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.]

Radio Drama Review: Salem's Lot (1995)

Well, here is a radio drama review finally. I say finally because I've been reviewing things for almost four years and have never actually reviewed an audio drama. Shame on me. They're actually worth a lot if done correctly, and this is one of the best I've heard. Anyway, before getting into this, I should welcome you all to yet another horror-filled month of reviews and enjoyment! October Nights are here, and these reviews are for you, dear reader, so much more than they are for me. I say that because every year I literally kill myself to get these reviews done for the amusement of the masses. I enjoy the hell out of writing them, but reviewing 31 horror-related things in 31 nights is often a little insane, even for me.

This is my forth annual October Nights, and as I mentioned in the post leading up to this first post, I think it will be a fascinating month of reviews. The last several years I've started the October month out with a Salem's Lot review, and I'm doing the exact same thing every year until I run out of adaptations to review. Anyway, this year is the radio drama adaptation by the BBC, and, honestly, it is by far the best adaptation I've had the pleasure of enjoying.

It literally hits most of the major points in the novel without missing a beat. And it's incredibly enjoyable to hear those scenes from the novel done incredibly effectively in an audio format. While both miniseries are enjoyable and fun in their own right, both make some pretty huge mistakes in the end. I spoke of both of the miniseries before here and here. (I also reviewed a sequel and the book itself if you want the story of what's happening, which I'm not going to get into here.) The miniseries alter and change characters and the ultimate fate of characters so much that it does affect some of my enjoyment of them. While both adaptation are actually quite good in their own right as adaptations or simply as standalone stories, both do suffer a little from their departure from certain parts of the novel's narrative.

This is one of the few books that I think is seriously near-perfect, which is why the changes of the adaptations actually bother me at all. Changing Callahan's character in the most recent miniseries was a grievous mistake on the creators' part, especially when Father Callahan would have such a pivotal part to play in The Dark Tower series after the events of 'Salem's Lot. And in the first television movie, the fact that characters are omitted (especially Dr. Cody) has always bothered me.

Now, speaking of this radio drama, most of the book is there. Yes, some parts (like the side-stories of characters who are not main characters) are either completely omitted or mentioned in an off-handed way by more main characters. The plot mostly focuses on just the core five or six characters of the narrative, barely mentioning the side-characters at all unless they become important to the main plot. While the purist in me loves the entire novel, filler and all, the writer in me loves how the audio drama accomplishes what it does. Of course some things need to be taken out of the narrative. I'm mostly glad that the characters and their stories aren't changed at all really. And I'm glad that the story unfolds basically how it does in the novel. While there are some big changes, like the bookends of the episodes of the radio drama involving Ben and Mark telling their story to a Mexican priest, most are cosmetic changes and omissions, something I cannot see a problem with.

Honestly, the focus on the main characters works incredibly well, especially backed up by fantastic vocal work by the voice actors all around. Mark is the only character who even sounds a little off, but most of the characters sound exactly like they should with Straker and Barlow (played by Doug Bradley of Hellraiser fame) being literally incredible voices in their own rights.

The production is creepy, especially as a vampire story. It works every bit as well as Dracula or some of the other more macabre vampire stories out there (of which there are far too few for my liking). Some of the scenes work very well, especially any scene involving Barlow, who has singularly jumped up my list of terrifying villains in fiction to basically take the top spot. Of special note is Matt Burke (played by Gavin Muir), whose voice is a pleasure to listen to. The acting is especially good all around, and you'll find yourself literally having goosebumps if you listen to this late at night.

I had the special circumstance to not only be in a small New England town on the day I listened to this, but also to be out and about on an overcast fall day as I listened. My job gives me the ability to listen to many audiobooks and audio dramas and such, and I took advantage of it on the perfect day to do so. I know that not everybody out there lives or works in a small New England town much like the titular 'Salem's Lot, but if that chance comes up, this is perfect listening in situations like that.

I wholly throw my support behind this adaptation of one of my favorite books. I recommend this completely, unlike last years debacle with the terrible A Return to Salem's Lot. Check it out if you get the chance. I doubt you'll be disappointed. Also, here's a website and podcast that you can download it from, just because I'm a great guy.

The only negatives that I can think of are Mark (who sounds funny to my ears) and some of the acting which can be slightly overdone. Also, at times, the action moments can sound very confusing. But as an audio adaptation, I would put this up there with some of the greats. Give it a listen if you want a spooky time, just make sure you have three-and-a-half hours to spare to listen to it.

Movie Appraisal: Trick 'r Treat (2007)

I don't have much to say about this movie except that if you haven't seen in and are reading this review: Stop.

STOP RIGHT NOW.





STOP, and go and watch this film. Do it for Halloween. I don't care if it's not Halloween anymore. Do it for the potential of Halloween. This just happens to be the greatest Halloween movie ever made and needs to be watched by everyone. Oh, you think I kid. You think I jest. I neither kid nor jest. It is perfect. Perfect in every discernible way for a Halloween movie.

Trick 'r Treat is an anthology film written and directed by Michael Dougherty. It was based on his animated short film from 1996 entitled Season's Greetings, which also features the character of Sam (that little dude up there on the poster). The movie is also a wonderful comedy-horror movie with blood, gore, breasts, and everything a horror movie like this should be. The comedy aspect of it is incredibly well done. It's funny at all the right spots. I found myself laughing more than once at the ridiculousness of it all or some of the wonderful lines throughout the movie. I loved the ironic deaths of many of the characters, so much so that I would generally find myself gleefully humming to myself as they died. Not sure if I've ever done that to a movie before...

The characters (and acting) in it are brilliant as well, ranging from the hilarious murderous principal Steven Wilkins (played by Dylan Baker) to the virginal Laurie (Anna Paquin) to Sam (Quinn Lord) himself. Hell, even the savant Rhonda (Samm Todd) and the witchy young girl Sara (Isabelle Deluce) are nearly brilliant. Brian Cox is also awesome as Creeg, the angry old man of the film. I can't say enough great things about all of these actors. Seriously, every last one of them creates a fantastic and memorable character. And they all seem to really love being in this movie, and making a movie that finally feels precisely like Halloween.

Anyway, the movie basically involves a bunch of Halloween parables. And they all work quite well with each  of them focusing on a different aspect of Halloween culture. You have the kids who are trying to dig up an urban legend and appeal to the ghosts of that legend. You have the woman who doesn't have any respect for Halloween and wants those decorations down ASAP. You have your girls in sexy costumes going to a party in the woods. You have a serial killer type who poisons a kid. And you have a crotchety old man who has no respect for anybody but himself. All of these plots intertwine to tell the narrative, but I'm not saying how they intertwine. Watch the flick to find that out.

It is one of the first films I've ever watched that really hits what Halloween is all about. It feels appropriate in every way. It feels like Halloween. I don't know how much more I can say about it. I've been a kid at Halloween. I've been a crazy teenager at Halloween, and now I'm basically an adult at Halloween. I've loved Halloween every year. I've gone trick-or-treating with both friends and family (and been around the blocks a few times by myself). I've been to parties, stayed up and watched horror movies with people, and generally enjoyed the holiday every year immensely. If you've taken any time to enjoy it too, you will love this film. Don't be scared off by the comedy aspect of the movie, since it does hold the appropriate level of scares as well. But don't think that the movie is too scary either. While there is a good amount of gore, it is really over-the-top, never being actually realistic in the slightest. It fits in a snug little corner between comedy and horror and works well as both of those things.

The plot with the school bus massacre, the old man, and the school principal are my favorites, but all of them work more-or-less incredibly well. It's just that those three work spectacularly well as what they are. The school bus massacre especially feels like it could be a movie all on its own. And it happens to be the absolute pinnacle of terrifying in this movie. I'm pretty sure I've done stupid things like these kids did, and though it didn't end up as... uh... messy as it did in this movie, I'm pretty sure the mood was still there. Somehow Halloween was encapsulated on film, and I love that feeling so very much.

I really can't say enough good things about this movie. I'm glad I had a chance to review it on Halloween. I'm also glad that I've gotten the chance to have a great time on Halloween watching a fantastic film. Check it out right now if you haven't this year. You will not be disappointed, I almost guarantee it.

Video Game Assessment: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: Dawnguard

I thought Skyrim couldn't get any better. It was an excellent game. Yes, it had it's problems, and no, it wasn't always perfect, but for the most part it was beautiful and an incredibly interesting game. Dawnguard adds a great deal to the base game, really pushing both good storytelling and character, my two biggest gripes in the base game. Hell, when I can barely name any characters that have REAL personalities in the base game besides Cicero and the Emperor, it really is a pretty big problem. But Dawnguard really does its best to address those issues. It speaks of Bethesda's commitment to both the series and the people who love their games. When vampire lords, an incredibly well-written character, a good story, and some fantastic scenery are added into an already very good game, it goes from being, again, very good to being absolutely brilliant.

I can favorably compare this game to some of the best DLC and expansions I have ever played in modern games, like the DLC in Fallout: New Vegas, some of the Mass Effect 2 DLC, the Dragon Age: Origins expansion, and The Shivering Isles from Oblivion. This is seriously one of the most interesting DLCs/expansions I've played in a while, as well as one of the longest, but for 20$ I was really hoping for a good amount of gameplay. I wasn't disappointed. With two new dragon shouts, a whole new vampire plotline, tons of new locales, and some incredibly beautiful graphics, this game adds so much to what Skyrim is and represents. It becomes so much larger, so much more complex, and maybe a little bit tighter around its edges.

The new enemies introduced in the game, mostly Falmer, some dragons, and some new creatures add difficulty and intensity into a game that kind of becomes easy when you reach a certain level. I actually died a few times in the game, mostly when I played through as a Dawnguard rather than as a vampire. I found that the Vampire Lord plotline made Dovahkiin a little overpowered in general as well as making the expansion seem both smaller and less intense.

So, I've showed my hand already a little. You can choose two different factions as you explore Dawnguard. You can choose a faction of vampire hunters that come from the Vigilants of Stendarr called the Dawnguard, or you can can choose to ally yourself with vampires and become a Vampire Lord, which is both overpowered and pretty cool looking. Dawnguard also adds the ability to level up your progress as a vampire or a werewolf. These are improvements, vast improvements, to the overall game.

I like the new weapons that come out of it, some being incredibly strong, others having effects that are both strange and wonderful. I love the two huge locations that are added with the Forgotten Vale and the Soul Cairn. They are both beautiful and add a ton of new exploration options into an already huge game. I loved learning more about the Falmer, and I love both fortresses of the factions. The vampire castle is imposing and wonderful, while the Dawnguard fortress adds a feeling of being at a home base, something that none of the other faction areas within Skyrim proper really did for me. (What I mean by this is that the Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary or the Thieves Guild for instance never felt like a home base. I had no reason to ever go into most of these places unless I wanted to chat with characters or get quests, whereas I have a ton of reasons to go into the Dawnguard fortress, like being able to easily enchant and improve weapons and armor, being able to have a nice place to both sleep and put stuff into storage, and staring at huskies in armor because they are incredibly cute.)

For all of the things I mentioned though, although they are all improvements, they are not the improvement I liked the most. The one I liked, nay, LOVED, the most was the character of Serana, her family, and the Dawnguard themselves. There is a huge improvement in the way characters are portrayed, making them feel both more real, and not like cardboard cutouts. It was my biggest gripe while I played the base Skyrim game, and its improvement fills me with both happiness and hope. Serana, a vampire companion for both factions, interacts with the environment. She sits down, talks, rests, looks around, and enjoys the scenery. Yes, there are some characters that say things like, "That sure is a cave. We should look in it." and "I am an adventurer." but there are really no characters that feel as fleshed out or as real as Serana. She's the first character I was actually proud to have as a companion, as well as the first one that I had any emotional interest in at all. I mean, seriously... Lydia was a lump of wood. I have no idea how people love her so much. Serana talks to you; she interacts. She has a heavy storyline and there's actual emotional intensity in both her voice and her actions. This tells me that there is some real writing talent at Bethesda just itching to write even more compelling and wonderful characters. I sincerely appreciate that. It was the one aspect of everything that I saw in the expansion that made me legitimately fall in love with the game.

I've always liked Bethesda games, but I've always had the gripe that they can't write characters to save their souls, and if they ever actually do they kill them off as quickly as possible. Hell, Oblivion is famous for doing that. Any character that you could possibly have any attachment to will die horribly soon after you meet them. I always hated that. It came out in Fallout 3 as well, except there were very few characters that were actually good in that game. See, now I can compare Skyrim's portrayal of characters to Fallout: New Vegas and won't feel like I have to hang my head in shame. They created a rich and wonderful character in Serana. Her parents are also complex characters albeit less focused on, and even a simple sidequest, the one involving Aetherium, has an incredibly strong character in Katria. So, all-in-all Skyrim's DLCs and expansion seem to have gotten off to a great start, focusing on some of the weaker elements of the baseline Skyrim  and really vastly improving things. I was so happy to see a realistic and well done female video game character that I basically want and need to see more of the same from Bethesda and the Skyrim crew. They outdid themselves with this one, and I can only hope that all of the others will truly be going in this same direction.

Movie Appraisal: Cronos (1993)

Cronos, the Guillermo del Toro movie, is beautiful and different from anything else I've ever seen. That DVD cover poster right above these words is no indicative of the film itself either, mostly because that right there never actually happens in the movie.


I like del Toro's movies as a rule. I can't think of a single movie of his that I haven't liked. This one was no different. To me it's much better than Pan's Labyrinth, although not quite as good as The Devil's Backbone, which is his best work that I've seen, and I've seen all of his stuff besides Mimic. Cronos is a beautiful take on the vampire genre, making it into something different, alchemical rather than natural or based in evil. The whole movie is a retelling or re-imagining of vampires and how they might work in real life.


The story is actually quite good, starring Federico Luppi as Jesús Gris, an antique dealer who finds a hollow angel statue in his shop that had something strange hidden inside of it. This strange thing, called Cronos, is a device with an insect implanted within it that basically gives the user eternal life and a younger quality to their features.It also gives them an unnatural bloodlust. Vampire film! YES!


A very young Ron Perlman plays the nephew of a dying business man, Claudio Brook, and although his performance is campy and ridiculous, he plays the part so well that it's hard not to like him. He and Claudio Brook play the de la Guardias, who are looking for Cronos so that the elder de la Guardia will not die from his debilitating diseases.


This all comes down to an ultimate and beautifully done conclusion, that is both gruesome and amazing to watch. Absolutely sublime really when it comes down to it.


Cronos was a fantastic film. I really enjoyed it. I can't really think of a better vampire film off the top of my head.  I will say that the English speakers (all two of them) were not as great at acting as the Spanish speakers, but I enjoyed watching both of them regardless of their non-Shakespearean acting skills. 


I thought the music choice in some of it was pretty odd, and some of the stuff going on seemed a little convenient at times, but the story on the whole was really very good. I liked it for being an origin story of vampires, and I thought some of the grittier (or bloodier) scenes were absolutely fantastic. They were lovely to watch as well as being horrifying.

The Devil's Backbone is better in my own mind. Cronos didn't quite reach that level for me, but it was better than Pan's Labyrinth to me, not much better, but better. I think it was because the structure of the story was more coherent and less kind of meaningless. One of the reasons Pan's Labyrinth isn't one of my favorite films is because of the fantasy parts which I feel are pretty much useless and don't fit. I feel like this film fit together much better even if the acting was worse in every scene.


This movie is also very 1990s. It basically reminded me of other great 1990s horror films like... um... Jacob's Ladder for example. The cinematography was remarkably similar in some areas. The horror tropes found within the movie itself are beautifully done, a mix of old vampires myths and stories, and its own new kind of scientific vampire approach. A lot of the horror comes off as a bit campy though, and a little over the top at other times, but I don't think that the bloody or gory scenes were meant to scare. I think the scenes of Gris drinking blood are probably the most gutwrenching and terrifying, because you are seeing what he is becoming and you get the idea that a man can become a vampire without selling his soul, but to survive as a vampire, to have the eternal life of a vampire, the soul must be sold. Drinking human blood tends to make one a monster, and it's absolutely fascinating to watch as Gris makes his ultimate decision.


Anyway, this movie is ridiculously good and needs to be both watched and enjoyed by the masses. I can see why it may not be as well known as other del Toro movie, but this one is really well done and needs to be seen. It's very well done.

Movie Appraisal: Nosferatu (1922)

Oh, dude, do I love this movie. It is literally one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen. And it also happens to be one of the first. This is not going to be an incredibly long review because... seriously? This movie has been out for almost a century. If you don't know about it you really need to go watch it now. Stop reading this review and go watch it.

Yes, I know it's in black and white. Yes, it's also silent... but neither of those matter. It is an incredibly effective early vampire movie, introducing ideas like the sun actually destroying vampires and the incredibly old "Nosferatu" type of vampire with the old, bald head, ancient eyes, and fangs that go far past his mouth. Max Schreck is an icon, one of the most effectively terrifying vampires I have ever seen.

The movie starts happily and... well, not very far off from something that could easily be a romantic comedy, and then... then the movie goes dark fast. It becomes disturbing, basically following the plot of Dracula, but having different character names because... well, Dracula was still copyrighted then, and F. W. Murnau kind of, sort of... well, stole the plot without permission.

Anyway, the film is dark, effective, and wonderful to behold for such an early movie. It really starts off the vampire genre in the best possible way. It is a little short and ends incredibly abruptly, but it also is one of the perfect vampire movies out there and should be enjoyed by everybody at least once in their lifetimes.

Movie Appraisal: Salem's Lot (2004)

'Salem's Lot, as I've mentioned before, is my favorite Stephen King novel. It has a fantastic story, kind of obviously taken from Dracula, one of my favorite books ever, and it really works in my opinion, not only as a vampire story, but also as a good horror story in general.

That being said, this television miniseries movie is not the best Stephen King movie that there ever was. It has a great cast and decent writing, but there are downsides and I will get to them, don't you worry your little anonymous reader head. Trust me on this, I am going to rip this movie apart by the freaking seams. The cast those, like I mentioned, is very good, with Rob Lowe starring. Now, Rob Lowe had also been in the miniseries adaptation of The Stand as well, and honestly... well, although he has a good name, the character of Ben Mears is a fairly bland and uninteresting character. Donald Sutherland also stars as Richard Straker, a new man who comes to the town of 'Salem's Lot to open an antique store with his business partner, Kurt Barlow, who is played by Rutger Hauer.

Let me say that those two actors, although in my opinion very fine actors, seem to have such odd performances in this. Donald Sutherland plays a character who in the novel is mentioned many times as being "hairless" and "smooth" as evil snarky Santa Claus, which is such a strange way to play that role. James Mason, in the previous version of the movie, did such a better job as Straker. Rutger Hauer, on the other hand, plays Barlow, the sadistic vampire, as an incredibly suave gentleman vampire. Now, in the novel he is a monster and in the previous movie he was a Nosferatu type of vampire, but here he is simply Rutger Hauer... and he isn't bad, but it is a little inexplicable the way he plays the evil vampire.

Also, James Cromwell plays Father Callahan and I'll have a lot to say about his performance and the writing surrounding it later on in the review.

Now, I have reviewed the 1979 movie and the novel, so you can tell that this story is close to my heart. I love vampires, I love what vampires used to be. I Am Legend, the novel, not the 2007 movie starring Will Smith, is a fantastic novel which makes me so happy. Dracula by Bram Stoker is my second favorite book of all time. Amazingly well written and full of a whole bunch of great scenes and characters, but I digress... this is not a review of vampires or of Dracula. I guess what I'm saying is that old-style vampires are close to my heart, so this movie becomes both incredibly awesome and incredibly disappointing.

So, besides the actors I mentioned, most of the characters and actors are incredibly tough to watch. The acting is certainly not amazing. There may be a gem of a performance here and there, but for the most part the movie is fairly rough around the edges. It really tries very hard to show the scope of the novel and succeeds in the first half of the miniseries. It has a great build-up to everything in much the same way that the novel has. There is a lot thrown in about the movie being set up to be a haunted house story, just like the novel, and then throwing that aside and becoming crazy vampiric midway through. And this is all good. There are a lot of good things to this movie too. It does have some legitimately frightening parts (as frightening as a television miniseries can get), and really gets the setting right, which I applaud.

The problems arise because of miscasting and strange performances. This can mostly be seen through Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and James Cromwell. I love these actors, but for one, in the original novel Father Callahan is not a bad guy... ever. This even creates a problem when 'Salem's Lot connects to The Dark Tower series in which Father Callahan, the alcoholic Catholic priest, is one of the biggest heroes of the series. As for Hauer and Sutherland, why weren't their roles just swapped? The ancient vampire of Barlow was much more suited for someone of Sutherland's talents and experiences, while Hauer playing Straker would have been amazing... because simply looking at Rutger Hauer, you can easily become a little unnerved.

Now, some of the scenes are fairly well done and compare favorably to the 1979 version and fit well with the novel as well. Danny Glick coming to Mark Petrie's window comes to mind as well as some of the later vampires. Now, one character I haven't mentioned is Doctor James Cody who is my favorite character in the novel and is... well, partially amazing here and partially a terrible human being. His character is also changed from the novel and it is for the worst unsurprisingly. I think the actor who plays him, Robert Mammone, is absolutely fantastic in the role, but had to deal with a less than stellar script. I was so excited to see Jimmy Cody's name attached to a Salem's Lot movie, but in the end it was more disappointing than surprising.

The plot follows the same one I've written twice over in two other reviews, with the only difference coming in actual characters that appear (This miniseries has a lot more characters than the 1979 movie, and much better acting besides as well.), and the framing device used in the miniseries, that was also used in the novel, but in a very different way. In the novel it was used as, I think, an homage to Dracula. Here it is used to showcase the villainy of Father Callahan and the characters of Mark Petrie and Ben Mears.

The main two characters, and the main female too, are still as bland as they have always been, and out of the main cast of characters only Andre Braugher's performance of Matt Burke had any real impact on me. I thought casting him to play a character that in the last adaptation and in the novel was white, was a great move. I thought he added real acting talent and a surprising addition to a story with, and I hate to say it like this, very little diversity. Now, I could care less about diversity. Whatever floats people's boats, but I think it was a ballsy move that a ton of people probably didn't like, but I thought it was excellent casting. It really seemed to me that they were casting out of the character himself rather than out of preconceptions... and I really like that. I'll be talking about Andre Braugher again in an upcoming review, again praising his performance. He is an incredibly underrated actor.

Anyway, I like this movie because of the source material... I mean, hey, I own it and everything. But on it's own merits, it really isn't very good. Some of the acting and scares are decently well done, but in the second half the acting starts falling very flat and the choices of how the plots moves just seem confusing and nonsensical to me, a fan of the original work. I wouldn't recommend it over the 1979 version unless you are looking for better acting or cinematography, which you very well might, and you'll find those things here. But besides that, you should probably avoid this less than stellar television miniseries.

Creature Deliberation: Vampires

Vampires, creatures of the night, monsters beyond all horror of imagination who... until recently... had represented terrible ideas of sexuality and life beyond death, and nowadays seem to represent terrible books and movies that should be stricken from all records.

Look, I love vampires. I feel ashamed in saying that, but I find that vampires are among my favorite horror movie monsters. Although... I don't know how many vampire movies are actually "horror" movies especially in the last thirty years or so. Some books and movies that have vampires in them still stand up quite well in the horror genre, such as Dracula (1931), as well as the original novel which is still fantastic. 'Salem's Lot , the book by Stephen King, is also quite good even though the movies made of it are nowhere near as good. The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova is also fantastic as a very recent vampire novel. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson is one of the first novels to really explore vampires as almost zombies and takes multiple forms of vampires. Then there is a movie like Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922), which is fantastic both as an early film and a starter to the genre.

There are a few other decent vampire stories, but most of them have not been recent. Vampires as monsters are barely recognized anymore. Now vampires seem to all be about lust and sexuality rather than a monstrous force. Anne Rice is the one to blame here. Sure, Bram Stoker kind of started it off with a sexy Dracula back in the Victorian Age, where sexy was not vogue, but try comparing that sexuality to the present-day. It's gone a little crazy. Vampires seem almost to be a fetish nowadays and not one of those cool fetishes like I have, but a disturbing one that makes me shudder every single time I hear a fangirl squee about Twilight. I have really no opinion about Twilight, only because I feel it's unfair to judge something I've never had any part of. I know about it, kind of, but at the same time, I couldn't care less about some teen girl novel, or series of novels, or movie about shirtless men that kind of make me feel very uncomfortable and inadequate... I mean... yeah... if that's what all girls want... You know something? I'm not getting into this.

My point is that vampires are first and foremost, in my mind, monstrous and horrible. That's where the horror of most of these novels and movies come from. The vampire talks like a gentleman (of gentlelady in some cases), and one can never tell what kind of monster lurks beneath the surface until it is too late and the vampire gets to have a late night snack of person neck.

The vampire myths are fascinating, stemming from old time illnesses that were diagnosed as death, and people being buried before death. Hell, maybe the myths even have some bases in reality. I'm not going to rule it out. It would be hella cool if that were the case. It probably isn't... but still, you know?

I guess my problem with modern vampires is that they aren't scary. There is no obvious horror anymore and that makes me very sad. Vampires are such an interesting monster, much more refined than werewolves or zombies or Frankenstein monsters or swamp things or whatever... and it makes them fascinating. They retain so much of their humanity while also losing so much of it as well.

Then there are things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel and those kinds of television shows, which are infinitely better than Twilight, but simply awful in comparison to earlier and better works in pretty much any kind of media.

I like the idea of vampires. I really do, but there are so few good forms of vampires (and there really have never been many good ideas out there anyway) that it is very disappointing to see how many failures that there really are.

I wish there could be better vampires, but nowadays vampires, true horror vampires, are fast on the decline, and it shows just how far those monsters have fallen.

Movie Appraisal: 30 Days of Night (2007)

Simply put: This is one of the best vampire movies of all time. I don't even care. Don't even try to disagree with me on this next point. Vampire movies inherently suck. Sure, there are some good ones. Nosferatu, and the 1931 Dracula come to mind... but most vampire movies in recent years are not horrific stories of insatiable bloodlust, horror, and a terrible monster who looks like a man called a vampire.. no, most modern vampire croadloads are just awful pieces of romantic garbage that should be thrown... literally thrown... into the sun so that we won't have to deal with them anymore.

I understand. People like the romantic imagery of vampires. Those people are stupid and should be vanquished and conquered and the like. I can't believe there are people out there that find the Twilight series engaging. I cry for the human race. How did we lose so much ground that we now find Twilight to be a series deserving of multiple movies? I... I don't even know what to say people... I just don't know. It makes me sad. It makes me weep for the future and for our forgotten past. Look at how far the vampire has fallen... from feared bloodsucking menace all the way to... sparkling... Do you know how much typing that makes me want to break something or hit myself or something? You don't even know. Nobody does.

I love vampires. Love them. Seriously. They are my favorite type of monster. Dracula is one of my favorite books of all time. 'Salem's Lot (the book) isn't far behind as being my second favorite vampire novel. Then there's The Historian and I Am Legend rounding out some of the all-time great vampire novels of all time. And they are all seriously awesome... and even vampire movies (at least old ones) are cool, like the ones I mentioned above. But how can I ever say that modern vampire movies are good? I Am Legend (the movie) sucked. Any movie that had the name "Dracula" in its title over the last twenty years are so was absolutely terrible... and... then comes 30 Days of Night shining like a glorious lighthouse in a sea of blackened crap.

This movie is stupendous for what it is. It reinvigorated the vampire genre and made it into something a bit more respectable for a short time. Sure, a ton of things have come out more recently than 2007 that ruined vampires even more, but for a moment in 2007 this movie made vampires cool and scary again. It gave us something to worry about... something to think about... and it was awesome.

I love this film and I'm not even certain why. I thought everything was done so well. The story was incredibly well done... the visuals were PERFECT for the story, and the creepiness factor was at an all-time high in vampire films. The vampires were SCARY. This is how vampire films should ALWAYS be done. NOT WITH FREAKING SPARKLING!!! I mean, vampires should be terrifying and mystifying... they should make you want to have night terrors when you think you see the shadow of a skinny and very tall man gliding outside of your window on the darkest of nights...

These vampires can be likened to the rage-zombies in 28 Days Later. There doesn't seem to be a supernatural element in either... and instead there is strange element of reality in both... like something like that could actually happen... might even have happened in the past and that makes the whole subject terrifying. It makes the story one to shudder at in the darkest night... or a 30 day night.

Movie Appraisal: Salem's Lot (1979)

So, I have a VHS copy of the 1979 television miniseries movie of Salem's Lot. I look at the box as I'm putting the movie in to watch it. The box tells me that this movie is:

The ultimate in terror!

Well, I'm excited. I've always wanted to see the ultimate in terror. Now, wait... I'm not entirely certain what that's supposed to mean though. "The ultimate in terror"? The "ultimate" what in terror? Ultimate is an adjective, not a noun, it literally makes no sense... I mean, ultimate can mean a lot of things too. Sure, it can mean something as simple as "the best", but more often than not it would mean something as simple as the highest, or the last... which absolutely makes no sense... maybe I'm just reading into it a little too much, but this movie makes me curious. Telling me that this movie is "The ultimate in terror!" is putting my expectations pretty high. If I watch this movie and am not rocking back and forth crying out of pure manly fear sucking my thumb and praying to whatever deity will hold me close to save me from the terrifying movie, then I think this movie wouldn't have lived up to expectations, I'll be disappointed.

So, I'll watch this movie and see what happens...

Well, this is interesting, I think, as I start watching this movie. I’ve seen it before, years and years ago, but years and years ago is not now. I barely remember it. As the competent horror movie score rises from the depths of my television and the nighttime shot of a mansion turns into a daytimes shot of a mansion, the credits role and I see that James Mason and Elisha Cook Jr. are in this production. Wow, I think, that’s pretty awesome. I've always gotten excited to see James Mason in anything... I'm really not sure why...

Anyway, the first thing I notice is the washed out color of the movie. I'm uncertain whether this is the movie itself and how it was filmed (I suspect that's what it is.) or maybe the VHS is old and faded... but I'll be watching this. I find it interesting that yellow in this movie doesn't look yellow, it looks... vaguely white kind of.

Well, the movie rolls, and if I didn't know the story of 'Salem's Lot I'd be very confused. Sure, I see that a lot of scenes from the novel by Stephen King are in here, but most of them make no sense and are very disjointed. The scenes fluctuate rapidly from our hero Ben Mears (played by David Soul) to other random people. I barely have time to figure out their names as the scenes keep changing from one group of people to another.

Mr. Straker (played by James Mason) is a particular oddity. His introductory scene makes absolutely no sense in context with Ben Mears randomly appearing in the dead of night at Mr. Straker's doorstep (at the Marsten House, which is the town of Salem's Lot's haunted house) and then they both kind of fade off. I'm very confused.

As the movie goes by the structure does seem to find a nice flow, but the beginning of the movie seems to have no real pacing at all, and it confuses and worries me. I wonder if an editor actually sat down to look at this mess. I wonder if he noticed how many plot threads are never tied up or how some characters are literally just forgotten about over the course of the movie.

One particularly glaring character that just kind of disappears less than halfway through the movie is Larry Crockett, the real estate agent. He has a role fairly early on, then has a... a really weird scene involving a shotgun in his mouth (Don't ask, it's all fairly disturbing and not in the "ULTIMATE IN TERROR!" kind of way, but rather in the, "Oh, man, I don't want to see this at all." kind of way.), and then he's gone and never to appear again to my knowledge in the whole film. I think he's attacked or something, but the rest of the characters who are attacked show up later, but I don't remember seeing him.

Also, and I do have to complain about this, two characters have earned my ire by being played by absolutely terrible actors. Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin), the teenage boy hero foil to Ben Mears' manly hero persona, and Ben Mears' love interest Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia). A scene of particular interest is their one scene together in which they seem to be very close to either forgetting their lines or bursting out laughing. I couldn't tell, but in such a supposed-to-be-tense scene, it was very disappointing.

Now, getting to the scary parts, which is what I'm in this for. Well, there aren't many I could even consider scary. Actually there aren't many scenes that a scared seven-year-old girl who is terrified of the dark would be afraid of, which is disappointing, but not unexpected, but the box did lie to me. This is not "THE ULTIMATE IN TERROR!" No, box... I don't care what definition you were using for ultimate, this will never be the ultimate of terror, not ever. I'm sorry, but you're wrong and you've lied to me. I would tell you off if I could, but I see you trying so hard and I just don't have the heart.

There are a few genuinely creepy parts, mostly involving the vampires coming after the main characters. Oh, I didn't mention this is a vampire movie? Well, the movie seems to have forgotten as well until the halfway point or so... So, I was in no rush to spoil the vampires if the movie was in no rush to spoil it either. This is actually and seriously a pacing point that I like. It is also in the original novel and I think it works nicely, although it was handled much better in the novel and the second television miniseries that came in 2004. The whole point is a bit of a bait-and-switch. 'Salem's Lot is supposed to start out kind of seeming like it's going to be a haunted house movie and then BAM, nope, vampires. I think it's an interesting way of doing things and if this film were competent it would have worked nicely, but the film isn't competent and it works about as well as being slapped in the face repeatedly by a refrigerator.

So, now I'm actually going to tell about the creepy parts rather than interrupting myself again. The teenage boy vampire hovering at Mark Petrie's window is a particularly poignant scene and works very well. It was creepy, but fits rather poorly with the rest of the film since it is a fairly competent scene. Another scene of note (and in my opinion the best of the movie) is when the teacher Mr. Jason Burke (Lew Ayres) is confronted by a vampire in his own house because he had unwittingly invited the man into his house before the man was a vampire. So, this vampire sits in a rocking chair as Burke comes into the room and the creepiness level of this scene is awesome. Burke sweats and is obviously terrified, as the vampire (in some great makeup, I have to say) walks slowly towards him saying,

Look at me… Look at me, teacher… Look… Look… Look… Look at me… Look at me… Look…

with such an awesome raspy voice that it was hard not to take the guy seriously. Burke, one of the best character in my opinion, gets awesome and attacks the vampire with a crucifix and then has a heart attack and is never heard from again for the rest of the movie.

Now, in terms of the main bad guy in this film, Mr. Barlow, the Dracula type of character of this story... he's... well, a Nosferatu type of vampire... and it doesn't work. He just looks silly. Mr. Straker is a much more believable (human) villain who is terrifying in some respects especially as he carries the doctor who has been helping Ben Mears with the vampires, Mr. Bill Norton, Susan's father, to his death of being impaled by antlers attached to a wall. It's pretty awesome.

Now, as for a few other things I liked, but felt fell very short by the end were the Constable (Kenneth McMillan), who is absolutely awesome in all of his scenes except for his last, and the two scene wonder of the priest, Father Callahan as his crucifix is taken by Barlow. Both characters were very well done albeit fairly small characters, but their characters end poorly because of the lack of actual development for them.

The last scene of Ben and Mark killing Barlow is all right, I suppose, but the actual staking of Barlow is overshadowed by the younger vampiric townspeople stalking out of the root-cellar behind Mark to dine on fresh blood... Having them come to life out of focus behind Mark was beautiful. It actual gave a little tension to the movie that had had little real tension.

Now, I know I barely mentioned the main love interest, Susan... well, the movie seems to forget her, so why should I remember her? She goes into the Marsten House with Mark at one point and just kind of disappears, never to be seen again... I'm guessing she was turned into a vampire or something, but there's never a resolution there and it ends on kind of "huh?" note. And what ever happened to the priest, Father Callahan? His crucifix was thrown aside, but he never shows up again. And what about Susan's mother? Does she die because of the blaze Ben Mears starts at the end of the movie, or does she leave town like she was supposed to? And what about Burke who just seems to have been forgotten? Did he recover from his heart attack or tragically pass away? I have no idea and I kind of want to know... but nope, I never will.

So, Salem's Lot was a bit of a disjointed disappointment. I had wished for a lot more from a great vampire horror story and in the end I did not watch "The ultimate in terror!", what I saw was a movie trying desperately to be the original novel and failing quite badly in almost every way. The movie is worth watching, I suppose, if you like the source material, vampires in general, or mediocre TV movies from the late 1970's, but if you don't, I'd advise you to not waste your time with this "ultimate in terror!"