Last Blog On The Left

If I were to guess what kind of a movie this was, judging by its title, I´d go for a really, really crappy comedy starring the Wayans brothers. That´s about as far from the real thing as you can get because man, this is one harsh fucker of a film. If you think you´re in for a plain old “ghetto” movie, you are sorely mistaken. To be frank, this is one of the more brutal but also tender and beautiful films I´ve seen in a long time and it´s all thanks to the brilliance of writer-director Buddy Giovinazzo. He populates his film with characters that if you were to see them in any other movie, they would be the bad guys, the freaks, the ones that the audience are supposed to hate. But Giovinazzo doesn´t roll like that. Instead, that´s the characters that he zooms in on and they´re the ones we get to follow in their daily lives.

I don´t know about you but I live a pretty straight-laced life: I´ve got a job, an education, a girlfriend and an apartment. Like most of us, in this privileged part of the world. And like most of us, I reckon that I have some dreams and hopes for the future. We all do. Even the dope fiends you see sitting at the bus stops every now and then have that. But that´s something that you don´t think about too often but this is exactly what Giovinazzo has done with this movie: he´s asked himself “What are the dreams and hopes of these outcasts? What do the prostitutes´ lives look like when they leave their corner at the end of the day/night?”

Givonazzo builds his movie around a fairly large cast of characters. It sort of plays out like “Short Cuts” with crack-addicts. We get to follow Marybeth (Kerry Washington) who´s a pre-op transsexual working as a prostitute and living with her lover, Benny (Desmond Harrington), a small time burglar. Manny (Victor Rasuk) works two jobs: the late shift in an all night bodega surrounded by young junkies, drug dealers and prostitutes, and as a security guard in a Welfare hotel. At home his wife, Concetta (Shannyn Sossamon), takes care of their sick infant son. Willy, ten years old, lives in the Welfare hotel with his sister, mother (Illeana Douglas) and her violent boyfriend.  Romeo (Evan Ross), an up-and-coming street thug, roams the streets with his gang. Upset over the murder of his younger brother, and feeling partially responsible for not being there during the shooting, he terrorizes anyone who comes in his path.

As you might´ve noticed, this isn´t the feel-good movie of the year, ok? The fact that the opening scene shows us a girl being raped and then urinated on oughtta give you an idea that you´re in for a harsh ride. This is Buddy Giovinazzo serving up a main course of misery, mixed up with brutality, with a side order of tragedy, drug abuse and broken dreams. Those of you out there who remember his debut film, “Combat Shock” shouldn´t be too surprised. What sets this film apart from other “drug”-movies, such as the not-as-satisfying “Spun” is the fact that Giovinazzo hasn´t made this movie to titillate anybody and show them that “this is what life is all about in Cracktown. It can be pretty cool, so come on down”. Unlike many other films in this genre, this isn´t emotional pornography or misery for misery´s sake! Giovinazzo has a mission and that is to show us that even these outcasts of our society have dreams, hopes and that they pretty much want the same thing as we do: love, loyalty and friendship.

Christ, that was deep, huh? Did you get your handkerchief out there?

But that´s what I love about this film: that it shows us what these characters go through when they´re at home, after they´ve spent a day on the street turning tricks. And it´s not that different from our lives, except for pouring a glass of wine, they smoke some crack cocaine. Other than the choice of which drug we choose, it´s basically the same. And this realization is pretty moving at times.

Now, this wouldn´t be very moving at all, if Giovinazzo hadn´t managed to get some pretty great actors for this film. Illeana Douglas is great as the drug addicted mother, who wants to get her kids out of Cracktown but keeps drifting back into her addiction. Evan Ross is absolutely frightening as Romeo but the special gong for great acting has to go to Kerry Washington and Desmond Harrington as the couple, where she´s a pre-op transsexual. This is one of the more touching love stories I´ve seen in quite some time. Harrington does a great portrayal of a guy, who´s not necessarily gay but in love with this man who´s in the process of becoming a woman. The fact that Washington´s character is much more sophisticated and well versed in the ways of the world and very much aware of this, lends another layer of tragedy to the story. But Harrington really does a fantastic job at conveying how much he loves this person and the scene where he declares his love for her is pretty goddamn moving. There´s some fine, fine acting going on here.

I mean, their story alone would´ve made for a great movie but Giovinazzo throws it in there with three other equally as compelling story lines. There´s more going on, character-wise, in fifteen minutes of this film than in that entire fucker Michael Bay´s career. The fact that this movie feels frighteningly realistic only adds to its greatness. It´s obvious that Giovinazzo know these characters and loves them, as well. In any other movie, these characters would be nothing else than some sort of freakish-looking supporting character, but Giovinazzo puts them smack dab in the middle of things and treats them with the sort of dignity and compassion I haven´t seen before. And thanks to the great performances, the fact that most of these characters do pretty horrific things, you never once think of them as “bad guys”. That´s some pretty good writing for ya, I´d say, and this makes Giovinazzo the natural heir to Hubert Selby, JR:s legacy. Like Selby, he writes about tragic fates without it ever getting too sentimental or pitying them. This is kind of like “Last Exit to Brooklyn” for our century.

You know, ever since “Short Cuts” this type of movies with multiple storylines have been pretty popular and a sure-fire way to woo the critics. Robert Altman was the one who pioneered this genre with his masterpiece “Nashville” back in the 70´s and re-vitalized it with “Short Cuts” twenty years later. But since then there hasn´t been that many contributions to the genre that´s worth mentioning, except Paul Thomas Anderson´s masterpiece “Magnolia”. The thing I´m getting at is that I thought that this genre was as good as dead, especially since that awful “Crash” made its way into the Academy Awards with its heavy handed preaching of “We´re all connected” and “Racism is everywhere but we´re all humans”. That was it, I thought. Now, everything we´re gonna see are bad “Crash” rip off´s and I don´t wanna subject myself to that because the original was pretty damn crappy to begin with. That´s why this movie is such a breath of fresh air, it´s a goddamn speed injection into this genre´s arm, with its grittiness and realism. You see, Buddy Giovinazzo has the same message of humanism and empathy that that hack Paul Haggis hammered home with his “Crash”, only he does it in such an infinitely more interesting way. Eat that, Paul Haggis! This is the way you do it… and don´t you forget it. Giovinazzo proves with this movie that he is today´s #1 chronicler of modern society´s outcasts and their broken dreams and hopes. We need more filmmakers like that… And less like Paul Haggis.

Watch it. It´s a good one.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I´ve been a huge Joan Jett fan since I was a little kid and heard ”I Love Rock´n´Roll” for the first time. There´s just something about her that is very hard to define. She´s got that raspy voice and managed to fuse her punk sensibilities with her love for 50´s music in a perfect mix. So, when you´re kid growing up and listening to Joan Jett, inevitably that´ll lead you to The Runaways, the band she started out in. I´ll admit that I didn´t like them as much as I did her solo stuff back then, because they weren´t quite punk rock enough for me. But I will admit that I was very, very fascinated by them. In a way, they were almost too good to be true. I still say that when it comes to all-female rock bands, there´s no beating The Runaways. Man, it was like someone had picked them from an adult comic strip and brought them to life on a stage. You had Cherie Currie, Joan Jett and Lita Ford, all in the same band! Do you remember that song “School Days”? I always thought that if Josie & The Pussycats (you know that all-girl band from the Archie comics?) existed in real life, had a drug habit and oozed sexuality, this was what they would sound like.

But you know, no matter how fascinating I found The Runaways to be, I never ever thought that someday I would be sitting down to watch a movie about them! A movie starring that girl from the “Twilight” movies as Joan Jett, no less! And that little kid from “Man on Fire” (and the “Twilight” movies, as well) as Cherie Currie! If you would´ve told me that a couple of years back I probably would´ve said “Sure, in an alternate universe” and then I would´ve waited for the dwarves to appear and sing me a song on streets made of candy. But here it is: “The Runaways”, starring Kristen Stewart as Joan Jett, Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie and Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode from Rob Zombie´s “Halloween”) as Lita Ford. And you know what? It´s pretty goddamn entertaining!

So this is basically the rise and fall of The Runaways and it´s based on Cherie Currie´s book “Neon Angel”, so what we get here is Currie´s and Jett´s version of what happened. The other members of the band are featured as fleeting presences, at best. Supposedly, there´s a documentary out there called “Edgeplay” that lets the other members have their say but I haven´t seen that one. And to be honest, isn´t it Jett and Currie´s version of how it all went down that we´re interested in? I know I am, at least.

If you´re not familiar with the story about how The Runaways came to be, the band was masterminded by Kim Fowler (played by an amazing Michael Shannon in the movie) who brought the girls together and drilled them in how they were suppose to act, sing, behave on stage and pose. He was the one who found a fifteen year old Cheri Currie in a nightclub and introduced her to Joan Jett and the other girls. “Jail bait rock” he calls the music in the movie and I guess he´s right. You know, while watching this movie I thought it was actually pretty disturbing how young the girls were when they started in the band, considering how sexual Cherie Currie was portrayed in every picture that was taken. Naturally, I didn´t reflect over this when I myself was still in high school but it´s pretty icky today, when I am in my early 30´s.

But anyway, what makes this movie so much fun is the fact that it is surprisingly well acted by everyone involved. Dakota Fanning does a great job of capturing that sex kitten quality that Cherie Currie had and Michael Shannon is, as always, pretty fantastic as Kim Fowler. It´s definitely the most show off-y role of the film but where this part could´ve easily turned into a loud mouthed caricature in the hands of a lesser actor, Shannon manages to keep it on the right side of believable.

But writer-director Floria Sigismondi has an ace up her sleeve and that ace is Kristen Stewart. I think it´s time that I finally face up to the fact that this gal can really act! I know that in the “Twilight” movies she doesn´t do much besides looking sad and pale, while delivering her lines in a twitchy manner, but it´s a whole different deal here. She´s got that Joan Jett swagger down to a tee and if you´ve ever seen any of the old live footage of The Runaways, you can also see that she´s perfected that sloppy way of playing and holding the guitar that Joan Jett had. I´m telling you, it´s pretty goddamn impressive! I read somewhere that Joan Jett was an executive producer or something on the movie and that she stayed on set all throughout filming so that Stewart could hang out with her and observe her. Well, that sure paid off. Man, wouldn´t that be a cool job? To hang out with Joan Jett all day long…

I guess that one could argue with how much of this movie is actually true. Like when Kim Fowley puts the girls through “heckler boot camp” and brings a bunch of kids to their rehearsal space to throw empty cans at them while playing so that they can get used to that when they start playing the clubs. I´m not so sure that Fowley and Jett wrote their biggest hit, “Cherry bomb”, on the spot just so that Cherie could have something to sing for her audition but honestly, it sure makes for a more entertaining movie so I´m all for it. Why let the truth get in the way for a great tale, huh?

But in all sincerity this is actually a pretty fascinating tale. It focuses on Cherie Currie and basically how a young girl like her loses her innocence and Dakota Fanning does a hell of a job of portraying that. The movie opens with her getting her first period and by the end we´ve seen her trying to buy a bottle of booze for breakfast, steal painkillers from her dad and have girl-on-girl sex with Joan Jett, among other things.

When it comes to movies about music, I guess that my favorites is still “Almost Famous” and “High Fidelity” but that´s just because those movies are told from the perspective of a fan, rather than from that of a rock star as “The Runaways” is. That´s why I think it´s easier to identify with those films and why they hold a deeper emotional resonance with me. The one objection I have with “Almost Famous” is that it does get a bit too sappy at times. “The Runaways” doesn´t have this problem. Floria Sigismondi keeps the tone very well balanced, without getting preachy or sentimental.

It´s about time that The Runaways get recognized for what they were: a great band that managed to write great songs, be insanely cool and pave the way for other women in rock. Without The Runaways, no The Go Go´s and no The Donnas, so thanks for that…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Well, ”better late than never”, right? Isn´t that what they say? Tell that to the IRS and see if they buy that argument. But I´ve finally gotten around to watching Rob Zombie´s follow up to his remake/reboot/restarting of the “Halloween” franchise. I really liked the first one. I thought it was about as good as any “Halloween” movie will ever be, after John Carpenter´s original. I appreciated the fact that Zombie peppered the movie with his white thrash aesthetics and his obscene dialogue. Also, I didn´t think that it felt like a “remake” but a genuine “re-start”. Zombie wasn´t trying to create his version of John Carpenter´s “Halloween” and that´s what made it work. He simply made his version, like he would with any movie. But then a sequel were being made, pretty quickly after the first one was released and I´ve been putting off watching it until now. I can´t tell you why I´ve done this. I love Zombie´s movies but I guess I just had a bad feeling about this one. And in some ways they turned to be right, unfortunately…

This sequel basically picks up right where the first one ended and then we´re treated to one of those “One year later” cards. So now we get to see Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton) as she is today: punked out with something that resembles dreadlocks and black torn clothes. Basically, your average teenage clothes, if it weren´t for the fact that she has giant scars everywhere. It´s pretty much the same with Annie (Danielle Harris). The two of them are living together with Annie´s dad, Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif). Laurie is trying to cope with the aftermath of the previous Halloween massacre by visiting a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) and pumping herself full of various prescription drugs.

Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a book chronicling the murders and Michael´s insanity and is doing a publicity tour, promoting it. Even his publicists thinks that the book is in particularly bad taste but that doesn´t stop Loomis from making a stop in Haddonfield for a photo shoot at Michael´s old house. Meanwhile, Michael Myers is making his way over the plains towards Haddonfield. He is guided by the specters of his younger self and his dead mother (Sheri Moon Zombie)…

I think that Zombie´s concept of actually watching how his characters deals with the aftermath of being part of a massacre like the girls were in the first movie, is a great one! But it doesn´t quite work… If it´s due to his lead actress, I´m not sure. Because the main problem with this movie is that in this movie, Laurie Strode is just an unsympathetic, crying, whining teenage girl. It doesn´t matter that she´s been to hell and back, it´s extremely hard to care for her in this incarnation. I had trouble caring about her in the first one because I thought that Scout-Compton was too bland an actress, which left me wishing that Zombie would´ve given the role of Laurie to Danielle Harris instead. The pattern repeats itself here, because if Scout-Compton was too bland in the first one, in this one she is downright annoying and flat out unsympathetic. I´m not sure that that was what Zombie was going for.

Which once again leaves me pining for Danielle Harris and wondering what she would´ve been able to make with the Laurie character? Unfortunately, in this one she´s sort of pushed aside and doesn´t get much to do. And that is what is wrong with this picture: she and Brad Dourif´s character are the only ones who come close to resembling anything sympathetic. Everyone else is a racist redneck, an opportunistic asshole or just stupid.

The other major mistake Zombie makes here is that he turns Dr. Loomis into this fame-hungry pop psychologist, which leaves the door open for Malcolm McDowell to start overacting like a madman. I had a real problem with this. Dr. Loomis is supposed to be the voice of reason, albeit a paranoid, insane voice of reason but still. He is not supposed to be someone who wants to take advantage of what Laurie and the others have been through but that´s unfortunately what happens here. I guess when you got McDowell playing a part it´s easy to take this route because there is something deeply unsympathetic about the guy but I could never ever see Donald Pleasence´s character behave this way.

I think it´s admirable that Zombie plays it straight here and that he actually treats death as something horrifying and scarring, because not many horror movies do that. It´s not like we get to see how the characters in the “Saw” movies cope with their day-to-day life after being trapped in one of Jigsaw´s sew-your-ass-to-your-mouth-traps, right? So kudos for that, Zombie! But this is the first time that a movie directed by Rob Zombie actually feels like it´s directed by someone who wants to be Rob Zombie.

It feels like maybe he wasn´t as inspired this time around so he just figured “I´ll throw a bunch of characters in there who says some pretty nasty thing, have them played by old B-movie veterans who no one except the most hardcore fans will recognize, and have them killed off, while I film it all on a murky film stock”…

I mean, it´s worked the other times he´s directed so why wouldn´t it now? I´m not sure but it doesn´t. I´m not saying that the movie is a failure because as far as sequels go, it´s actually pretty good, but I guess that I was just expecting more. The last time Zombie did a sequel it was with one of the best movies of this decade, “The Devil´s Rejects” but with that one he managed to create something totally new and separate from the original. With this one he sort of rehashes his usual schtick, which is a crying shame.

I gotta say that I´m not too fond of the look of this film, either. In his previous films, Zombie has managed to create sort of a timeless quality but while shooting it pretty slick. This one is much murkier, grainier and it´s kind of hard to actually see what´s going on in some scenes. I guess that the reason for this is because this is a much more ambiguous film than the first one. The whole concept of Michael interacting with the specters of his younger self and his dead mother is an interesting one but unfortunately, Zombie fails somewhat in the execution of it.

I can understand why he wants his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, to be in all his movies and it hasn´t really bothered me in any of the previous films but in this one it felt really forced. And as much as I like her presence (I thought she did a surprisingly good job in the first “Halloween”), I´m afraid that she isn´t up to the task of playing what is essentially a ghost. Her scenes feel contrived and forced, although they possess a very haunting quality, graphically speaking. Her scenes could´ve easily have been ditched.

Also, I gotta say that I´ve enjoyed Zombie´s dialogue that seem designed to shock you (remember William Forsythe´s rants about skullfucking in the first one?) and there´s less of that in this one. However, when it does appear it kinda feels out of place. I´m talking about (SPOILER!!!) the scene at the beginning with the two coroners who talks about getting it on with one of the corpses they´re transporting. I don´t know, it just felt like it was out of place and that Zombie included it so that he could get some shock value in there.

I´m a little bit worried about Zombie´s career as a director after watching this one. He started out with “House of 1000 Corpses” which was a pretty entertaining throwback to 70´s Grindhouse cinema but he really knocked it out of the park with “The Devil´s Rejects”. When it came to remaking “Halloween”, I think he did a much better job than most directors would but it feels like he has stagnated a bit with this sequel. He´s working with the same tools as before but the movie gets pretty repetitive, after a while. We´re constantly presented to new characters who say nasty things to each other, only for Michael Myers to come barging in and break their neck or stab the hell out of them. I suspect that maybe Zombie didn´t have a shitload of ideas for this sequel.

One thing that is pretty spectacular about the film is Brad Dourif´s performance as Sheriff Garrett. Most of us are used to seeing him as the psychotic, weird character but he really is fantastic here and the scene (SPOILER!!!) where he finds Annie, is pretty painful to watch. Dourif´s sorrow and pain in this sequence is example of acting on a level that you just wouldn´t see in the latest “Final Destination” flick or the new “Saw” sequel.

Man, I can´t believe how mixed feelings I have about this movie. I think the reason why I was feeling sort of disappointed with it is because maybe I´m comparing it too much with “The Devil´s Rejects”, which I´ve come to realize that even if Zombie keeps making movies for another thirty years, he´ll never top that one and the faster I realize that, the sooner I will be able to enjoy his other films more. I guess this is an ok movie, after all. Hell, if you compare it to most of the other “Halloween” sequels, it´s a goddamn masterpiece, no doubt about that! I still like the first one better but I have this gnawing sensation that this one will grow on me. However, I will keep cursing Zombie´s name for not giving the part of Laurie Strode to Danielle Harris…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s time to make a stand for everything that is good here in our rotten world again, friends. In this case all that happens to be good about our world is spelled John Landis and “Innocent Blood”. When this one was released back in 1992, it was pretty much universally lambasted for being a failure. Critics were disappointed, to say the least. I guess that I could understand them being that this was made by the director who made the werewolf classic “An American Werewolf in London” so when this guy was gonna tackle the vampire genre, everyone was getting a hard on just by the thought of it. Then everyone was all sad and blue when it was released because it didn´t live up to their expectations. Well, boo-fucking-hoo, I say! You see, I was around thirteen when this one was released and thought that it was fantastic. But the thing is that I hadn´t seen this movie since then, until I finally got around to ordering the German DVD (it´s the only one released in widescreen) and sat down to watch it the other night.

It´s always something of a gamble when you´re gonna re-visit one of these childhood favorites. Chances are that you´re gonna agree with everyone that kept calling you stupid as a kid because most of the times those movies you liked turn out to be pretty crappy, so you end up sitting there thinking “Christ, they were right! I must´ve been pretty stupid to like this movie, because this really blows!”

Well, in this case I had the exact opposite experience. This movie was actually better than I remember it being. And do you know why that is? Because John Landis is a genius and his take on vampirism is pretty goddamn funny, that´s why! And gory!

Marie (Anne Parillaud) is a vampire, making her rounds in a wintry Chicago. But she´s not your ordinary kind of vampire. She´s the kind that has a conscience, which means that she tries to limit her throat-sucking to the criminal denizens of her city. Everything´s hunky dory until two problems come up, she is interrupted while feeding on Sal “the shark” Macelli (Robert Loggia) and she begins to develop a relationship with Joe Gennaro (Anthony LaPaglia), the policeman who has been trying to put Sal away. Sal wakes up in the morgue very confused and very thirsty. He goes back to his old haunts and begins to create an organized crime family of vampires while Marie and her policeman lover decide to hunt him down.

Did I mention that Marie also has quite an appetite for sex? That´s right, just like all good vampires she doesn´t only crave blood. Do you hear that, “Twilight”? That´s why it´s such fun to re-visit this movie because it´s a hell of a lot more gorier than I remember it being and in the first five minutes we´ve also been treated to the wonderful sight of Anne Parillaud walking around her bedroom, in her birthday suit! We´re talking full frontal here and tell me, how can you not like a movie that opens this way?

This is one underrated film we´ve got here, friends. We all know the state of vampires these days with young girls fawning over R-Pattz or whatever the hell they call him today, which is why this movie makes me nostalgic for the vampires of yesteryear. Remember when vampires actually did some killing whenever they showed up in a movie? Hey, it sounds crazy, kids, but that´s what they did! In this one they don´t sparkle in the sunlight, oh no, sir! You see, this Marie gal can be pretty vicious when she sets her mind to it and that´s why her attacks are among the highlights of the film. They´re pretty brutal, especially by today´s standards.

And you know what else I love about John Landis´ movies? It´s because they seem designed to be one and one thing only: fun! And this one is no exception. To see Italian gangsters run around, taking big chomps out of each other´s necks is pretty hilarious. Kind of makes me wonder why the hell no one ever came up with the idea of vampire gangsters before this movie. Especially since Robert Loggia seems to be born to play this part. He really lets it rip as the mob boss. The scene where he wakes up at the morgue is particularly funny. He kind of does the same schtick here that he would later hone to perfection on David Lynch´s “Lost Highway”, when he played that gangster boss with a severe case of road rage.

And you know, since this is a John Landis movie we also get the obligatory slew of cameos from different directors and other faces familiar to horror fans. In this one we get Sam Raimi as guy who works at a meat packing plant, Dario Argento as a paramedic, Michael Ritchie as a night watchman, Linnea Quigley as a nurse, Frank Oz as a pathologist and Forrest J. Ackerman as a guy who gets his car stolen. That´s always fun with Landis´ movies: to spot the different cameos. I know, it´s nerdy, but I admit it: I wear my badge of nerdiness with pride.

But except for the cameos, it´s a pretty impressive cast: Chazz Palminteri plays Loggia´s right hand man, Don Rickles plays the mobster´s lawyer, David Proval is in there, as well as Tony Sirico who played Tony Walnuts on “The Sopranos”. It´s kind of fun to see these guys who usually show up in mob movies directed by Scorsese, send up their image in this way.

And you know, since this is a movie from 1992 we´re talking about here, do you know what the best thing about it is? No goddamn CGI! That´s right, folks! None whatsoever. I know that that sounds pretty unbelievable but that´s how they made films back then: just practical effects. This means that when the blood starts to flow, it really flows here. Landis isn´t holding back here. Imagine that they got away with this back then: a vampire comedy with an R rating? Fantastic.

It´s obvious that Landis himself is a fan boy, as well. He shows his dedication to the genre by almost always having some old horror movie showing in the background and constantly paying tribute to other films. That doesn´t mean that he´s afraid to mix it up a bit when it comes to the vampire conventions, though. The vampires in this one doesn´t need a wooden stake through the heart in order to die. Landis shows a couple of times that regular bullets will suffice more than well. They also have a reflection whenever they look in the mirror. Garlic, however, is still a problem for them. We´re also shown in one of the best scenes of the movie that sunlight still pack a punch.

I kinda appreciate this approach to making a vampire movie. I think it makes it more fun if you deviate somewhat from the standard rules and conventions. But like I said, that does not mean that you should turn the vampires in the sobbing emo kids who sparkle when they´re exposed to sunlight, ok?

So let´s just ignore the fact that Anne Parillaud may not be the best actress in the world, ok? At least not when she´s forced to speak her lines in English, which isn´t her native tongue, then she sounds a bit stilted. She was fantastic in “Nikita” but she isn´t the most charismatic vampire in this one but I´ll take her over Bella any day. But let´s ignore that and concentrate on the fact that this may be one of the last truly entertaining vampire films ever produced. So thanks for that, John Landis!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas