Twilight is that undeniable force to be reckoned with. Whether you hate it or love it, Twilight sends waves of passionate responses. Many a film critic (and ordinary non-insane teenager) are quick to lambast the movie series. This is mainly because they changed the vampire genre. Instead of passionate, soulless creatures who wonder the Earth looking for blood and revenge, we are hit with a wave of sparkly beasts who just want to bone a boring teen girl. Yet there are a bunch of movies that did the ruining long before (and even after) Edward Cullen dared strut his shiny stuff.
Let me tell you a story; once upon a time there lived a great actor who wowed the Eighties era with his hilarious stand-up and brilliant performances in Living In America and Beverley Hills Cop. Unfortunately, he was overcome with the need to make loads of money, screw over British Pop Stars and was cursed with never wanting to turn down a script in a condition called "Nicolas Cageitis." His name was Eddie Murphy and Vampire in Brooklyn was just the tip of a very long downhill struggle. If you haven't seen it, it is the story of Maximillion who comes to New York to find a Dhampir, a bride that he can drain the blood to live forever. Basically, it is Murphy romping around as a gothic vampire with a ridiculously Caribbean old English accent. The failure to inject humour into the genre is just plain silly, which is disappointing as it's directed by Wes Craven who did an excellent turn with Scream. Lines such as "Killer bites!" "So do I!" register barely a chuckle. The film doesn't mix well leaving you scratching your head after. And let's avoid talking about the turn into romance. It's cringe worthy at best.
This is a film outing by the fantastic Gavin and Stacey duo James Cordon and Matthew Horne" and only serves at proof that the two work better on the smaller screen. It's meant to be a comedy so there is no confusion on what genre it thinks it is but more confusion as to where the funny is. Of course the title makes you sit up and go "ha, lesbian vampires" and that’s about as far as it goes. The plot is something about a curse that has enslaved all women to get all busy with each other and suck people’s blood. That is, it's about vampires who are lesbians also. It's up to the remaining men to defeat them. This feels more like Carry on Vamping and the jokes leave you rolling your eyes, yawning and immediately penning a different version of the film, which will be no doubt better than this.
It may be a guilty pleasure of some (just me? Ok, .well..erm..) but even those who enjoy Dracula 2000 can respect how shoddy the movie is. Set in the year 2000 (well, duh.) The story follows Mary, the daughter of Van Helsing who is living in America. Mary is having all sorts of weird dreams that some strange fanged man is hunting her down. Shock, horror, he is and he wants to make her his. Cue the dramatic looks over shoulders, shrieks, and horrible action sequences. All of this is with the wonderfully drab clichéd lines such as "Wake up! It's just a dream. Oh wait its real OOOOOOOO." And the convoluted plot about who Dracula really is, or who Mary is to him? Delightfully woeful stuff. It is, at best, a film to add to the end of your "Vampire Movie Night" when the rest of your friends have fallen asleep and you desperately need something to send you off too. Gerald Butler at his finest.
Moving on from Dracula 2000 and onto the latest outing for our favourite vampire Dracula. Starring Luke Evans, this is the tale of how Dracula rose to prominence in ancient times and stopped a plague of invaders from killing his people. Now look, I've spoken about this before, but I have never walked out of a cinema until I decided to indulge myself in the brutally bad Dracula Untold. So I honestly can’t tell you if the final product actually redeems itself, but the first hour of the undeniably terrible vampish romp had me bolting for the exit. It’s not just terrible – viciously hammy, falling into the pitfalls of many dire fanged films and origin stories that drenches this movie in tedium and banality - but it also suffers from its inherently racist portrayal of the Turks, its absolution of Vlad the Impaler and its overzealous action sequences that plague the entire movie with style over substance.
I'm not talking about the original; the tense, action-packed movie that delicately weaved campiness with the terrifying Keifer Sutherland vampire. That movie is all kinds of awesome. I'm just hammering the point home that sequels do more damage than good. This is one of them. Lost Boys: The Tribe follows a similar point of the other two: siblings move to Luna Bay, siblings meet normal gothic teenagers, teenagers turn out to be vampires, one becomes nearly a vampire, cheesy vampire hunters kill them. The tiresome plot is overused and overplayed in this sequel. The joy of the classic original is sucked out to just a few bad lines from our previous favourite character Edgar Frog (Corey Feldman) and is shot terribly in true B-Movie style.
By all counts, a movie that pokes holes in the Twilight franchise was supposed to send the public in to fits of laughter. The self-aware spoof movie, however, is drivel in the worst sense of the term. Following such rubbish as Date Movie and Meet the Spartans, the movie is an injection of pop culture references, toilet humour, bad costumes and more that cause blind anger and irritation rather than a raucous "ha ha, well done you for bringing up that excellent point about Twilight in a rather splendidly elegant way." Spoof movies should not rely on a scene that has two fans beating each other to a pulp with a giant shovel, but instead instigate witty one liners and moments where you go "yes, that's exactly what they do!" Like What We Do In The Shadows. Go watch, What We Do In The Shadows.
Or you know, if you want a film where you can laugh your arses off at how bad Twilight is, go watch Twilight.
The dying/death scene is a truly outstanding piece of comedy.