Okay, I love vampires. And I'm no Twi-hard come lately. I've been on the vampire bandwagon for years. I've read and watched the good, the bad and the middling. I saw the ORIGINAL Buffy, people. I give huge passes to movies that are only so-so just because there's a vampire present. Even bad vampires are better than no vampires.
So, when I saw the commercials for Daybreakers, I have to admit, I twinkled a little bit. Oh, reeeaaallyy? Don't min' if I do. And Sam Neil as our baddy? Num-num-num. Tasty. Okay, they're putting it out in the middle of the January dead zone, when only the mushiest and moistest of the mediocre get flopped out on the table for people who are still suffering from holiday blockbuster syndrome. [I'm looking at you Leap Year. Don't try to act like you don't know me. I knew you back when you were called The Matchmaker.] January-shmanuary. It's got vampires! How bad can it be?
And I quote directly from the Entertainment Weekly review - "when Edward joins a roving band of human renegades, led by Willem Dafoe as a guy named Elvis." Ooooohhhh. Dear. I see. That bad. That's got to be a description second only to "John Wayne as Genghis Khan" in it's lack of propitiousness. I've still got the shakes from what a close call that was. Thanks, EW. I owe you. Big.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20334755,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ooooo--vampires are my favorite "monsters". How can they not be with eternally-tanned George Hamilton playing one! Did someone say David Boranz ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). This movie has William Dafoe and Sam Neil, so, hmmm, average rating or not, I would watch it.
By the way, on hbo's series, "True Blood", the vampires were drinking artificially-made blood. As we dropped hbo and Showtime, I haven't been able to continue with that series.
I love vamps in nearly all their incarnations: from super sexy to ca-reep-y. Spike has to be right up there on my list.
I'm kind of thinking I'll just wait until I see a True Blood boxed-set at the Half-Price Books or Movie Trading Company. The lead blood sucker is not really my idea of dreamy vampireness. But the premise sounds good, so I'd probably throw down if I could get it on the cheap.
Definitely Spike. Guess I failed to mention him because we had several discussions about him back at "the old place".
Sadly, I have tried to get into vampires for ages but with my general squeamishness about blood I could never stomach them. I loved Interview with a Vampire (the book) even though parts were hard to get through. I put aside my usual fears and saw the movie through my fingers. (As much as I'm not a Tom Cruise fan, that was the first movie where I thought he could sort of act.) So, I am going to have to pass on this latest vampire craze. Too much blood.
For some reason, vampire movies don't bother me that much. Probably partially because vampire stuff actually about sex rather than blood. Dig that crazy Freudian sublimation. And also I tend to pick the guilt racked, neurotic vampires. Love 'em talk, dark and angsty. Though, strangely, Twilight just rubs me the wrong way. I should be down like a circus clown with that action. But Edward Cullen is just so non-threatening. Bluh. Boredom.
On the funny side, Mary Janice Davidson's Betsy Queen of the Vampires series cracks me up. And she thinks blood is gross too
Yes, I hate gore but Vamp movies never bugged me - well, a few scenes I could've skipped like the buckets of blood-vomit in Warhol's vampire movie.
I champing at the bit too for Daybreakers mostly for Willem DeFoe NOT playing a vampire - huh? You have to see Vampire's Assistant first for his over-the-top vamping there with John C Reilly. LOL
I know. Willem Defoe not playing the vampire is like Frank Sinatra not playing Skye Masterson in Guys and Dolls. What, to obvious? Does not compute.
I'm going to do Vamp's Assist on DVD. I think it's classic laying around the living room with a giant bowl of popcorn material.
Post a Comment