Archive for the 'Movies' Category

What is the name of the music video where a guy is hiding from vampires?

Monday, June 8th, 2009
What is the name of the music video where a guy is hiding in a house when vampires showed up at night and they try to get in. But the sun comes up and they leave and he goes to sleep.

By: Kankurous

About the Author:

latina brides

What is the name of the music video where a guy is hiding from vampires?

Saturday, May 30th, 2009
What is the name of the music video where a guy is hiding in a house when vampires showed up at night and they try to get in. But the sun comes up and they leave and he goes to sleep.

Not “a little less sixteen candles, a little more touch me”
by fall out boy

By: Kankurous

About the Author:

african dating

Movie Vampire Packs: Which Are the Most Frightening?

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009
Shane Dayton asked:


The movie “30 Days of Night” showed vampires in a very unusual light, one that is certainly uncommon at least among movies of vampires, which are often celebrated for being sensual, as well as terrifying. Vampires in a pack formation is very unusual for a vampire movie, especially modern ones. As far as having an actual “pack” of vampires, there are only two other recent movies that give a good comparison to “30 Days,” which are “John Carpenter’s Vampires” and “From Dusk Till Dawn.”

The dignity and class really set these citizens of the night apart from most monster counterparts, but that dignity doesn’t exist in “30 Days,” as the vampires are almost like the way a traditional pack of werewolves work, and far less human than most other interpretations.

This allows an interesting comparison between the three movies. The pack of vampires in “30 Days” is definitely an aggressive and vicious predatory pack, while “Vampires” has a more traditional “pack” of vampires. There is a definite leader, and vampires falling in behind as a group, but each individual has human level intelligence. In the movie “From Dusk Till Dawn,” they look like they are half way between “Vampires” and between “30 Days,” but even in “From Dusk Till Dawn” they don’t seem to be much of an organized group so much as individuals all doing their own thing.

So which group of vampires is scarier? That’s hard to say and maybe depends on what scares you the most. Are you more afraid of the conscious group of these monsters who at least appear human in basic actions and thought and thus can reason and outwit you? Or does the sheer savagery of the “30 Days of Night” pack hit you as a far worse and scarier?

In John Carpenter’s “Vampires,” the vampire is Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith), who is the intelligent and resourceful leader of a brood of vampires who used one colony as a distraction to lure the vampire hunters out, then came out at night and took out the entire group. These vampires are smart and appear like more traditional vampires: human like and intelligent with superhuman strength.

In the movie “30 Days of Night,” the vampires are led by Marlow (Danny Huston), the lead vampire of the pack who speaks an ancient language. The rest are like a pack of wild animals, but animals with a very high intelligence, as they even use survivors for bait. This adds a definite shock value, but there seems to be evidence that a smart person who survives the initial onslaught could hide. These vampires seem more vicious, but less supernatural.

In the movie “From Dusk Till Dawn,” there is somewhat of a pack mentality, and a “queen vampire,” but even then they don’t seem like an organized pack, but just a large group of individuals who are all going ballistic in the same small area. The being trapped is what makes the terror in this movie work best, but these seem to be the least frightening vampires of all three groups.

So which pack of vampires is more frightening? Is it the one that seems to have conscious thought and intelligence among every single one of its members, or is it the one that acts like a pack of the most savage predators in world history? Or is it half way, with a brutal chaotic group inside a closed space?

It’s an interesting debate, and one that I think will help reinvigorate interest in a group of monsters who were in anger of becoming stale.



Film Review: Planet of the Vampires (1965)

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009
Kevin L. Powers asked:


Mario Bava’s PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES is an altogether different type of vampire film especially when it was first released in 1965 when most filmgoers were only used to the Dracula personae of the vampire. Pre-dating the more well known Tobe Hooper classic LIFEFORCE, this film is the first in the sub-genre of sci-fi horror that depicts vampires as a spirit like force that can take over both living and dead bodies in order to live.

The story concerns Captain Markary (Barry Sullivan) who along with another ship and crew are stranded on a desolate planet, which they soon discover, is inhabited by a species of aliens that take over the bodies of the living or the dead and who until now where they stranded on the dead planet. Markary is in a race against time to repair his ship and save his crew from imminent death or possession.

The film has many elements of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and ALIEN while also being seeded in the many different traditions of vampirism. Bava’s greatest asset in this film is always keeping things moving especially in a film with very few sets and the few that they do have are sparse at best.

This is an interesting departure for Bava who is best known for his horror and giallo films. This remains one of the few sci-fi films he ever directed much less also wrote (with Alberto Bevilacqua).



Nosferatu: the Film That Wouldn’t Die, a History of the Vampire Film From Its Birth to the Present Day

Friday, February 6th, 2009
Tim Kane asked:


There is no doubt that Freidrich Willhelm Murnau’s Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie des Grauens (Symphony of Horror) is a piece of landmark cinema, both for its Expressionist filmmaking and its unique treatment of the vampire as plague. Yet few people saw this monumental film prior to 1960. Though slated for destruction by Bram Stoker’s widow, the film managed to survive, popping up in the most peculiar places.

Nosferatu debuted at the Marble Hall of the Berlin Zoological Gardens in 1922. The movie was the first and last product of a small art collective called Prana Films — the brainchild of artist Albin Grau (later Nosferatu’s production designer). A month later Florence Stoker caught wind, and she started the legal machines rolling. Her only income at this point was her deceased husband’s book Dracula, and she would not let some German production company steal her meal ticket. During the 1920s, intellectual rights were a bit dodgy, so Florence paid one British pound to join the British Incorporated Society of Authors to help defend her property. Never mind that the society would also pick up the tab for the potentially huge legal bills.

Florence seemed unaware that a second vampire film, this one called Drakula, was produced by a Hungarian company in 1921. Although the title harkens back to Bram Stoker’s novel, the resemblance ends there. This film, now lost save for some stills, was more concerned with eye gouging than straight out vampirism. Nosferatu on the other hand took much of its plot from Stoker’s Dracula, changing only the names.

The film continued to be exhibited in Germany and Budapest up through 1925, though Prana was beleaguered by creditors and harassed by Florence Stoker. They tried to settle with the society, offering a cut of the film’s take in order for them to use the Dracula title in England and America. Florence would not relent.

She not only wanted Prana to halt exhibition of the film, she wanted it torched — all prints and negatives of the film destroyed. And she got her way. In 1925 Florence won her case and the destruction order went through. Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie des Grauens vanished into thin air just as Count Orlock, the vampire in the film, does when exposed to the rays of the morning sun.

Nosferatu did not stay dead. Like any good horror movie, the villain revived himself and carried on the fight. A print of the film resurfaced in 1929, playing to audiences in New York and Detroit. However preeminent Dracula scholar, David J. Skal, writes that the film “was not taken seriously” and that most audiences considered it “a boring picture”. The print was then purchased by Universal to see what had already been done in terms of a vampire movie. The film was studied by all the key creative personnel leading to the Universal production of Dracula in 1931.

The undead film continued to rise from the grave throughout the years. An abridged version was aired on television in the 1960s as part of Silents Please, and subsequently released by Entertainment films under the title Terror of Dracula, and then again by Blackhawk Films under the name Dracula. Blackhawk also released the original version to the collector’s market under the title Nosferatu the Vampire. An unabridged copy of the movie survived Florence Stoker’s death warrant and was restored and screened at Berlin’s Film Festival in 1984.

Despite its influence on the making of the 1931 Dracula, Nosferatu has few film decedents. It’s theme of vampire as a scourging plague has only been seriously taken up by two films: the 1979 remake by Werner Herzog, Nosferatu: The Vampyre, and the 1979 television miniseries of Salem’s Lot, directed by Tobe Hooper. Perhaps if the original Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie des Grauens had been allowed regular release, this would not be the case. It remains to be seen if Nosferatu will vanish again with the daylight or if this rare film will rise again in a new form.

For more information on the making of the original Dracula, check out David Skal’s book Hollywood Gothic: The Tangled Web of Dracula from Novel to Stage to Screen. If you want to see how vampire films have changed from Dracula to Underworld, pick up a copy of my book The Changing Vampire of Film and Television. Also you may visit www.timkanebooks.com for more vampire articles and fiction.