 |
Near Dark by Kathryn Bigelow
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
DVD detailsActor: Adrian Pasdar, Bill Paxton, Jenette Goldstein, Jenny Wright, Lance Henriksen Director: Kathryn Bigelow Writer: Kathryn Bigelow Producer: Charles R. Meeker Producer: Diane Nabatoff Producer: Edward S. Feldman Producer: Eric Red Writer: Eric Red Producer: Mark Allan DVD: Region Code 1 Audio: English (Unknown), Dolby Digital 5.1; English (Original Language), Dolby Digital 5.1 Format: Anamorphic, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, DVD, NTSC, Special Edition, Widescreen Picture Format: 1.85:1 Running Time: 94 minutes DVD Release Date: 2002-09-10 Audience Rating: R (Restricted) Studio: Starz / Anchor Bay
DVD Reviews of Near DarkDVD Review: 1.85 STARS: Radical deviation from traditional vampire lore. Summary: 1 Stars
I love Bill Paxton as I think he is a terrific actor with a dynamic personality, capable of making a good movie that much better by his very personality. If you've see "Aliens" or "Weird Science", you know exactly what I mean.
When I purchased "Near Dark", I was expecting that kind of performance from Paxton and I got it too...he was terrific as always...so was Henrikson as well. However, the movie simply wasn't that good and from a horror movie fan's perspective, this movie was completely ineffective. "Near Dark" is about a group of rogue vampires on the run from the sun and killing as they go from place to place. One of the vampires named May meets this young fellow named Caleb and an absurd love story begins, but May ends up biting Caleb and he becomes a vampire of sorts, if you can call it that. Caleb joins the gang of ruthless killers, but he refuses to feed except when feeding on May's wrist. The vampires in this movie are capable of emotional traits like human beings and if you know anything about vampires, you know this is ridiculous of course. Well, ultimately, Caleb's family starts looking for him and they catch up with the vampire gang...Jesse wants to kill this family, but Caleb vehemently opposes and escapes with his family, but the vampire gang come calling for him. Can Caleb save his family and transform back to a human being and what of his love for May? Well, that is the stupid plot, but the movie is mildly entertaining however.
Hell, if vampires were really capable of love and affection as this movie suggest, I suppose many men would want to be a vampire especially if they get to be with a girl as attractive as May is...sounds like a good deal to me! However, for those of us who know and realize what vampires really are, legend tells us of a very different, horrifying and brutally horrible existence...this element is not presented to the audience in "Near Dark" and this is a fatal flaw in this movie's effectiveness as a horror or interesting vampire movie.
Okay, there were some good death scenes in this movie for sure, but the movie's lack of basis and foundation along with the failure to observe any traditional vampire lore renders the movie completely ineffective as horror movie or as a vampire movie in general, horror aside. Simply put, this movie is NOT scary, nor does it even remotely attempt to be.
What you have in "Near Dark" is a movie which tries to put vampires in a totally different light. If you watch the movie, you see a group of vampires who use knives, guns and other methods to kill their prey rather than the traditional "vampire bite". Yeah, there is one unconvincing and completely unrealistic scene where May bites Caleb, but it was so lame. Also, the idea of "blood tranfusions" to transform a vampire back into a human being may have some basis in vampire lore, but it is a weak interpretation at best and makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever!
Another aspect of this movie that I do not like is how the nature and essence of vampires are presented...in this movie, vampires are capable of emotions such as love, etc. and this just does not translate into a good vampire or horror movie and more than that, it is completely stupid and without basis in any recognized vampire legend. If you forget/ignore the basic premises of which vampires are based then you are going to make a movie which is unconvincing, lacking in credibility and simply not capable of inspiring fear, horror or scares in the audience.
Vampires are monsters...vampires are evil demons derivative from the very "spawn of Satan" and any romantic or emotional gestures from vampires are specifically designed to allow the vampire an avenue of which to approach its prey or place its prey in a vulnerable position...a vampire must have blood to survive and in order to do that, vampires must kill and be brutal about doing so, but even more importantly, vampires are not anything which remotely resembles people, so human emotions go out the window completely and with the vampire's fundamental nature being that of an evil and supernatural spirit originating from the depths of Hell, any story or movie which attempts to assign emotions or human feelings to such an evil beast come off looking absolutely ridiculous...such is the case with movies like "Near Dark" and "Interview with the Vampire".
I mean "Lestat" from "Interview with a Vampire" and "Jesse" from "Near Dark" would scare me about as much as "Count Chocula" would to be quite frank with you. Because of this fact, like "Interview with the Vampire", "Near Dark" fails miserably in its attempt as a horror movie, albeit, it certainly is not as stupid and pathetic as Anne Rice's novel or the horrendous movie starring Tom Cruise. Ladies and gentleman, it just depends on what you want with your movies...I don't even think that "Near Dark" tries to be scary.
Ultimately, "Near Dark" is just a radical interpretation and examination of vampire culture from a totally different and baseless perspective...it's one of those "wild movies" which seeks out a cult following and is more of an adventure style movie. There is nothing scary or horrifying about "Near Dark". The movie is entertaining enough from a different perspective rather than strictly viewed from the horror movie genre.
As I said, in all fairness, there are some pretty decent and creative death scenes in "Near Dark", the plot is simple enough and somewhat entertaining and I liked Bill Paxton's performance as well...so, I generously give "Near Dark" just a shade under TWO STARS, but in all honesty, as a horror movie "Near Dark" is TERRIBLE...just being honest folks. As an interesting vampire interpretation, this movie is pretty stupid as well, certainly not as good as "Dracula 1979", "Salem's Lot", "Fright Night" or even "The Lost Boys." Rent "Near Dark" if are looking for a radical deviation from traditional vampire lore or if you are just looking for a rock n' roll good time like John Carpenter's pathetic movie called "Vampires", but if you are looking for a scary or horrifying vampire flick out of "Near Dark", forget it.
More Near Dark reviews: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
 |