Television Series Examination: The First Season of The Strain (2014)

I haven't reviewed a television series in a good long while. It's a difficult prospect simply because of the hours of content to a series of television shows. Characters are much more complex than they are in movies. Things move much slower as the episodes tend to be EPISODIC in nature, relying more on episode long plots rather than just focusing on the main narrative. It makes the television format incredibly different than movies, and incredibly different to review.

So, I guess my review should be on the merit of the program, how well it works at what it does, and if the characters and plots are compelling enough to make me keep watching over and over again. I think it succeeds in many arenas. I've obviously watched the entire first season, and I've enjoyed it enough to continue watching the second season as well. While I've never read Guillermo del Toro and Chuck Hogan's books about the same story, I find the story compelling nonetheless. I can't compare the written work to what's on the screen, but I do like what's on the screen.

Kind of.

I find the plot compelling in its simplicity. It reminds me of 'Salem's Lot in a big city. And coming from me that's certainly not a bad thing. It uses a plot of a vampire using vampire rules (kind of) to invade and corrupt New York from the inside out. The vampire, The Master, wants to invade the world of men and probably remake them all as this vampire worm-virus thing. He uses a former Nazi as his main lieutenant as well as a sick and dying businessman as his main force to control the information getting into and out of New York City. It's pretty well plotted for the most part, although some episodes are much better than others for that.

The characters are both the biggest issue of the show and the best part of it. For one, most of the actors here are relatively unknown or, at the very least, niche actors. I like that. I like that I don't recognize anybody but Argus Filch from the Harry Potter movies, and what a different character he plays here. The rest are all various forms of interesting, with my personal favorite being  Vasily Fet, who has the oddest human accent I have ever heard. And that's one of the major boons and issues here. The acting varies from fantastic to absolutely atrocious. It has to be something to do with the directors of the episodes or something, because the variance is bad enough to be incredibly noticeable. Vasily (Kevin Durand) is a great example of this. Sometimes he is absolutely questionable in his delivery. There are times that I wonder if he actually comes from this human Earth world. And then there are times when he is incredibly well put together. I don't blame the actor so much for this, although that could be an issue as well, but rather something about the WAY he delivers his lines. And he's not the only one. Every single actor at one point or another (with the exceptions of the Nazi and the Master) has the exact same issue. I've never seen it before. Sometimes one actor will be bad while the rest are perfectly acceptable. Sometimes all of them but one will be incredibly bad. And sometimes they're all fine except for a single line that is delivered in an utterly alien way.

I'm stressing the point, but it is such an important thing to stress. It takes me right out of the show while simultaneously maybe making the characters more human? I have no idea. I mean, I haven't stopped watching, and I enjoy watching it. I think the episodes have gotten better rather than worse as the season has gone on. But there has been so many little issues from the actor, the characters, and the plot. The fights ending in draws without any lasting victories is a big issue. It feels like a maintaining of the status quo rather than moving on with the plot at all. The final episode, although very solid, is exceptionally guilty of this, with the only thing that has really happened with our main cast is that they learned a tiny piece of plot out that they wouldn't have known otherwise.

I can see the acting issues literally forcing people to stop watching the show. It may not be the case absolutely, but I can see people being turned off by it. And I don't blame them even slightly for that. Somehow, it only bothers me when it shows up. Maybe because I've seen such bad acting in movies that slightly off acting really only bothers me slightly. I don't know. I'm focusing on the point though because it is a sticking point, and the one REALLY GLARING issue I have with the show.

I mean everything else is solid. The story is good. The production values are excellent. The make-up is superb, excellent to the point of being one of the best things about the show. And some of the acting is really good as well. The action is also quite good, definitely an important piece of the compelling nature of the show.

I guess the last thing I should talk about is the horror. And let me say that the horror is also quite excellent here. One of my biggest gripes about vampire stories is that they tend to not be scary. Beside Dracula and 'Salem's Lot I would have a very hard time really finding horrific vampire stories. Possibly 30 Days of Night as well. Maybe I Am Legend and The Historian, although neither of those books scared me at all. My point is, while the vampire is my favorite creature, I find very few of their stories compelling or scary. I've listed all of five other works that contain well done vampires that I can think of right this second. While there may be several others, this does not bode well in an age when vampires are considered more for their sexual prowess and passion than for their actual monster status. To me that's incredibly disappointing. I want scary vampires. I want frightening vampires. I want the creatures of the night to make me afraid to go out after dark.

I always have a focus on vampire movies or books with my reviews. The reason is that I love vampires. I love scary vampires. I love Nosferatu and its ilk. I love 'Salem's Lot and what has come from that.  And I love the granddaddy of great vampire stories, Dracula. And I want more of them in the world. Vampires as monster creatures are just so interesting and compelling, and so few people want to do anything with it.

And maybe that's why The Strain means something to me. Maybe that's why, in spite of the so-so pieces of the show at times, it gives me what I want in terms of vampire horror. It makes them scary again, frightening again, and worth it again. I don't think I'll ever forget in the first episode when the Master just slams a man's face into pulp. That's a scary vampire that is absolutely stunning to see on television. And that's really all I have to say. I love this show because it brings fear back to the vampires. And that should be enough of a recommendation from me.

Television Miniseries Examination: Salem's Lot (1979) (Unedited version!)

The ultimate in terror might actually be true this time!

Well, I'm back again for another punishing October Nights review series. And this October I get to start with a movie I've already (kind of) reviewed! Salem's Lot was a movie I reviewed about four years ago now. And I remember saying in that review how I thought I had seen the movie before. Well, I had, but it was the full version of the film, not the edited down confusing jumble that I saw for that review. I say that in retrospect after I saw this full version finally. I have definitely seen all of the content in it before, but probably years before I knew what reviewing for the internet even was.

While this movie is substantially longer than the edited theatrical version, it has weirdly dissimilar content. It feels like the two versions are never equal. With this version explaining and introducing much more of the story of 'Salem's Lot and its townsfolk, but also not having scenes that are in the theatrical version. I wish I could find a list of the differences between the version. While I have the unedited version now, the edited version I reviewed before has been misplaced somewhere. So, in going off memory alone, I know there are substantial differences, and I also know that I prefer the unedited version so much more, even if there are extra scenes for some reason in the theatrical version. I wish all the scenes could be added together to make one full and complete Salem's Lot (1979), but that's nothing more than a hope and a dream.

At least I finally learn the fate of Larry Crockett, four years after I asked the question of his fate. He was turned into a vampire or something when he was somehow left in a (his?) car after another car drove him and the car he was found in to the lake where Susan and Ben were canoodling. And then he was a vampire after that. So, I asked and this version told me what happened, so I guess I received what I needed in the form of some sort of conclusion.

This movie in general shows a great deal more about the town. Ben and Mark are concentrated on much less as a whole. The town really seems to be the focus here, and I will admit that makes the entire story and movie in general much stronger. The concentration on Ben and Mark only heightens their inability to completely carry the story on their own. They are mostly bland characters thrust into prominent roles by fate rather than by winning personalities. Putting them at the forefront just made the edited version unlikable. Putting them as just another character in town really adds to the tension and atmosphere of the story, and makes it seem like the town's death story rather than the Ben Mears and Mark Petrie mediocre character hour.

The movie as a whole looks much better than the edited version I saw. It has a great deal better pacing and atmosphere, and those are things that shouldn't be compromised in a horror story. This version actually made me turn around my feelings on this movie. I actually think I like it. More than that I think it's the absolutely superior movie of the adaptations of 'Salem's Lot. I don't have much else to say except that I enjoyed this movie quite a bit despite the length (almost three hours long!) and some of the acting issues that I mentioned in the first review. Those issues are still there, but with better pacing and more characters those issues are better hidden.

And that's about it. If you want a slow-paced creepy seventies vampire horror movie, this is probably a decent one to check out. I still think it has some of the best vampires and one of the creepiest scenes of vampire horror movies ever. The scene with Burke and the vampire still gets to me, as does the child vampire scratching at the window. both are completely unsettling and incredibly well done. They haven't been matched in any other movie I've seen to date. So, yes, this is the superior version of this movie, and the best adaptation of the source material. I recommend it as a very fun and creepy watch.

This is a wonderful start to October.


Let's hope it lasts.



[Oh, and if you want my exact thoughts on pieces of the movie, just read my other review. I'm not going to reiterate the story, characters, or plot here. I've said it all already. I mostly wanted to talk about the differences of quality in versions.]

Television Show Examination: Twin Peaks

Ah, Twin Peaks... I absolutely love Twin Peaks. Now, I understand, there are many things wrong with Twin Peaks... the second half of the second season for instance, but also the whole "soap opera-esque" essence of a good portion of the show. Some of the actors weren't all that good, especially those who played some of the more normal "villainous" characters like Leo Johnson and Ben Horne. I also have to give a special mention to James Hurley as one of my least favorite characters in anything. His whole storyline made me want to chew on bricks and then bash his character over the head with various cement objects.

All of that being said, I still love Twin Peaks. It is one of the strangest, most bizarre, and really thrilling television shows ever to hit the small screen. David Lynch, the creator of Twin Peaks, really knew what he was doing in this. After making Blue Velvet he made another small town America gone wrong kind of story out of Twin Peaks. Both even had the same actor starring, Kyle MacLachlan. There are similarities in both, but a ton of differences as well. I found Blue Velvet perfectly all right, but not amazing. there was very little that I found incredibly memorable. Twin Peaks on the other hand has a huge amount of memorable moments and lines and characters and everything.

I'm actually on the fence about Lynch as a director. I do like a lot of his films, but I also equally dislike a lot of them. Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire particularly earn my ire, but Lost Highway happens to be one of my favorite films of all time. Twin Peaks has a surreal quality to it that it is pure Lynch without going off the deep end of not making a lick of sense. Sure, there are some things that are very confusing, but most things make sense in the context of the world that the characters are in.

All of that being said, Twin Peaks is an exciting story with twists and turns along the way. It is a surreal and mature way to look at a young woman's murder in a small town. There are visceral acting performances by some of the actors in the series and one scene in the second season in which a fairly well-seen character up to that point was murdered was actually pretty terrible to watch. It felt like watching an acquaintance die in front of your face with no way to prevent it.

My favorite parts of the story-arc of the series was very obviously the main storyline and trying to find out who murdered Laura Palmer and why. The surreal nature was also astounding. How many other television shows or movies have the balls to show a surreal quality? And of course, that surreal nature of the show (and the second half of the second season) was the show's ultimate downfall. And that's just too bad. Intelligent series are hard enough to come by these days because of so many reasons. Executives at networks want mindless comedy or explosions, but very few shows will show real drama, real acting, real questions, or surreal or meta-examples of humor or drama... and that's terrible. It's terrible that a show like Twin Peaks airs only two seasons while an idiotic show with base humor and no intelligence at all will air for an indefinite amount of seasons. It make me wonder about humans and our own sad lazinesses, our indifferences to actually learning something, or thinking hard about a situation.

I'm going philosophical over this, but Twin Peaks deserves this kind of discussion. It deserved better than what it got. Then again, would the series have continued being ridiculous like in half of the second season, or would it have gotten better after the season (and series) finale that was easily one of the best episodes of the entire series? That seems to happen though. Even through a terrible season a good show can come back and be just as good as it ever was. The second season of Twin Peaks reminds me of an equally intelligent show (at least in its beginnings), Sliders, which fell apart in its third season to come back with a few very good episodes towards the end of that season. (Then it fell apart in seasons four and five, but that's another story.)

I guess Twin Peaks will always be something I enjoy, something that makes me angry because it was cancelled, but also something that makes me so happy because it existed at all. It really was a catalyst in my own writing and storytelling techniques, and Agent Dale Cooper (played by Kyle MacLachlan) became one of my heroes in a way. His character was so weird, so confusing, but so focused and competent that it was hard not to look up to him. He was facing everything from weird dreams with backward-talking midgets, getting shot in the line of duty, love interests, giant men, all the way to an evil, chaotic spirit man named BOB. I mean, that doesn't even make sense, but it is awesome, every bit of it. The Red Room... Laura Palmer... all these things stick out in my mind along with other more humorous examples of things in the show like the following picture for instance: Yes, those are a bunch of donuts in front of an FBI special agent and a sheriff of a small town.

What other show could get away with that? None. Yeah, you heard me.

Anyway, it's a great show. Check it out sometime if you haven't, especially if you're into weird or surreal things, or just a person who likes a good story. Hell, if you like David Lynch check this out, and if you don't check it out anyway. It's not much like his other stuff in many ways. You'll be shocked by some of the scenes and some of what happens throughout the plot, but you'll also find solace in the fact that it all ends terribly. There is no happy ending here just like real life. People die, things happen, and the consequences of everything can be more outstanding than one could ever imagine. And if you don't care to see the series, then just go out and have a damn good cup of coffee. That will be enough to console me.