Trailer trash talk

I've been so apathetic about the Fright night 'reboot' (groooannn) that I hadn't noticed its trailer's been out for a while. Anyway, here it is:

Conspicuously absent from the trailer? Peter Vincent. Considering what they've done with the character, that's probably a good thing.

Now kids, I love the original. My interest in vampires was kicked off by its sequel, so, naturally, the originals hold a special place in my heart. I can buy that many of you younguns haven't seen either of 'em, or know they exist. YouTube comments like one from matthewsaidso, attest to that: 'This is like a vampire version of Disturbia. Thumbs up if you agree.'

Really? That's your point of comparison? I guess he didn't realise Disturbia (2007) is an obvious 'riff' (or rip, if you prefer) on Alfred Hitchcock's Rear window (1954) or the short story it's based on. Sure, a copyright claim was thrown out of court, but seriously, watch 'em back-to-back. You'll see.

But I digress. The original Fright night (1985), i.e. the proper one, was also obviously based on the same 'formula'. It was set in some sleepy Idaho town. This one's set in Vegas. Yes, that Vegas. Sigh. So much for subtlety. Goodbye small town terror.

Did I mention that 'Evil Ed' is played this-time-'round by Christopher Mintz-Plasse? You, know, McLovin from Superbad? Red Mist from Kick-ass? That guy? Yes. Yes I did. Oh man. Did you know it's also gonna be released in 3D? Why? Oh, right: inflated ticket prices. Ca-ching!

Anyway, another 'disturbing' thing I've noticed about the flick is this still:


Yep, that's Colin Farrell (Jerry Dandridge) ripping away Charley's cross, with it bursting into flame in his hand. I have a bias with this kinda stuff. I like my vampire lore and I like it when vampires fear the cross. If this is supposed to be an edgy rejection of the 'rules', well, it's a cliche in itself.

The original featured a neat twist on the idea: 'You have to have faith for that to work on me, Mr. Vincent.' I'm not sure if they're gonna use the same rule in this one. If not, deliberately inverting that 'rule' is nothing new. Anne Rice's Interview with the vampire (1976) popularised the modern vampire's disdain for religious items. Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot (1975) had already established the requirement of the cross-bearer's 'faith', ten years before Fright night was released.

It seems that most vamps these days have no problem with crosses, as mentioned in Bunson (1993) and Melton's (1994) respective vampire encyclopedias. Sometimes, filmmakers have resorted to monologues or dialogue that subvert most of the rules altogether. Here's a classic exchange between Jack Crow and Father Adam Guiteau in John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). A word of warning, though: some of this dialogue ain't PC or kid-friendly:

Jack Crow: You ever seen a vampire?
Father Adam Guiteau: No I haven't.
Jack Crow: No... Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these buggers will bend you fucking over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his fuckin' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters.

Funny thing is, the novel the film was based on (John Steakley's Vampire$, 1990) isn't this extreme in removing the classic elements. The crosses do work, to an extent. Nor does its plot feature the vampires' pursuit of a cross (the Cross of Berseires), as it does in the flick.

Point is, the trope is nothing new. Neither is inverting it. It seems crosses are introduced into plots specifically so they can then be demonstrated as ineffectual by the vamps wearing, laughing at or crushing the things. Hell, even John Badham's Dracula (1979) features the Count yanking the cross out of someone's hand and setting it alight in his, so even that's a cliche. Therefore, the 'edginess' has been sucked right out of it.

Enough rambling for now. If you still wanna catch the flick, it'll be released on - hey, whaddya know. It's premiering here, in Oz, August 18. Also, Hungary.

It'll be released in the US, Canda and Poland the following day. For release dates in other countries, follow the link.

Just When I Thought It Couldn't Get Any Worse...

The Fright Night remake is scheduled for an August 14 release date in the US. There's no escaping it. It's happening. Let's say my apprehensions about this film have only been heightened by one of its posters.

Arguably the most endearing character of the original 1985 movie, was Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) a washed-up horror actor, best known for playing vampire hunters. His character was a tribute to the horror flicks of the 1960s and '70s; his name an amalgamation of Peter Cushing (1913-1994) and Vincent Price (1911-1993).

He represents horror cinema's old guard, reduced to hosting a late night horror show. Even that remnant from the past's tenuous, after he's fired from his own show: "Apparently your generation doesn't want to see vampire killers anymore, nor vampires either. All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins." Later, the role he played in movies so often, is transferred to real life.


As revealed in a previous entry, David Tennant will be playing Peter Vincent in the remake. However, in this "reimagining", the horror host angle's been ditched and so has the connection old school horror flicks. It's been replaced with this:


Yeah, that's right: a Criss Angel-like Las Vegas magician. That's not just a visual summation, it's the actual character description. Ugh. Dunno why they've made him look like Jared Leto, though. Anyhoo, just to scrub that image from your mind, here's an awesome poster for the 1985 original:

They're Remaking Buffy

I'll start this off by saying that I'm not exactly a huge fan of the TV series or the original movie. But I am sick and tired of the glut of so-called "reboots", so this news really takes the cake.

How soon should one wait before remaking a "dead" property? Twenty years? Ten? Well, the critically-acclaimed TV series wrapped up in 2003, but if you wanna talk canon, it's still going (in comic book form).

"Oh, cool," you might've thought. "They're gonna do a movie version of the TV series!" Bzzt. Wrong. Not only won't it feature Sarah Michelle Gellar or anyone else from the Scooby Gang, but the franchise's creator, Joss Whedon, has no involvement in the project. Here's what he had to say:

I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER. I don't love the idea of my creation in other hands, but I'm also well aware that many more hands than mine went into making that show what it was. And there is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly. I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill. I can, however, take this time to announce that I'm making a Batman movie. Because there's a franchise that truly needs updating. So look for The Dark Knight Rises Way Earlier Than That Other One And Also More Cheaply And In Toronto, rebooting into a theater near you.

No legal grounds indeed. You see, Whedon doesn't own the rights to his own Buffyverse. They're in the hands of Fran Rubel Kuzui (the original movie's director) and her husband, Kaz Kuzui. Which is wonderful when you learn of Whedon's plight during the first movie's creative direction: "The original script Whedon wrote was completely rewritten to make the film more 'light.' Whedon reportedly stormed off the set during production and never returned because of how what he had planned was being put together". To add insult to injury, one of Whedon's proposed Buffy spin-offs was also nixed.


Ok, so who's writing the script for this one? Heard of Whit Anderson? I IMDBed the name, to check their "credentials". What experience does she have to tackle a franchise like Buffy? Anything of note?

For starters, she hasn't written a film before. At least, one that's been released. However, she did star as Liz Meyers in Through Walls (2004), Jill in Saw Rebirth (2005), "Yes Patron" in Yes Man (2008) and...that's it. Now, contrast her résumé with Whedon's. Notice the difference?

However, it'd be remiss of me not to mention another one of her glorious contributions to cinema. Did you know the remake was her idea?

Apparently a huge Buffy fan who pitched Roven the idea, and the deal was made: Warner Bros. Pictures optioned the rights from directors Fran and Kaz Kuzui, and from Sandollar Productions (Sandy Gallin and Dolly Parton), who did the original movie version (pre-TV's Buffy).

Way to go, Whit.

Amy Announced!

The main cast of Fright Night remake (groan) was announced a little while ago. But, there was a glaring omission: who the hell's gonna be playing Amy?

Not like it's a minor role. She's Charley's girlfriend and the one they gotta save from the vampire. I mean, they went to the lengths of casing Charley's mum, fer cryin' out loud, but no Amy? Come on!

Anyway, thanks to Everlost of Vampire News, I now know. The role of Amy Peterson will be played by (drumrolls) Imogen Poots.


Heh heh. Poots. Yeah, I spose I can see the resemblance between her and the Amanda Bearse version.


So, is there anything noteworthy on Miss Poots' résumé? Hmm? Well, she played "Young Valerie" in V for Vendetta (2005) and Tammy in 28 Weeks Later (2007). What else? Lorelei Lathrop in Me and Orson Welles (2008). Meh.

Come to think of it, where's Billy Cole? You know, Jerry's housemate in the original. The one played by Jonathan Stark. There've been some suggestions over who should play him. But if you believe what's written in the comments section here, looks like there won't be a Billy Cole character. Dispensing with him apparently makes Jerry more "efficient". I wonder if it's also to sheer off the gay subtext of the original? Maybe I'm not so far off the mark there. Here's what Marti Noxon, the remake's screenwriter, had to say on the subject:

It's interesting… I think they actually decided to stay away from it. Because times have changed so much. If we had gone there, I think it would have felt too precious and a little coy. There's already so much gay subtext in vampire stuff. [Laughs] We've covered that in Anne Rice, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise. We've done that. So I think we just kind of moved away from that.

Putting the Fright in Fright Night Remake

Just when I was (slightly) warming to the idea of the upcoming Fright Night remake, it goes ahead and makes itself seem even more pointless and stupid than that it already was.

Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) in Fright Night (1985).

Ryan Turek reveals that the aging, vampire hunting horror host, originally played by Roddy McDowall, will be recast as a "Las Vegas magician". And it gets worse. Here's the transformation the Peter Vincent character has undergone for the sake of the remake:

"wiry, hot - a rock 'n roll bad boy" (as the script describes him as) with a hit gothic stage show at the Hard Rock, well, whether you groove to it or not, works for today's crowd who can quickly identify the likes of Criss Angel.

Ugh. Anyway, who've they got to play this "bad boy"? Russell Brand, maybe? Nope. Try Dr. freakin' Who:

That's right. According to this and this, David Tennant will be playing the Peter Vincent role. Let's take a look at the rest of the re-casting, shall we?

We'll start with the most obvious, that is, the vampire-next-door himself, Jerry Dandrige. He was originally played with suitable malignancy and pathos by Chris Sarandon.

So who've they got to replace him? Well, remember Colin Farrell? Yeah, the dodgy facial hair bloke from Phone Booth, Daredevil and the Miami Vice remake. Yep, him.


Ok, how about Charley Brewster? Y'know, the main character. The one originally played by William Ragsdale.

Try Anton Yelchin on for size!


Who? Yeah, that was my reaction too. Well, he was in Terminator: Salvation and that recent Star Trek flick. Remember him? I don't. Still, I guess he looks geeky enough.

And speaking of which, how about "Evil" Ed Thompson, Charley's best mate?


Stephen Geoffreys' stand-out role was leading into horror typecasting. That is, until he "became" Sam Ritter and pursued a slightly, uh, different niche.

Who could they possibly have gotten to fill his shoes? Why, none-other than McLovin himself, Christopher Mintz-Plasse!

Oh, and Judy Brewster (Dorothy Fielding) is gonna be played by Toni "United States of Tara" Collette. Of course, we Aussies still remember her from Muriel's Wedding. I'll be surprised if her role's gonna be greatly expanded from the practically miniscule part featured in the first place, but we'll see, eh?

Strangely, there's been no mention of casting for Charley's love interest, Amy. But hey, at least they got Judy covered! And that's what matters, right?

Anyway, after sifting through this tripe, I suggest moseying on down to Tim Sullivan's incisive interview (try and overlook the crappy formatting) with Tom Holland, the director/writer of the original and pretend the remake doesn't exist.

De-Romanticising the Vampire

Well, it looks like my jubilation over the Fright Night remake being canned, was a tad redundant.

As recent news from Collider.com reveals, it looks like it's going full steam ahead. Even if they're only at first draft screenplay level.

However, there's an undercurrent to the article which conveys a backlash against the "romantic vampire" genre. It's even seeped into the current premise of the movie. Producer Mike De Luca elaborates:

You know, what about this idea is relevant to today and what could be done better than it was…maybe not better but different and different in a way that makes it exciting. And with Fright Night, again, going back to the vampire thing, with all the romantic vampire stuff going on with The Vampire Diaries and True Blood and Twilight, the most obvious. We thought it would be interesting if, in this atmosphere of the way the vampire is being portrayed right now as a romantic object, under the wire of all that in the culture the real thing moves in next door. And the real thing is a killer. Just a predator. It’s the shark from Jaws. On the outside it’s a seductive package and it looks like a human being, but it’s just about ripping your throat out and drinking your blood.

There's echoes of this attitude in Blade: Trinity (2004). Think the scene where "Drake" (Dominic Purcell) walks into the goth shop.

The basis of the idea, of course, is to regress the vampire back to its "monster" status. The creature of evil we grew to know and love through Stoker's Dracula (1897) and various other incarnations.

This nostalgia is typified by John Nettles' "Where Have All the (Real) Vampires Gone? (Or, "Bite Me, Lestat!")".

However, there's two factors that these monster buff miss out on: 1) the vampire of history (folklore) wasn't nearly as brutal as they'd like to think 2) even the monsters in fiction are sometimes shown to have a heart.

For a quick example, let's look at Count Dracula.

In the novel, he is depicted as a cunning, cruel being, looking to spread vampirism through the civilised world. Yet, he clearly has a soft side. Let's take this scene, in which the Count rescues Jonathan Harker from the attentions of his "brides":

"How dare you touch him, any of you? How dare you cast eyes on him when I had forbidden it? Back, I tell you all! This man belongs to me! Beware how you meddle with him, or you'll have to deal with me."

The fair girl, with a laugh of ribald coquetry, turned to answer him. "You yourself never loved. You never love!" On this the other women joined, and such a mirthless, hard, soulless laughter rang through the room that it almost made me faint to hear. It seemed like the pleasure of fiends.

Then the Count turned, after looking at my face attentively, and said in a soft whisper, "Yes, I too can love. You yourselves can tell it from the past. Is it not so? Well, now I promise you that when I am done with him you shall kiss him at your will. Now go! Go! I must awaken him, for there is work to be done."

This "emo" side of Dracula is also alluded to in Bela Lugosi's turn as the Count, when he says, "To die, to be really dead, that would be glorious."

When "monsters" are humanised in this manner, especially by giving them a "tragic" elelment, the natural outcome is to explore the emotional dimensions of their situation. What's the mindset of a being that lives for centuries and must subsist on blood for its own survival?

This, of course, lead to the diversion of vampire-as-monster into vampire-as-hero/protagonist. Thus, Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape (1975) sought to tell the story from Dracula's point-of-view. Its subsequent sequels, in turn, recast the Count as a hero.

More famously, Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire (1976) was narrated by Louis de Pointe du Lac, a former resident of 18th century New Orleans, who describes the trials and tribulations he faces as a vampire. Probably the most successful vampire novel of the twentieth century, it was further expanded in Rice's elaborate "Vampire Chronicles".

Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Hotel Transylvania (1978) transformed a mysterious historical figure into a vampiric Romantic hero and also spawned another successful series.

These approaches made the vampire much more "accessible" to the public. He was no longer an aristocrat living alone in a dank castle up in the mountains, but a fully developed "personality", one that could be found in an urban environment.

This also meant that the vampire became more of an accessible "fantasy" figure, too.

And so, from this genesis, the vampire romance genre was born. Its most successful incarnation is, of course, Stephenie Meyer's Twilight franchise.

Of course, this means that fans of the vampire genre, who either grew up with - or prefer - the "monster" variants, were stranded in an overcrowded market.

This in turn lead to a new wave of vampire depiction, in which the vampire's monstrosity is re-introduced, if not enhanced. The vampire hunter also resurfaces as a major character. Think F. Paul Wilson's "Midnight Mass" (1990; 2004), John Steakley's Vampire$ (1991) and David Wellington's "Vampire Series" (2006- ).

Then, there are versions that walk the line, like Laurell K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter" series (1993- ) and Joss Whedon's TV rendition of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003).

The tug and pull between romanticisation and de-romanticisation will always be present in the vampire genre. There will always be debates and preferences over what vampires are "meant" to be like.

After all, one of the greatest attributes of the vampire in fiction and film, is its adaptability; the same characteristic that's ensured its success and survival in the present age.

Make Them Stop!

Man, am I sick and tired of remakes.

The sheer amount they seem to be producing these days, is quite frankly disgusting.

I know I've written about it before, but it really gets my goat to read about them being churned out at the rate they are. Can't they let sleeping dogs lie? Is the modern movie-going audience seriously that fickle, that they can't bear to watch a movie older than, say, 20 years old?

Check out Upcoming Horror Films' list of remakes in progress. See how many of your favourites you can spot, dug up from their "graves", dusted off and regurgitated by Hollywood hacks.

To keep in tune with this blog's subject matter, here's a brief sample of vampire movies currently undergoing the remake treatment:

• Isle of the Dead (1945)
  
• The Monster Squad (1987)
  
• Near Dark (1987)
• Låt den rätte komma in [Let the Right One In] (2008)
  

I don't have a nostalgic view of cinematic history. Remakes are nothing new. I'm well aware of that. But, seriously, I feel like we're being bombarded with them at every turn.

I'd love to know if anyone has actually studied their output against those of previous generations. Surely we're making history here - of a more artistically-dubious kind.

Remake Canned?

I was quite glad to read coverage concerning the proposed Fright Night (1985) remake been given the flick over at Brian Solomon's The Vault of Horror.

What a relief.

I previously had a brief discussion (see comments) on the proposed remake at Taliesin Meets the Vampires. Not only do I treasure the original movie (its sequel was very influential to my interest in vampires) I'm sick and tired of remakes, in general.

That's not to say I don't enjoy them here and there. Off the top of my head, I'd include The Thing (1982), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), Dawn of the Dead (2004) and Halloween (2007) as examples which were carried off quite nicely.

But, seriously, what's the point? Solomon provides an interesting overview of the subject in "Horror Remakes: Then vs Now".

I used to joke about the inevitability of a Gone with the Wind (1939) remake...but at the rate remakes are being churned out these days, it might be a bit more feasible than I first thought.