vampire: the "happy" family

2) BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA

Gary Oldman as Dracula in Bram Stoker's Dracula

Now Dracula is the ultimate myth, legend, fantasy. Dracula is the most famous Vampire of all times. Many versions have been written since Bram Stoker’s and many actors have played him. And this one with Gary Oldman is sort of fun. The cast is great. It has Winona Ryder as Dracula’s love/lust interest, Keanu Reeves as her fiancé and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. The problem is Dracula seems much too much like a cartoon character. The movie was directed by Francis Ford Coppola ,however it more feels like a Tim Burton movie. And I think I would have liked it more  if it had been a Tim Burton movie and with Johnny Depp as the Dracula. Gary Oldman is a fantastic actor but this movie is listed as a horror romance whereas the way it has been shot and acted out as a parody. Or maybe it just feels that way because it was short in 1992 and the effects aren’t that good. There is also a very superficial on my part that Dracula is very ugly for the most of the time. You saw the picture above, right?

here’s the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2-ZMhxTUs

Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker's Dracula

3) DRACULA 2000

Gerard Butler as Dracula in Dracula 2000

trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oprkYnHObk

Now, this Dracula is fun. It is not scary or that much exciting, but it is fun. After all, we have young women being trapped,seduced, fed on by Dracula. And Dracula is Gerard Butler. Now, we shouldn’t have any lack of masculinity or charisma issues, right? But there’s something off about this particular vampire. He is supposed to be the perfect seducer. And fine, sure he looks a lot better than most of the people you would meet in a bar- but I am not sure I would have recognized Gerard Butler, had I not known he was in it. This clean- shaven face makes him look too young- and he is kinda young himself- and too innocent. However I was checking out stuff with Dracula 2000 and I came upon his audition, where he looks utterly different. He has long hair, a beard and he looks like he could be the perfect Pirate of the Carribean- minus Jack Sparrow’s a little eccentric behavior. I am posting the link, but I will put an image just to give you the picture. Gerard Butler appears in this video very similar to his image in Attila. And below is how he was in Attila.

Gerard Butler as Attila in Attila. But of course he is not playing a historical hero in the audition- he is darker,much darker- And I think this look could serve him better as a vampire.

link for Gerard’s Dracula Audition on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3syqGaPN8&feature=PlayList&p=8981B582471B3361&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=31

4) QUEEN OF THE DAMNED

Stuart Townsend as Lestat in Queen of the Damned

video from the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz1HcYmlBq4&feature=related

I think Stuart Townsend makes the perfect Lestat. Of course I’m biased, not because I’m a great fan of Stuart – I became fan after this movie, but because this movie captures the goth and rock spirit that comes with the vampire territory. Here when Lestat wakes up, he also sort of takes a hard rock band under his wing and becomes their singer. The whole world falls in love with this vampire and his music. Rockstars have tons of groupies and many front men are considered as sex symbols. They have added the dark side and the allure of the vampiric quality and bingo! You have a vampire movie with a really cool soundtrack and a vampire that can really seduce. It is not highly rated but I believe this movie to be very underrated. If you like Vampires and hard rock, you will enjoy this movie.

P.S: I’m not including Twilight because I have already done a number of posts on Twilight and Edward Cullen.

Hugh Jackman es mejor conocido como WOLVERINE en la pelicula homonima y tambien de la serie de peliculas de X Men. Es un actor multifacetico que sin lugar a dudas crea un buen ambiente e interpreta sus papeles de manera convincente. Hoy en dia eso es sinonimo de que como actor tu cara puede ser participe de muchas campañas publicitarias y claro objeto de emulación. Y justo ese punto es del que quiero hablar.

En este blog ya les he hablado de Castlevania The Lords of Shadow . . . pero acaso se detuvieron unos segundos para ver que el personaje llamado Gabriel tiene muchas similitudes con el personaje que interpretara Hugh en la pelicula Van Helsing (incluso el nombre) . . . se me hace mucha coincidencie.

Y por el otro lado en fechas recientes y con la fama del juego Uncharted 2 Among Thieves se ha especulado el lanzamiento de la pelicula y justo tambien se ha hablado de que el actor que interpretaria a Nathan Drake podria ser justamente Hugh.

En fin, este actor se me hace bueno y con mucho carisma . . . y creo que su fama lo puede llevar muy lejos. Espero que siga asi, y tambien que si es realmente es escogido para interpretar a Drake, que lo haga bien.

Saludos MoMo

“…and while Scary is Exciting, Nice is different than Good.”

-Red Riding Hood, from “I Know Things Now,” Into the Woods

And so we end in a warm living room, all gathered together, knocking back rack punch and talking about that freaky time back just after we got married where Mina got totes possessed and we ran all over Eastern Europe chasing a Vampire.  Vampire, pleeease.

So is Dracula a Good book?  Meh.  I think it has probably been more of a Nice book for me … a creepy tale of the supernatural mixed with no small amount of “Law & Order”-like proceduralism to keep the pace going.  But for me, all of the compelling bits ended up falling short of their early promise:

Mina as the “New Woman” – why couldn’t her Baptism by Blood have proven to be the small impetus needed to turn her from an apologist for women who wanted more out of Victorian life to a rabid champion for what womanhood could have been.  Lucy might have been the hot one, but Mina had all the makings of that kind-of-wierd-but-sort-of-hot girl in your Psych 201 class, with all the threat and promise of the same.

Renfield as the Spurned Apostle – poor most-likely-bipolar Renfield.  Never have we seen a more plain case of hero worship/man crush gone horribly wrong.  Imagine what his diary might have been like … secreted away under his stool, pages sticky with melted sugar and the cover painstakingly adorned with the pearlescent sheen of a thousand blowfly wings.

Van Helsing as the (Un)witting Impetus — Abraham, with your so halting speech and  knowledge of the wampyr that seems almost uncanny in its thoroughness.  Surely Stoker must have thought you had a little bit more in you.  In your so-strong drive for knowledge, a drive that drove your poor wife Sarah mad with fear and grief, you saw something one night, didn’t you?  Peering up over a rock lip onto the unholy convocation of the scholars at Scholomance you witnessed something so thrillingly wrong, so completely, compellingly depraved that the rest of your life would be spent trying to scrub that so-not-of-Gott image from your mind, hoping against hope that you’d fail.  Abe, you are a sick little monkey.

Jonathan “I Was Cuckolded by The Undead and All I Got Was this Lousy Head of White Hair” Harker:  You never could get those three women out of your minds, could you, Johnny?  How could Mina ever be enough after the freaky bloodthrill of getting three-wayed in the Eastern European equivalent of the Bunny Ranch.  ANd tell me you didn’t go into explicit detail the minute you and the boys were out of earshot of the women.  Dude, you had three undead, bi-curious, possibly related wraith women fighting over who would be your first?  How do you not turn that into the best campfire story ever?

Of course, the slash fic possibilities are endless.  And maybe in the end, it’s that malleability that makes Dracula a classic.  You can hang sex, mystery, nationalism, criminality, class warfare and so many other Big Ideas from the hooks Stoker leaves festooned around the story that Dracula can’t help but be retold and reread time and time again.  It brushes up against enough of humanity’s Naughty Bits that it ends up being the perfect framework into which we can all cast our own hopes and fears about Life, Death, Sex, Money, Class and Technology and more and watch what happens.

So is Dracula a good book?  Maybe not.  But is Dracula the book we need and deserve?  Mien Gott, yes.

*Today’s blog title shamelessly lifted from the  wonderful recent book by Joshua Ferris because it popped right into my head when I was thinking of a title and it just plain works.

Right.  I finished last night and I’m not really going to worry about posting anything past the spoiler point here.  I mean really, there’s only one day left and if you’re not finished yet I doubt anything I could possibly say will be a revelation.

Well, well, well.  I enjoyed it but I didn’t love it.  As Infinite Detox so eloquently said, meh.  It didn’t sink to the level where Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code reside for me, but it did pretty much level out at what I term “airport trash.”  In other words, if you’ve been enough of an idiot to arrive for your flight and you have nothing to read, or you’re stranded and have run out of reading material, you can pick up some paperback from an airport shop and have a perfectly enjoyable reading experience.  But is it great literature?  Nope, not for me.  There are too many inconsistancies; several footnotes in my Norton edition point out that either Stoker or his characters have got their journal entry dates wrong; sometimes the characters are quick on the uptake but more often they’re dumber than posts; do we keep Mina informed or do we keep her in the dark; will we let her become a vampire and gallantly go with her “into that unknown and terrible land” or will we all pledge to cut her head off and drive a stake through her heart to release her soul to God?  And Van Helsing?  Well, I’ll get to him later.  There were many times when I felt like Stoker was making some deeper connections and exploring some larger themes and I got all excited.  Then it would just fizzle out and we were back to the boy’s club dithering about.  My sense is that he wanted to write a larger (in the thematic sense) work, but either couldn’t or he just went for the quick buck.  Maybe he had it in mind all along that he would turn it into a play for Irving and he just needed to crank it out.   In any case, I think it’s a fun page turner (most of the time), a quick and easy read that due to the circumstances of the subsequent play and movie has become a cultural icon.

Now, that Van Helsing and his final Memorandum.  Wow.  Nearly swooning over the three sisters, brides, whatever they are, in their tombs he admits to being nearly a carnal man.  But he squashes the ”very instinct of man in me, which calls some of my sex to love and to protect one of hers” and proceeds with the “butcher work.”  But what really annoys me about Van Helsing is his back story.  If I missed it somewhere early on when the pages were turning please let me know.  In his Memorandum as he talks about the effect the vamp ladies are having on him he says

Yes, I was moved – I, Van Helsing, with all my purpose and with my motive for hate – I was moved to a yearning for delay which seemed to paralyse my faculties and to clog my very soul. 

So, just what the hell was his motive?  Did we ever learn that?  Why does he know about Dracula and what extra motive for hate does he have?

And what an ending.  The snow swirling, the wolves howling and drawing closer, Quincey giving his all in fighting through the gypsies, the vanquishing of the evil from the world, and then that rosy glow lighting up dear Mina as the men fall to their knees in adoration upon seeing that the terrible mark of the unclean is gone from her forehead.  Quick cut to seven years later and the happy family – Jonathan, Mina, and son Quincey (who apparently has all of their names in his full name).  And we end with Mina’s greatness summed up by stand-in grandfather Van Helsing with little Quincey on his knee.  Telling them all that someday the boy would

…know what a brave and gallant woman his mother is.  Already he knows her sweetness and loving care; later on he will understand how some men so loved her, that they did dare much for her sake. 

In the immortal words of Bill the Cat  – oop ack! Thhhpt!

by Bram Stoker

I thoroughly enjoyed this story. I had always thought that it would be too scary and although it had its fearful, creepy moments it was nothing like I expected. The story is told through the journals of the main characters. It begins with Jonathan Harker meeting Count Dracula in his home. The story then travels to England where you’ll meet Mina, Jonathan’s fiancee, and her friend Lucy. You will meet Lucy’s beaus, Dr. Seward, Arthur, and Quincy. Dr. Van Helsing enters the scene when Lucy becomes ill. The story returns to Dracula’s home for its climatic ending. This is a lovely gothic story with a struggle between good and evil that is timeless. I will say that the book is quite different from the Coppola’s movie. Bram Stoker never wrote an ageless love story between Dracula and Mina. She was in love with and devoted to Jonathan beginning to end. It is still a wonderful story and one I recommend reading. I am glad I decided to give it a go in spite of my reservations.

Zaczynając od tego, że wcale tak uroczo nie jest (duszący kaszel w nocy), przejdę do wymieniania przyjemniejszych rzeczy, których jest o wiele, wiele więcej

• przede wszystkim śpię do oporu (biorąc pod uwagę wspomniane wcześniej nocne igraszki z suchym kaszlem, sen się wydłuża do godzin południowych),
• po domu przemieszczam się ubrana jak sułtan z lumpeksu, tudzież 40letnia stara panna z warzywniaka – bardzo sexy.
• pory na mojej twarzy mogą w końcu odpocząć od tapety, dzięki czemu pojawienie się kopalni odkrywkowej na moim licu jest znikome.
• gąszcz włosów może frywolnie latać mi po łbie we wszystkich możliwych kierunkach – bez obawy, że zostanie uciśniony przez bezlitosnego generała Badyla, dla wtajemnicznonych, znanego pod pseudonimem “Prostownica”.
• nadrabiam wszelkie możliwe filmy. Te wcześniej oglądnięte i te całkiem “świeże”. Ze staroci m.in: A walk to remember – film w sumie chyba kierowany do młodzieży, z jakże banalnym scenariuszem: on jest popularny, ona szara mysz, on nabroił i musi to odrobić społecznie, spotykają się na zajęciach teatralnych, wielka miłość, on się zmienia, ona jest chora na białaczkę i inne sranie w banię. Mimo to za każdym razem ryczę jak bóbr. No i oczywiście, że ona umiera Drugim filmem, który nigdy mi się nie znudzi jest Van Helsing – oczywista o wampirach, wilkołakach i zawadiackim kolesiu w kapeluszu. Fabuła lekka i przyjemna. Muzyka – rewelacja. Ok. Przyznaję bez bicia – uwielbiam wampiry i wszystko, co z nimi związane. Fascynują mnie w pewien sposób.

• Słucham “Zmierzch” w postaci audiobooka. Nie wiem czy powinnam się oficjalnie do tego przyznawać.. Szczerze, wolę słuchać syntetycznej czytanki jaką uracza mnie Eva z Exprossivo, niż niszczyć sobie oczka czytając e-booka. Nie to, żebym “znerdziała” do reszty, jednak z powodu braku środków, jestem zmuszona iść po najmniejszej linii oporów. Na swoje usprawiedliwienie dodam, że po stokroć wolę książki od filmów.
• Gotuję obiady. Na ten temat rozpisywać się nie będę. Wspomnę tylko skromnie, że gotuję znakomicie – mam to po siostrze
• Robię na drutach. Tak. Na drutach. W przyszłości myślę też, aby opanować sztukę szydełkowania. Ale to później.
• Skoro już zachowuję się jak kura domowa, to zastanawiasz się pewnie czy sprzątam równie ochoczo. Niespodzianka. Nienawidzę sprzątać. Tzn. u siebie nienawidzę. U znajomych z wielką chęcią, nawet zbytnio nie trzeba nic mówić, sama ochoczo zabieram się do roboty. U siebie natomiast, robię to w chwili, gdy wewnętrzny leń mojego wewnętrznego lenia nie może patrzeć na to, że traktuję swój pokój po męsku.

Dla oczyszczenia aury palę kadzidełka i papierosy. I w tym momencie słyszę głośne buczenie od strony publiczności… Nie można być ideałem. A ja kocham swoje nałogi i jestem im wierna.

Tymczasem wracam do zapomnianej mi już, przez pracę w odzieżówce, sztuki, zwanej malowaniem paznokci.

Tegnap éjjel láttam a Film+on a Dracula 2000 című filmet.

A film arról szól, hogy Júdás elárulta Jézust ezüstpénzért, és ezért őt felakasztották, de nem fogadta be őt se a menny, se a pokol. Nem tudott meghalni, és halhatatlan lett… Ő lett Dracula… Egy ember el tudta őt fogni, és bezárta egy koporsóba, amit biztonsági rendszerek védelmeztek, de néhány ember ezt feltörte, így Dracula kiszabadult. Annak az embernek, aki elfogta Draculát, volt egy lánya (Mary), akinek “közös volt a vére Draculával”. Mary apja mindent megtett, hogy a lánya ne legyen vámpír, de végül ő is meghalt… Apját egyébként Van Helsingnek hívták… (Ebből következik a “Van Helsing” című film…) Dracula egyébként azért nem bírja az ezüstöt és a keresztény “cuccokat” mert anno nem bocsátott meg neki Isten …stb…

Ha kíváncsi vagy a film befejezésére, akkor nézd meg te is a Dracula 2000-et. Letöltheted ITT!

Jó filmezést! Puszaaa

It seems as though most everyone (at least those commenting) has been annoyed with Van Helsing to some degree.  Indeed, some have admitting to wanting to pitch the book across the room at times (see the discussion in the comments over at Infinite Detox).  

 Then we came to a short passage in Chapter 22 that made my jaw drop.

It may be that you may have to bear that mark till God himself see fit, as He most surely shall on the Judgment Day to redress all wrongs of the earth and of His children that He has placed thereon.  An oh, Madam Mina, my dear, my dear, may we who love you be there to see, when that red scar, the sign of God’s knowledge of what has been, shall pass away and leave your forehead as pure as the heart we know.  For so surely as we live, that scar shall pass away when God sees right to lift the burden that is hard upon us.  Till then we bear our Cross, as His Son did in obedience to His will.  It may be that we are chosen instruments of His good pleasure, and that we ascend to His bidding as that other through stripes and shame; through tears and blood; through doubts and fears, and all that makes the difference between God and man.

Is this the same Van Helsing who has been torturing us with his syntax?  One of the problems with him that I’m having is that it’s so varied.  We have him nearly incomprehensible and then when he’s being Biblical he is spot on; with a pretty good range in between.  At times he reminds me of Marathe in Infinite Jest and at other times all I can picture is David Suchet as Hercule Poirot.  Sometimes it makes me laugh and I understand what he’s saying and at others it’s just ridiculous.  Add to that the fact, that some others have pointed out, that if he’s Dutch, why does he exclaim in German? 

Then we have the priceless moment very near to the end of Chapter 23 when Jonathan Harker is relating what Van Helsing thinks of their rushing off to find the ship that Dracula is on

We have been blind somewhat; blind after the manner of men, since when we can look back we see what we might have seen looking forward if we had been able to see what we might have seen!  Alas! but that sentence is a puddle; is it not?

It’s a puddle (puzzle) alright.  Is this a silly aside?  One of Van Helsing’s little jests? Or is it a sneaky comment by Stoker about Van Helsing.

So here’s a crazy thought – he’s faking it.   It could serve as a form of personal defense – the bumbling foreigner who has trouble with English and seems able to laugh about it.  It disarms and charms.  That would fit with what we know of him so far, which is pretty much nil – why exactly does he have all this vampire knowledge; why has he been so secretive; etc. 

Now, what do you think?

Para el 12 del próximo febrero está anunciado el estreno en España de “The Wolfman”, “El hombre lobo”, su título en nuestro idioma.

La película la dirige Joe Johnston, director, guionista y productor; más dedicado a las segundas labores, que a la de dirección.

Aunque su primer film, “Cariño, he encogido a los niños”, está fechado en 1989 (han trascurrido 20 años), tan sólo ha dirigido diez películas en este tiempo (incluyendo alguna cosilla para televisión), entre ellas, “Jumanji”, en 1995, y “Jurassic Park III”, la última entrega de la saga, en 2001. La número once será “The First Avenger: Captain America”, si como está previsto, comienza su rodaje durante el año próximo.

De esas películas dirigidas por Johnston, he visto las tres que he mencionado, y “Cielo de octubre” (1999).

De la primera,”Cariño, he…” no tengo mucho que decir. Tuvo fama en su día, se sigue recordando, pero no pasa de ser una comedia familiar, con la que los niños disfrutaron, y puede que aún disfruten si sus nostálgicos padres se la compran en DvD. A “Jumanji” le tengo una cierta simpatía. Puede que por la historia que contaba, por sus aún en mantillas, pero impactantes efectos digitales (aunque los leones, si os acordáis de ellos, eran para echarse a llorar), y porque me pareció “bien hecha” para pertenecer al género de entretenimiento. “Cielo de octubre”, no tenía nada que ver con el género de las otras películas, y sin embargo, el planteamiento y desarrollo de una historia de superación, estaba muy bien resuelto y creaba interés. En “Jurassic Park III”, le agradecí a su director su corta duración, no porque me aburriera, o la considerase totalmente nefasta, si no, porque supo contar todo en esa hora y media tan usual hasta hace unos años, y tan olvidada ahora.

Con esto, he querido decir, que sin ser un director que mencione por norma en mis conversaciones cinéfilas, no es tampoco de los que si llego a nombrar, sea para tirarlo por los suelos. Hasta ahora, sus trabajos me han parecido correctos, y posiblemente, esta nueva película, también me lo parezca. O talvez me sorprenda, y de la corrección pase a otra categoría. Pero esta por ver…

La leyenda del hombre lobo (al que ya hace referencia la mitología griega, y al que citaron posteriormente Plinio el Viejo, y Virgilio en algunos de sus escritos, y que pone en boca de uno de sus narradores en “Satyricon”, Gayo Petronio), y el mito del vampiro, han dado mucho juego tanto en la literatura como en el cine, y más de una vez, los dos han compartido páginas o secuencias.

Con mayor o menor fortuna, desde la primera incursión en la pantalla del licántropo, allá por el año 1935, en la película “Werewolf of London” (hay otra con el mismo título del año 1981, dirigida por John Landis), en cada década hemos podido verle en el cine, protagonizando un film, o como personaje secundario.

En 1941, en “The Wolf Man”, Lon Chaney Jr. hizo una creación del hombre lobo que marcó un hito, y que se recordó durante años. Repitió esa creación en títulos como, “Frankenstein y el Hombre Lobo”, “La zíngara y los monstruos”, “La mansión de Drácula” y “Contra los fantasmas”. En España, Jacinto Molina, más conocido como Paul Naschy, tiene el record de ser el actor que más veces ha interpretado al licántropo. Desde que en 1968 rodó “La marca del hombre lobo”, la primera película en la que le daba vida, lo ha hecho en multitud de ocasiones.

También pudimos ver a José Luis López Vázquez en el año 1971, interpretando el papel protagonista de “El Bosque del lobo”, de Pedro Olea, basada en el personaje real de Manuel Blanco Romasanta, una extensión diferente y más realista del hombre que se convierte en lobo, y que posteriormente hemos visto en una nueva versión del año 2004, “Romasanta, la caza de la bestia”, dirigida esta vez por Paco Plaza, y protagonizada por Julian Sands y Elsa Pataky.

En 1984, un casi desconocido Neil Jordan, dirigió “En compañía de lobos”. El cuento de “Caperucita Roja”, pero en donde el lobo es un hombre que se convierte en animal.

Hollywood no ha dejado de tirar de la figura del licántropo, y en 1994 nos ofreció la excelente “Lobo”, dirigida por Mike Nichols y protagonizada por Jack Nicholson y Michelle Pfeiffer. “Underworld”, que ya va por su tercera entrega, presenta una eterna batalla entre hombres lobo y vampiros. En “Van Helsing” (2004), de Stephen Sommers, Hugh Jackman, se convierte en hombre lobo para acabar con Drácula. También en la saga de “Harry Potter” aparece el mito, así como en la de “Crepúsculo”.

En la película de Johnston, se retoma la imagen del licántropo de 1941 interpretado por Chaney. Le da vida ahora, Benicio del Toro, y lo acompañan en el film, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving y Geraldine Chaplin, entre otros.

Y esto es lo que nos contará:

Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) es un noble torturado que vuelve a las tierras de la familia después de la desaparición de su hermano. Hace las paces con su padre (Anthony Hopkins) y sale en busca de su hermano… para acabar descubriendo que también a él le espera un horrible destino.

La infancia de Lawrence Talbot se acabó bruscamente la noche que murió su madre. Se fue del adormilado pueblecito de Blackmoor y tardó décadas en recuperarse e intentar olvidar. Cuando Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt), la prometida de su hermano, le encuentra y le ruega que la ayude a buscar a su amor, Lawrence Talbot regresa a casa. Entonces se entera de que algo brutal, salvaje, con una sed insaciable de sangre ha matado a muchos campesinos, por lo que un suspicaz inspector de Scotland Yard (Hugo Weaving) ha venido a investigar.

Empieza a encajar las piezas del sangriento rompecabezas y se entera de que existe una antigua maldición que convierte a las víctimas en hombres lobo las noches de luna llena. Para acabar con la carnicería y proteger a la mujer de la que se ha enamorado, Lawrence Talbot debe destruir a la temible criatura que se esconde en los bosques cercanos a Blackmoor. Este hombre sencillo con un pasado doloroso sale en busca de la bestia y descubre que él también tiene un lado primitivo.

Os dejo el enlace al trailer en español, aunque puede que ya hayáis visto el que colgó mi compañero Snake en agosto, en su versión original.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP0HxVRugMU

De momento es lo único que hay, en espera de febrero.

-

Swanson  

Michael and Quinn Harker grew up thinking Dracula was nothing more than a fairy tale. But now, after over 100 years, the undead count has risen from his grave as Vladimir Draco, thirsting for blood and revenge.

Only the descendants of the Van Helsing and Harker families can stop him & save their friend before he is lost to the darkness forever. Search for cursed artifacts and holy relics, facing werewolves, vampires, and dark spirits in a globe-spanning Gothic hidden object adventure.

It Takes Just A Second To Say Thanks,

It Takes Longer To The Work On This.

The Dracula Files

Okay, I admit it. I am a fan of monster movies. If you were to point out the quintessential staple of monster films you would have to look to the stable of creatures that populated the Universal Pictures horror films of the 1930s.

The films that made the likes of Boris Karloff (Frankenstein, The Mummy), Bela Lugosi (Count Dracula) and Lon Chaney Jr. (The Wolfman) household names. How can anyone forget those performances?

What made those films of the 1930s so impressive and magical were that they were about the monsters themselves. We learned about the curses, the damned and the beast within. Even if they were alien to us we still felt something for them which is strange since we are talking about the Prince of Darkness here.

When the end of the Universal Monsters arrived the studio started teaming up their creatures with classic “monster mashes” like “Frankenstein vs. The Wolf Man” and “House of Frankenstein”. The latter is still a personal favorite.

With the emergence of “Van Helsing”, Universal is looking to bring back a long dead monster franchise in a big new way.

Like the monster mashes of old, “Van Helsing” very loose premise begins with the world famous murderer/monster hunter Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) finishing off his latest assignment and returning to the Vatican.

In the holiest of cities, Van Helsing is directed to aid a brother-sister team of Anna (Kate Beckinsale) and Velkan Valerious (Will Kemp) in bringing down the notorious Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). Dracula has been destroying the Valerious family lineage for over 400 years. For the mission, Van Helsing decides to bring reluctant Friar Carl (David Wenham) to aid him.

Upon their arrival in Transylvania, the duo learns that they aren’t exactly welcome and furthermore it seems that Dracula has a master plan of his own in the works and that Velkan Valerious may have been compromised.

The plot thickens as we learn about Dracula’s master plan and how it links to other legendary creatures such as Frankenstein, three vampiric brides, vampiric progeny and the Wolf Man himself.

For the most part “Van Helsing” is the dawn of the 2004 summer movie season and as a popcorn action effects-laden romp, it scores. It has every single element one needs from a summer movie.

I did on the other hand have about a handful of problems with the film itself. I was a little distracted by the lighting in the film which I am sure has been dimmed to cover some of the effects flaws. Director Stephen Sommers is still getting flack from his Scorpion King creation at the end of “The Mummy Returns”.

I also cringed a lot at the film’s version of Dracula. Roxburgh was excellent in his slimy, nasty and disgusting role in “Moulin Rouge” but that same allure is just wrong for Dracula. In this film he comes off more as George Hamilton’s Dracula than a debonair Gary Oldman or Bela Lugosi version of the vampire. And with that said the film hinges on this powerful foe but he is awful. The film needed Dracula to be more like Arnold Vosloo’s Mummy and less of a caricature. A lot more work was needed on this casting and re-imagination.

My favorite creatures in the film were the vampiric brides and of course the CGI werewolves. The scenes involving these carnivorous brides diving and swooping as they fly was so much fun. Van Helsing’s rapid-action crossbow trying to take down these evil divas was pure popcorn fun. The CGI keeps getting better and that makes for some nasty werewolves that are so much fun.

I felt that the whole Frankenstein concept and inclusion in this film was cheap and unnecessary. You really have to look to the film’s plot for the blame. I wanted more from Frankenstein.

As for the humans in the film, Jackman is still one of the best leading men around and he does bring a lot to the role of the monster-hunter but never really has a chance to act in the role. I have always been a huge fan of Kate Beckinsale, no matter what she has done. In a lot of ways I loved her in this film but in other ways she was one of the most wasted elements. Director Sommers break-neck pacing of the film doesn’t allow for much connection between Jackman and Beckinsale so you really aren’t ever sure if they have chemistry.

The story and how it interconnects the legendary lineages of the monsters is interesting and reminiscent of “House of Frankenstein” except instead of having a mad scientist you have Dracula as the scientist. But was it really necessary to have so many monsters in the first film. The film almost suffers from “Batman” sequel syndrome in that it was trying to include so many characters at once without really fleshing out any of the central ones.

As a whole I felt that the film reminded me more of the era of monsters after Universal’s golden age. The film feels a lot like a Hammer horror film with a huge effects budget. It is just too bad Peter Cushing wasn’t still around to play the priest who sends Van Helsing on his mission.

To be blunt, it is pure popcorn fun and why not since that’s what we love a brainless flick once in a while.

3.5 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.