Vamp Watch: Nosferatu (2024) - second viewing

Watched:  01/19/2025

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Robert Eggers

Originally, I'd planned to see Nosferatu (2024) with MRSHL, a man who knows and loves vampire fiction.  And, he's an Eggers fan.  However, the stars failed to align and we didn't make it work.  But!  We finally got around to it.

I already spent a lot of time writing up this movie in recent history, so I'm not about to do that again right now.  

I do think I was better able to blow through some of my preconceptions and better get at the Ellen/ Orlok relationship, and it better confirmed some of what I thought was going on regarding Ellen's nature and Orlok's drive.  

Anyway, I dug it.  Glad I saw it again.

Vampire Watch: Nosferatu (2024)

Watched:  12/29/2024

Format:  Cinepolis Theater

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Eggers

I am looking forward to seeing this movie again soon, which I believe I am planning to do with PalMrshl.

SPOILERS BELOW

As advertised, Nosferatu (2024) is a gloriously detailed, stylized retelling of the 1922 classic horror film.  That original film, in turn, was a copyright-infringing German production that liberally stole from the novel Dracula, changed some names, set the story in Northern Germany, and had a production company with weird, cultish origins.  

In general, I was looking forward to my third Robert Eggers film, having previously seen The VVitch and The Northman.  A big, studio remake of Nosferatu is something I think could go a lot of ways, but if anyone working now was going to do it, Eggers was one of the strongest choices.  I'd only seen two of his three prior films, but I think - and argue with me here - Eggers isn't so much concerned with telling wildly original stories, but telling almost primordial stories and relaying them in ways that show why those stories work, and that it's in the teller and telling that we get at what the stories are about in ways that declutter them from romanticism and remove some of the guard rails.  

Example:  The VVitch is the earliest Anglo North American arcana - it captures the old world fears we brought to the New World as we faced it's sprawling wilderness we couldn't quite tame. Against that backdrop, our concerns about the unknown were turned inward and metastasized.  Those concerns continue to manifest and mutate in paranoid American fantasies that go well beyond the scope of this post.  The Northman is a sort of proto-Hamlet, digging into Nordic tradition and beliefs, and bringing the brutality of the stories in the Eddas to life, exploring revenge in a world that relishes might making right.  With some promise of glory for the fallen warrior along the way.

For veterans of prior incarnations of Nosferatu, whether we're talking the 1922 film or the 1979 version by Werner Herzog, there's a mix of old and new in Eggers' vision.  It's certainly, at it's core, not too different from the original 1922 version, but expanded and...  really well considered.  

1930's HalloWatch: Vampyr (1932)

Watched:  10/23/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Carl Theodor Dreyer

Apparently when this movie came out, people were just *mad* at it.  Like when you read that people freaked out about Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and rioted*, when Vampyr (1932) was shown, it seems the good people of Vienna wanted their money back and subsequently rioted. Berlin just boo'd the picture.  And it kind of went from city to city, earning a terrible reputation.

But imagine just dumping David Lynch or Tarkovsky on people who think they came to see Universal's very palatable Dracula.  

That said, this movie is *great*.  And that's with the viewing I did which was of a stitched together restoration of a film no one really wanted to see again after 1932 and was more or less lost.  

In theory, based on the work of Sheridan le Fanu, it's really it's own thing, nodding to bits of his collection of works entitled In a Glass Darkly, which contains the novella Carmilla - upon which my fave rave, The Vampire Lovers, takes inspiration.

The film is creepy enough, just based on the concepts.  A young man comes to a small French town and is visited by an older gentleman in the middle of the night (in the film's first real tell about how weird it will be), who leaves him with a package marked "open in the case of my death".  Soon, he's seeing disembodied shadows running around, a mysterious doctor, a mysterious older woman... and then witnesses the murder of the older gentleman through his window.  And then it gets weird.

HalloWatch: The Vampire Happening (1971)

Watched:  10/16/2024

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Freddie Francis

Imagine a movie written entirely with the same vibe as one panel comics from mid-Century Playboy.  That's the entire vibe of this "movie".  

During the darkest days of COVID lockdown, I would scroll Amazon Prime for movies to Watch Party, and at some point, The Vampire Happening (1971) came up, and I laughed at the title and checked it out, deemed it far too boob-tacular to make it into the queue, and moved on.  But Amazon Prime was not done with me.  And so - for whatever reason only the algorithm knows, this movie always found it's way into my line-up of offerings.

It's a goofy comedy that works by 1970's European erotic movie rules, so you kind of have to just roll with it.  But the basic story is that a Hollywood actress inherits a castle in Transylvania.  She looks just like an ancestor who was some sort of vampire.  Her arrival means her relative rises from the grave again, and while Betty romances a strapping young man, her double is out there making new vampires.

Eventually there's a vampire party, or, as us hep cats said in the late 1960's - a vampire happening - complete with the arrival of Dracula.  

Italian produced, written by Germans and shot in Germany by an English director, and starring a ragtag pile of Euro-talent and staying just on this side of softcore, it's truly an artifact of its time.

Basically, the movie was a weird excuse for the Italian producer to put his wife on film, and have a big party in a castle.  I can only imagine what was going on behind the scenes.  But in watching this movie, there's a distinct feeling you're watching the product of someone's scheme to have a very adult good time on someone else's dollar.  As such, it's not... good.  It's not funny or particularly sexy and feels interminable for the first 2/3rds.  It had one line I found laugh out loud funny right at the end of the movie, and I did like the winky end to the film.  And Dracula is kind of funny.

The star, Pia Dagermark - wife of the producer - had won awards at Cannes in 1967, and I think this movie was what more or less ended the movie business for her.  It happens.  

Just go watch a Hammer vampire movie instead.

Hallo-Watch: Nosferatu - a Symphony of Horror (1922)

Watched:  10/10/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  first straight thru

Director:  FW Murnau

I've seen this film in bits and pieces, but never in one shot.  So, technically, this is either my first view or not, and I'm calling it my first as I spend this Halloween watching films I should have already seen and have not.  

Yes, I've seen Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922) - or most of it - before, here and there.  

Structurally, Nosferatu is more or less a very watered down Dracula - infamously so as the movie was immediately sued into oblivion by Bram Stoker's widow (yes, Dracula came out so recently that Stoker's widow was around in 1922).  

Briefly - A Transylvanian fellow entertains a young solicitor come to sell him property in his hometown.  He sees Count Orlock doing weird things, lusting for blood, etc...  And the Count runs off to his hometown with crates of soil, murdering a transport ship along the way.  But in London Wilborg, instead it focuses on a plague of rats, and our Mina stand in doesn't fall ill, she realizes she must sacrifice herself as a sinless woman to the Count so he'll have overplayed his hand.

Unshockingly, this movie is mostly here for the spooky vibes and to tell everyone else how to do this for the next 100 years.  It's not the first horror movie by a long shot, but it is a highly influential one.  And - in my opinion - is maybe more in the spirit of the novel than all the romantic versions made since Lugosi made women swoon in 1930.  Orlok is a straight up weirdo, and our leads know it.  He's bringing illness and plague with him, he's a soulless killing machine.  

But what folks remember, rightfully, are the visuals of the film.  Flexing some Expressionistic bona fides, Murnau leans into strange and eerie sequences of shadow moving, some in-camera tricks of the day, and long, oddball takes to build tension in a single shot.  Our vampire is a homely bastard - not as described in the novel, but his own, unique look that echoes some of what's there - the grasping, claw-like hands.  But you know all this.  It's a gorgeous film, and worth a look for spooky season, even if you just put it on during your Halloween party.  That's the power of the Nosferatu vibes.

There's little question in my mind that Orlok and Dracula both represent some fear that folks living in times of less exposure to other people held when it came to foreigners or even their own neighbors who were different from them.  Ie: The Other.  Whether that's intentional or the casual racism of Grandpa thinking "that's how things are", I suspect the latter case.

What's odd is the lore around this movie - from the notes in Wikipedia about it being made by German occultists who wanted to, like, employ the dark arts.  To the lawsuits and upsetting Mrs. Dracula, to the film almost being lost, to the 2000 movie Shadow of the Vampire.

But, look... here's what Bacall has to say.

So, be like Lauren Bacall, people.  Refrain from shoe-based violence and check out the OG vamp feature.

I should mention, the Werner Herzog version is really good, and we're looking at a remake coming this Christmas from Robert Eggers, who I think is maybe the right dude to do this justice with modern cameras, etc...  

Hallowatch: The Midnight Hour (1985)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jack Bender

SimonUK has already delved into Halloween movies, and having had already seen everything over the years, he found an ABC TV movie from 1985.  That, in the spirit of 1980's, apparently originally aired the day after Halloween at the height of Reaganism (I did not like how TV was run in the 1980's).  

If I ever know The Midnight Hour (1985) existed - and it is likely that in 1985, I absolutely did not as I was watching mostly Mr. Ed and GI Joe - I have since forgotten it.  And I am pretty sure I would have remembered this.  

The basic idea is one that pops up from time-to-time, it's Halloween and someone unleashes dark magic along the way, meaning - in this movie - zombies, werewolves, vampires, etc...  appear in a Massachusetts town.  And, they sort of take over and turn folks into monsters along the way.  Minus one guy who looks a lot like John Hughes, but isn't him.

The movie has a weird clutch of actors you know or say "really?" about.  Kevin McCarthy and Dick Van Patten each show up for a few scenes as parents.  Levar Burton plays the 1980's staple of the guy who thinks "tonight, me and my lady will finally do it".  The lady is played by Shari Belafonte (daughter of Harry) is pretty good as his ladyfriend whose family is tied to witchcraft in the town going back 200 years.  Jonelle Allen, TV staple, plays her ancestor.  Peter Deluise is in it in a thankless role.  Kurtwood Smith gets two scenes as the town cop.  Cindy Morgan (RIP) plays the teacher who is... sleeping with Peter Deluise and shows off publicly?  The 1980's were wild.  This is a TV movie!

And Wolfman Jack, who never saw a gig he couldn't cash in on, is the DJ on the ever present local radio.  And, btw, the soundtrack on this is surprisingly solid, including Shari Belafonte trying to create a Halloween single called "Get Dead".  But otherwise, oldies hits popular in the 1980's.

The movie is *fun* rather than scary and has a storyline where I'm pretty sure our John Hughes stand-in/ hero bangs a ghost who looks like Betty Cooper.  Again, the 1980's were a different time.

What's curious is how much money it looks like this thing cost.  TV movies used to be fairly expensive affairs, and this is no exception.  It also is basically no better or worse than 80% of the movies people remember fondly from the 1980's, but for some reason, this thing has terrible reviews.  Probably because of the dance sequence and lack of visible boobs.  

It's fine.  I liked the light tone and the wistful approach taken to the romance storyline.  And that, basically, the townsfolk lose right up to the end, without even really knowing what's going on.  Also, it's free on YouTube and does nail the Halloween vibe.  A little spooky, a little horror-ish, a little silly, a little sexy... it's all in there.  Maybe not amazing, but it works.

Vamp Watch: Abigail (2024)

Watched:  08/11/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Directors: Tyler Gillett, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin  

Spoilers

A vampire movie opening with Tchaikovsky's "Swan Lake" is a cheeky move.  And it really sets the tone for what's to come for vampire movie fans, both signaling an awareness of *your* awareness of the genre, but also using it as diegetic music as a young girl takes to an empty stage in an empty auditorium.*

Vamp Watch: Slay (2024)

Watched:  06/11/2024

Format:  Tubi

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jem Garrad

It's Pride Month, and so I guess (1) Google TV thought I should watch Slay (2024) and (2) Tubi is apparently releasing original comedy horror movies now.  So, thanks, Google TV and Tubi.

This movie is exactly what you think it will be, and that's not a complaint.  It's a horror-comedy about four drag queens who accidentally book into a biker bar in the middle of nowhere.  Meanwhile, it turns out vampires are real, and they're going to decide this bar, on this night, is where they need to be.

If you're expecting excellent puns, double-entendres and camp, yes, this movie will deliver.  Also a pretty boiler-plate Night of the Living Dead-style set up, yes, that's what you're getting.  But that's...  exactly what this movie wants to be and it's what it delivers on what I'm guessing was not the world's largest budget.

I don't personally follow drag, but my understanding is that Trinity Tuck, Hiedi N. Closet, Crystal Methyd and Cara Melle are stars in the drag world, and I'm not shocked.  They're funny and watchable.  What I didn't expect was the supporting cast of bikers, tough guys, bar flies and locals absolutely understands the assignment and is solid.   

A local pair of LGBQT+ folks toughing it out here in red-neck land has shown up for something they can't believe is coming to their bar, and the aging bartender is maybe more delighted to have them the show there than he wants to let on.   Anyway, these actors had to do a lot and sharing the spotlight with our four leads is tough, but everyone does it.

In the end, *unlike* Night of the Living Dead, the movie is really about overcoming differences and working together to... kill a bunch of vampires.  And accept who each other are.  There's also a nice tag about accepting each other as we change, and that having some decency and love in your heart can save the day.  And along the way, we're going to see some blood and use pool cues to dispatch the undead.

I would love to see what this group and Jem Garrad could have done with $10-20 million more than what hey had.  I bet it would be great.  For now, this one is a Tubi original (who knew?) and free to watch with a few ads.

So, happy Pride, y'all.  

HalloWatch: The Vampire Lovers (1970)

quite the photoshop collage here

Watched:  10/23/2023

Format:  FreeVee on Amazon

Viewing:  3rd or 4th

Director:  Roy Ward Baker

In the wake of the opulence and spectacle of watching the 1992 Dracula adaptation, I threw on the 1970 Hammer horror film, The Vampire Lovers, a movie I'm pretty sure I'm on the record as a fan.  That impression held up on a re-viewing of the movie.  

During this period, Hammer was sorting out what to do as Lee was increasingly (and famously) less interested in playing Dracula, and so they sought to expand their vampire offerings beyond the Count and his shenanigans.  Thus, they went to the novel that preceded Dracula, and from which Stoker (ahem) borrowed from.  

If you're looking for the book that mixes up vampirism, sex and romance, this is the one, and it often feels like the romantic angles ascribed to Dracula was an interpretation of how this book, and therefore movie, take on a vampire's relationship with their prey.  In this case, rather than an exotic Count from a mysterious kingdom, it's a fellow young woman who is deposited at the doorstep of a family with a young woman of similar age.  Who precedes to die.

Shortly after, the same young woman, calling herself Carmilla, appears at another house (left by a woman of breeding and elegance) with a similarly aged young woman, and we see how the relationship between the two blossom, even as villagers start getting picked off.

If Brides of Dracula is any indication, Hammer had long ago figured out the formula for inserting a clutch of attractive women in their films and teaming them with baffled middle-aged men and Peter Cushing.  

This was one of a handful of starring movie roles for Ingrid Pitt, who is 30+ here if she's a day, playing 19.  Full disclosure, we're Ingrid Pitt stans here at The Signal Watch, and we think she's just super.  Madeline Smith, just at the start of her career, is terrific, and we'd be happy to see more films with Kate O'Mara.  As always, Cushing is a force of nature in the film.

Anyway, with all the "romance" of vampires stuff, Vampire Lovers manages to find the balance between eroticism and the actual devilish nature of the characters.  Part of Carmilla's curse is that she does seem to form a bond with her victims - if not love, then dependence, and she's damned to take their lives, one after another.  

The only other film I can think of that seems to touch on this concept in its way is The Hunger, which blows that concept out, making it a genuine romance.  Until it isn't.  And walks through what the relationship actually is via Sarandon and Deneuve.  

There's still straight up vampire stuff in this film, from Carmilla wandering the woods like an apparition, to garlic being generally unwelcome, to beheadings.  All solid stuff.  

HalloWatch: Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Watched:  10/21/2023

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second, I think

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Firstly, this isn't Bram Stoker's actual Dracula.  This is Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).

I very much remember Coppola, with whose work I'd just become acquainted at age 15 or so, announcing he was going to remake the Universal Monster stuff using the source material.  And as a teen, I was jazzed.  Let's kick the dust off, ditch the stuffy 1930's stylings (I'd never seen the movies at this point) and lets make a Dracula for the 90's!  

All I can really remember from that first movie is that it was... a lot.  The reviews were mixed, but everyone was going to see it, and I was in a packed theatre when I watched it myself.  

Honestly, I remember thinking "well... that was a lot.  And I get why the reviews were mixed."  Halloween night of '93, I went to see the original, and was like "oh, wow.  This is rad.  I get why people love this." and, in fact, my interest in horror movie monsters I'd had as a kid was reignited (along with a VHS copy of Phantom of the Opera) to the point where I'm annoying about it to this day!

Over the years, I've not returned to the Coppola movie because (a) I didn't like it all that much to begin with, and (b) there's so many Draculas.  And one gotta catch 'em all.  

Hallo-Watch: Twins of Evil (1971)

Watched:  10/07/2023

Format:  BluRay

Viewing:  Second

Director:  John Hough

I had watched and even blogged Twins of Evil (1971) previously, but I really didn't remember it  It happens (I sometimes have a cocktail when watching a film).  I didn't even recall it starred Peter Cushing.

But star Peter Cushing it does!  He plays a religious zealot who has formed a posse of like-minded puritans who are taking the fact that there seems to be a vampire on the loose to ride around, finding attractive young Hammer ladies, and then burn them at the stake, suspecting them of being a witch or vampire without ever actually checking.  You know, they just feel it in their gut that this girl who is doing something as shady as walking home is clearly in league with Satan (we get Judy Matheson in a pivotal role here illustrating the problem).  

This movie is part of Hammer's parallel-to-Dracula vampire series, the Karnstein Trilogy.  The series starts with The Vampire Lovers (one of my personal favorite horror films), is followed by Lust for a Vampire (which I recently rewatched and found I loved it on a second viewing), and now we land here, with Twins of Evil.   

Vamp Watch: Daughter of Dracula (1972)

Watched:  09/04/2023

Format:  BluRay

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jess Franco

If the 1970's brought us anything in cinema, it was sexy vampires.  I mean, there's no shortage before.  Ask me about Brides of Dracula.  But by the time we got to the 1970's, we had moved into a weird twilight zone of art film/ exploitation film/ horror film where nudity was rampant and sex was not just implied in knowing cut-aways.

As far as I know, of the Jess Franco movies, I'd only ever seen Vampyros Lesbos.  And, somewhat (in)famously, Franco was one of the foremost purveyors of cheap, wandering "horror" films that bordered on a Cinemax late-night entry and what cable would play on weekends in the 1980's while also absolutely existing as in-no-way-scary horror films.

The movie is one of five directed by Franco in 1972 alone.  Whatever the market was, it was quantity over quality, and I suspect few scenes were actually scripted or anyone really did much to prep for the movies after getting a set of fangs, a Dracula cape and a location.  The movie uses a lot of 1970's film language, from racking focus into a scene (usually onto some natural object) and lots of lingering shots of people walking and not saying much.

Drac Watch: Renfield (2023)

Watched:  07/06/2023

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Director:  Chris McKay

I had actually intended to see Renfield (2023) in the theater, but it seemed like before I knew it was released, it was gone and being offered on VOD.  Here we are about 2.5 months out from the release date, and I saw it on Peacock.  So, we are in interesting times.

Longtime followers of the blog may know I'm a bit of a Universal Monsters fan, not least of which is 1931's Dracula.  I've seen a few other versions, read the novel, seen a stage play, etc...  I figure I've done my Drac homework.  And so it was that seeing a movie pitched as a goofy, dark comedy about the woes of being Dracula's familiar (Renfield from novel and the 1931 film, played by the great Dwight Frye) with no one less than Nic Cage as Dracula had a strong appeal.

The trailer featured Renfield (played by Nicholas Hoult, who I think people rightly say they dig), attending group therapy for folks in abusive relationships, which, in retrospect, is maybe not innately hilarious to the twitter generation.  So I expected the movie was going to be Renfield and Drac's odd-couple relationship with some gross-out gore humor.  And that's... partially correct.

Weirdly, Awkwafina, who had just come off of Shang-Chi, and twitter's flying attempt at a good canceling, was not featured in the ads at all.  And she's arguably as important to the movie as Hoult or Cage.  She plays a police officer in a cartoonishly corrupt New Orleans police department whose father has been murdered by the Lobo crime family - who are also not in the trailer but feature Ben Schwartz as a wormy heir-apparent and the always phenomenal Shohreh Aghdashloo.  

Here's the thing I did not know:  the movie is an action-comedy-horror film.  There's a whole plot about Renfield maybe wanting to be a better person and it leading to him performing heroic deeds/ teaming up with Awkwafina, and Dracula thinking he's been thinking too small.

If you're like me, and you find acts of horrific violence geared for comedic value to be, in fact, funny as @#$%, this may be a good reason to stream it on The Cock.  This movie realized a little CGI blood costs about the same as A LOT of CGI blood, and they went bonkers.  But, honestly, the best parts of this movie are:

• the use of Dracula (1931) as a set-up and perfectly recreating scenes from the film
• Nic Cage's unique (in the best way) version of Dracula - that kind of makes you wish someone thought to cast him as the center of the Dark Universe giant mess Universal pondered a few years back.  Like, you realize, this totally makes sense, even when he's having a goofy scene with Hoult.  
• Shohreh Aghdashloo in general
• Brandon Scott Jones is absolutely perfect as the therapist/ pastor.  Give that dude more work.

I wish I could say it all hangs together, but it feels weirdly rushed - like director Chris McKay decided all the scenes were too long, and so the movie never really breathes and nothing lasts long enough for a comedic beat even when funny stuff is happening.

The movie did get some advertising, but I can't figure out what the thinking was.  It's *possible* heavily referencing a 90-year-old movie was not the right choice for The Youths.  Or that the premise sold in the ads didn't appeal.   Or that Dracula is more of a concept these days than something people actively seek out (which is probably worth discussing).  I dunno.  But it does feel like 2023 audiences are incredibly finicky and aren't going to drop $17 or whatever on a ticket for a 90 minute movie unless it's going to be a slam dunk.

Hammer Horror Halloween Watch: Lust for a Vampire (1971)

Watched:  10/30/2022

Format:  Amazon Streaming

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Jimmy Sangster

So, way back when I was first getting familiar with Hammer, I watched Lust For a Vampire (1971), and wound up with one of those absolutely wild experiences you get once in a while on the internet.  Admittedly, I'd not *really* been watching the movie - I was online and just watching the movie with one eye and I dashed off a jokey, jerky write-up.  But I was so much not paying attention that I mistook a completely different actor for Christopher Lee, which should tell you how much I was *not* watching.  

Within 24 hours, actor Judy Jarvis (nee Matheson) - who plays Amanda McBride in the film - spotted the review and *rightfully* called me out.  My review was stupid.  I'm lazy.  It happens.  But it was also a reminder that I should actually pay attention to a movie and give it a fair shake if I'm going to criticize the film as a viewer.  And real people do work on these films.

I promised Judy Jarvis I would rewatch the film, but, honestly, that's a *lot* of pressure.  Now I didn't want to embarrass myself if Judy Jarvis was still patrolling the internet, and I absolutely wanted to give the movie a fair shake this time.

Suffice to say, I am now more familiar with Hammer, what was going on in 1970's British film, and know how to watch these movies from a better perspective.  I've read Carmilla and become more aware of what Hammer was doing with the Karnsteins (a family of vampires they employed as Dracula wound down and based on the novel Carmilla).

I am not just saying this:  I loved the movie this time.  

Halloween Watch Party Watch: House of Dracula (1945)

Watched:  10/28/2022

Format:  Amazon Watch Party

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Erle C. Kenton

I'd seen this before and couldn't really remember it.  But when I saw "Hunchback" on the poster, I was like "oh, yeah.  This one."  

Dracula (John Carradine) goes to a Dr. Edelman trying to figure out if he can be "cured".  Edelman being a movie scientist/ doctor is like "why not?"  The same day, frikkin' Larry Talbot shows up *also* looking to be cured of being the Wolfman.  And in the cave below the house?  Frankenstein's monster.  Because why not?  

Whether Drac was serious or not about his cure and whether he was overwhelmed by his own innate evil or not is never explained as he throws the plan out the window to get un-vamped in exchange for trying to turn one of the two nurses into a new bride.  Along the way, Dracula turns the doctor into a sort of quasi-vampire.  Shenanigans ensue.

We have to talk about Nina.

Look, this whole movie is not about Nina, but she's in, like, 1/3rd to 1/2 of the shots the movie.  And I do not know why.  She's set up as a major character, but is not.  She's just... there.

Nina (Jane Adams), the dutiful nurse to Dr. Edelmann, is the poster-specified a hunchback, which is mentioned like once, but otherwise goes unremarked upon.  So she's, visually, always there in bright white nurse-gear and trying to be helpful and has an obvious difference.  

Actress Jane Adams was not a hunchback, and whatever prosthetic they put on her seemed to really bend her over and make her arms hang a certain way.  The character has not a negative bone in her body.  She's sweet and helpful and literally everything points to things working out well for Nina.  Like, they introduce a potential cure for Nina's bone difference - which she gives up to help the frikkin' Wolfman instead.  That's Nina!  Always helpful.  

But at the movie's climax, Nina is just thrown in a pit to her death as a bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Which...  weird flex to suddenly go dark in a movie that feels very much aimed at kids.  

I have no ideas or no theories as to what happened here.  Was there supposed to be another fate for Nina?  Was Nina always doomed?  Was she accidentally in more of the movie than they intended thus drawing focus?  Why take a super cute actress and suggest she needs work and then bump her off with her storyline unresolved?  

It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma and smothered in secret sauce.  But what reading I did do tells me that this movie was on a conveyor belt through pre-production to post-production and while Adams had a swell time working on it, the veteran actors were less than impressed with the industrial approach to movie making that they compared to how TV would be made in a few short years.

Anyway - Nina going down into the pit will now haunt me forever.  

Adams' career in film and TV was not terribly long.  She showed up in 1942 and sort of petered out in the 1950's, finishing with an appearance on The Adventures of Superman in 1953.  It looks like she did a lot of B's, monster and cowboy movies.  She was kind of short for Hollywood, I guess, at 5'3" (which doesn't seem that short), but she attributed that to how she wound up in less than glam-girl roles.

We think she's peachy.

So here's Jane Adams without her prosthetic.  Lovely girl.  Not exactly in the Dwight Fry in weird make-up mode.

PodCast 218: "Near Dark" (1987) - a Halloween PodCast w/ SimonUK and Ryan

Watched:  09/26/2022

Format:  DVD

Viewing: Unknown

Decade:  1980's

Director:  Kathryn Bigelow

For more ways to listen

SimonUK and Ryan head west to dig up a cult classic! It's a 1980's take on vampires that doesn't suck! This film helped pivot vampires into something other than romantic, well-dressed folk and gave us hard-travelling vagabonds who might just treat you like a Capri Sun pouch.

SoundCloud 

The Signal Watch PodCast · 218: "Near Dark" (1987) - a Halloween PodCast w/ SimonUK and Ryan

YouTube

Music:

Rain in the Third House - Tangerine Dream, Near Dark OST 

Mae's Transformation - Tangerine Dream, Near Dark OST 

Halloween 2022

The Signal Watch PodCast · Halloween 2022

Halloween and Horror - All

The Signal Watch PodCast · Halloween and Horror

Vampire d'Halloween Watch: Fascination (1979)

Watched:  10/22/2022

Format:  Criterion Channel

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jean Rollin

I don't know the work of Jean Rollin, but I understand more cultured folks will.  Something to look into.  His imdb looks like horror and thrillers, so, sure.

This film is mostly mood in the best way.  I think some of y'all like JAL might dig it if you haven't seen it.  It's essentially a well telegraphed vampire movie with the languid pace of Daughters of Darkness that has some astounding moments that alone are worth checking the movie out for.  

I enjoyed it, but it's mostly paper thin when you want to discuss the plot, which is a young criminal takes the gold he and his compatriots stole and hides out in a mansion which is inhabited by two young, attractive women but no servants or anything.  He tries to sort out what is happening, has sex with one of them and dodges the gang of crooks.  Also, there's a reunion of more attractive young women.

I dunno.  Give it a shot. It has some stunning visuals and never overextends its reach as a lovely, moody bit of horror with a curious spin on the vampire idea.

PodCast 217: "Twilight" (2008) - a Halloween PodCast w/ JAL and Ryan

Watched:  09/13/2022

Format:  Amazon

Viewing: Second

Decade:  2000's

Director:  Catherine Hardwicke

For more ways to listen

Well, even sparkle vampires are still still technically draculas, and that means they fit in however loosely with Halloween. JAL and I take a bite out of the crazy hit sensation that spawned a whole industry and changed bookstores and movies. I genuinely think this one is gonna surprise you.

SoundCloud 

The Signal Watch PodCast · 217: "Twilight" (2008) - a Halloween PodCast w/ JAL and Ryan

YouTube

Music:

Decode - Paramore

Leave Out All the Rest - Linkin Park 

Halloween 2022

The Signal Watch PodCast · Halloween 2022

Vampire Watch: The Lost Boys (1987)

Watched: 10/05/2022

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Joel Schumacher

My first takeaway from this is that The Lost Boys (1987) is Rated-R but also clearly a kids movie.  It's also not clear *why* it's rated R.  There's no nudity, the language is now fine on cable, and it's not even that gross or violent.  I saw it in the theater which would have been right around when I also saw RoboCop several states away in the theater, so it wasn't just a local thing.  Twelve year-olds, maybe exceptionally tall ones like myself, were just wandering into whatever we wanted to see and the theaters wanted our ticket and Spree money.  

But, yeah, I hadn't watched it since high school or early college, and it sure seems aimed at kids when you see it now.  The leads (Corey Haim, Jason Patric) are supposed to be in high school, I guess (a whole other question, because this is from the era when high schoolers were shown to be sexually active and drink and smoke pot as a matter-of-course), and Haim seems cast years older than the part is written.  What 16 year old needs to be told "it's bathtime!" or goes to sleep in their parent's room?  - a quick Wikipedia check confirms that the younger characters were supposed to be 8 years old, originally.

Which makes sense.  1986 was a pivotal year for comics - see the Dark Knight Returns stuff scattered in the Frog Bros.' comic shop.  But mainstream America hadn't yet picked up on the shifting content in comics and wouldn't for years.  Trust me, I was there.  So the characters were intended to be *kids* interested in *kid stuff*.  

Look, that's an interesting movie and one I would have maybe watched, but 1987 also saw The Monster Squad tank.  And this is the one people remember more than 1987's Near Dark, which I personally prefer as a horror movie.  The Lost Boys is an adventure comedy with horror elements - and that's great!  

Due to a recent reference to the film in Hulu's Reservation Dogs season finale, I think Jamie became curious and mentioned she'd never seen the film, so I did want to fix that as soon as possible.  And, I'll be honest, it's a lot better than I remembered.  I didn't remember *not* liking it, but it's genuinely funnier and better considered than I think I was giving it credit for as "a thing I liked when I was 12".  It's got great conflicting vibes that play off each other incredibly well, and it doesn't have delusions of grandeur - it's just really good at doing what it's doing.  

The cast is made up of stars and talent.  I mean, it's a weirdly well populated movie and managed to catch a whole lot of people on their way up between Coreys, Patric Sutherland, Gertz - and workhorses like Weist and Hermann who got to do something fun.  And even Alex Winters - who has maybe three lines would be hugely famous within a year or so.  

(late edit:  I forgot to mention - this movie debuts sparkly vampires!  After Alex Winter The Vampire is killed, he sprays blood all over the Frog Bros.  In the sunlight, his blood is clearly full of glitter!  SPARKLY!!!!)

I don't want to oversell the film, but it was fun!  There's some commentary baked in there about the double-edged sword of the joys and folly of eternal youth that gets overshadowed by "whoops, I'm a vampire" and the complete rejection of the possibilities.   They don't really do much to support the idea that Star and Michael even really know each other, and Star is never more than "girl" in the movie.  The timeline feels like it's 96 hours, tops.  Corey Haim's wardrobe feels like it was selected by a crazy person. 

But I enjoyed catching it again for nostalgia reasons, but also to reconsider the movie 35 years later.  

Dracula Watch: The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973)

Watched:  10/03/2022

Format:  BluRay

Viewing:  First 

Director:  Alan Gibson

Well, this is the final Dracula movie starring Christopher Lee as the good count, it's 1973 happening out there, and the soundtrack has a wah peddle.  I won't say I didn't enjoy this movie.  I did!  It's got Cushing still leaning into it, Lee is much more engaged than in Dracula AD 1972, and how can you go wrong when you include Joanna Lumley?  

This movie follows what happens when Dracula gets himself a cult going, and managed to plan ahead.  His plan may make no sense, but it is very, very dramatic.  Some key scenes seem to take place off-camera, and you will not like the guy who they cast as "our hero".  He has a terrible haircut and is rude to Joanna Lumley while also clearly supposed to have a romantic spark with her that no one is buying.  She's clearly way, way out of his league.  

Anyway, a mysterious cult seems to have recruited some deeply important people with the promise of power.  They kill a chicken and everything.  But it's secretly Dracula planning to use a super-bubonic plague that will wipe out humanity.  As the authorities bring in Van Helsing to sort things out, he sorts out that Dracula survived their last encounter and is now working to create a plague so all of humanity will die, and he will then be able to die, himself.  This idea gets no further consideration as some kinda wild stuff.  

There's a basement full 'o brides, a gang wearing matching sweater vests of evil, a woman wildly othered and exoticized for being Asian, snipers, excellent use of a net, and Dracula getting caught in a shrubbery.  

Joanna Lumley plays Jessica Van Helsing, seen in the prior year's Dracula AD 1972 as portrayed by Stephanie Beacham.  And her wardrobe is 70's fabu.  No notes.  She looks terrific.  

The movie plays it pretty straight, and nobody is an idiot just to serve the story.  I'm not sure how unleashing a plague requiring physical contact that becomes obvious one has said plague is particularly frightening when you realize no one would touch those people and just walk away from the threat.  Literally Lee's scheme in Captain America: Death Too Soon is 10000x more effective.   

There's some kinda interesting direction here that shows we've moved well on from the TV-like set-ups on the first Dracula.  Even if the title sequence just yells "make it cheap!".  It's funny what some camera angles and not pumping a studio full of flat lighting can do.  But, man, you can also feel that this is not the world's most expensive movie when Dracula's office looks absolutely borrowed for the day.

Yes, Dracula has an office.

Anyhoo.  Go watch!  It's the last Dracula Lee/ Cushing team up.