One Movie A Day Remix

→ in

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
I need to get my hands on them first.

I actually own Raging Bull, but have never seen it. Consider that one to come up soon now, thanks Mark.
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 47: June 16th, 2010

Funny People

Apatow Matures As A Filmmaker, But Forgot To Tell Us.

George Simmons is dying of a rare disease. Upon reflecting on his life, he becomes aware of all his past mistakes, choosing the money and fame over more important things. He tries to go back to his roots, stand up comedy. Be bombs on his set, but takes to the liking of Ira Wright, an up and coming comedian. He hires Ira to writes jokes for him and to become his assistant. When Simmons discovers that he might have beaten the disease, he decides to try and win back the love of his life, taking Ira on the trip with him.

That last part is not a spoiler of any kind, since every trailer states that he doesn't die and does indeed beat the disease. There are numerous things that misfire with Funny People and many things that it nails right on the head. The biggest problem is that people were not expecting it to be so dramatic. Apatow has matured as a director and writer, but he forgot to tell the audience, which resulted in a mediocre reception to an otherwise decent film.

The film stars the usual Apatow crew, Jonah Hill, Leslie Mann, Seth Rogen, but the main star is long time friend of Apatow, Adam Sandler. This role is a bit odd for Sandler, he is basically playing himself, but a more serious and dramatic side of himself. Simmons starts out in stand up comedy, makes it big with goofy films like being a Merman or having his adult head stuck on a child's body. The life mirrors Sandler's career, and the film acknowledges this with old tapes of Sandler in his younger days. Seeing Sandler that young doing his thing was what stood out the most to me. It was the most genuine moments in the film, an older man reflecting back on his career, the memories and the more funny times.

Funny People tries to be too many things and while some of it is really funny, the depressing subject matter of death and lost love is a bit too much for people going in expecting another Knocked Up or Virgin. The fact that the film plays out like two different movies doesn't help either. What at first looks to be a film about a man trying to accept his fate in life or death, quickly becomes a film about trying to win back your lost love. Is Funny People also a romantic comedy? The film is really long, there were so many parts that could have been cut out. This is coming from the guy who thought Virgin had the right running time. I think the switch in the narrative of the film attributes a lot to the film dragging out longer than it has to. Apatow needs to learn to cut stuff out of his films. Make them shorter, this isn't The Ten Commandments.

Funny People hosts a lot of great cameos from comedians though, many of which are really funny. Eric Bana has the funniest role out of everyone, which is surprising considering he's in a film with dozens of comedians. I guess it's true, seeing the straight laced guys do something fun is always the most entertaining part.. Sandler and Rogen both do well in their roles, even if at times I found their character traits to be a bit odd. Rogen specifically, I can't place my finger on it but he seems to be playing a more mature, drug free loser version of Ben Stone. His weight loss jokes were funny and a nice addition of humour from Apatow and crew.

Funny People is a good movie, marketed as something funnier than what it was. The film is a serious look at life, just from a comedians point of view. It's hard not know that most of the material is from both of their background in stand up and their lives, Sandler and Apatow. You can see the sense of history from comedians in this film and that is interesting. Funny People is funny, just not hysterical. It's depressing, just not cry worthy. It's good, just not great.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 48: June 17th, 2010

Shadow of a Doubt

Joseph Cotten Is Terrific In Hitchcock's Slow Burner.

The Newton family receives a telegram that their uncle Charlie is coming to town to spend some time with them. His niece, whom is named after him suspects that he is not all he claims to be, when two detectives start questioning them.

Rope, Saboteur and now Shadow of A Doubt. These are the only three films from the legendary Hitchcock that I have seen. Each one couldn't be more different. One is confined to one room, while another takes one character across America. Shadow of a Doubt tells the tale of family secrets and takes us to a small town. The film creates the tension needed to make one just uneasy enough to sit through the film. Shadow of a Doubt is considered one of Hitchcock's classic films and according to his daughter, his personal favourite. I found it to be rather brilliant at times, but testing at others. Joseph Cotten plays the character of uncle Charlie, who is downright frightening at times and made my enjoyment of the film more fulfilling.

I won't go into detail about the plot of the film, I went in knowing nothing about it and appreciate it more because of that. The film doesn't depend on star power or any glamour, just the story and characters. The uncle Charlie character is one creepy guy who is portrayed brilliantly by Joseph Cotten. In one brilliant scene he has a monologue that is pretty harsh, even by today's standards and one simple turn of the head makes the scene all the more intense and creepy.

The film doesn't reach the suspense levels of other films in his catalogue, I've seen bits and pieces of Rear Window, which was more suspenseful, but it does have the slow burner feel that builds up to something. You know some kind of confrontation is about to happen at the climax and your itching for it to happen the whole time. A few things did bother me though, even if they were intentional.

The sexual tension between uncle and niece is just a bit much. It seemed that in every scene they were itching to go at each other. The constant talking about how much they have in common and how they are so alike is fine, until they start to hold each other and get close. It's uncomfortable. Second, the detective declaring his love for Charlie, totally out of place. To me there was not enough room for the two to grow as a romantic couple. Does she feel the same way? No, which is what made me a little bit happier, had she had the same feelings as him, I would have been upset with this film.

Shadow of a Doubt is a well crafted thriller that doesn't mind taking it's time getting to where it wants to go. Subtle hints here and there adds to the mystery of what's going and is intriguing. It pulls the viewer into the web that is this story. It's not my favourite Hitchcock film, but rather one that I appreciate and respect the most, at least so far.

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Good review and all, but in all the ten times I've seen Shadow of a Doubt, I've never thought that there was anything sexual between the two Charlies. Love and a kind of storybook romance an older relative can show to a younger one, yes, but nothing sexual in the least.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Good review and all, but in all the ten times I've seen Shadow of a Doubt, I've never thought that there was anything sexual between the two Charlies. Love and a kind of storybook romance an older relative can show to a younger one, yes, but nothing sexual in the least.
Really? That was one of the first things I picked up on. Their first meeting is the most obvious to me, just the way they are talking to each other. Most of it is in the performance from Cotten.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 49: June 18th, 2010


Underrated Hitchcock.

After watching Shadow of a Doubt, I decided to give this film another try. It's still an odd one to me, it's not as memorable as his other films are, nor is it mentioned as one of his better films. Yet, I find that it should be. It has it's fair share of problems, but I really enjoyed it and think it is underrated. I guess when you have a resume as full and influential as Hitchcock, his other films that just seem to be good and not brilliant are left aside.

As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get me on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a missed opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.

The film doesn't feel like it should feel either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving. Yet, looking back at it all, I was still entertained and found that there are memorable scenes that pop into my head. I tend to like the film more in hindsight than I did while I was watching it.

The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.

In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically. Again, he has too many 'classics' to choose from. If you want to go the road less traveled, this one is for you.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 50: June 19th, 2010

Toy Story 3

So A Third Film In A Series Can Be Good?

Andy is going off to college and is given the option of putting his toys in the attic or throwing them out. Through a series of unfortunate events, the toys actually end up being donated to Sunnyside Daycare. Which at first, seems like a wonderful place to be, but the truth about the place is soon discovered by the toys and they try to escape.

In 1995 when Toy Story first hit the screens, I was around 7 or 8 years old. I am in disbelief at how young I was, 1995 doesn't seem that long ago, but it's been 15 years. I was still in elementary school when the second one came out too. I was young and was able to connect to both of the films, I saw a little of myself in Andy. I grew up playing with plastic army men, dinosaurs and cowboys. There is a special bond between a boy and his toys and Toy Story got it perfect. The original Toy Story introduced us to a few things. One was Pixar, a studio that would go on to create dozens of films that are entertaining and brilliant. Another was the first fully computer animated feature film. It changed the way animated films were made. Finally it gave us two of the most recognizable animated characters of all time, Woody and Buzz.

Flashforward 11 years after Toy Story 2. I have recently graduated college and don't play with my toys anymore. Andy is heading off to college and he doesn't play with his toys anymore. The big question I had was, can a third entry to a series that is more than a decade old, still hold true to the original and will I still be able to connect to it? The answer is yes, on both accounts. Toy Story 3 is magical, entertaining and heartfelt. It reminded me of my childhood and my toys, the biggest thing this film has going for it is nostalgia. I found it funny that more than half the people in the audience were not alive when the first film came out.

The constant fear of being discarded is present here, as it is in all three of the films. With this entry it is the forefront issue. The themes of loss, friendship and courage are all present in this third installment. Usually the third film in a franchise falls short of what the first two are, but this is not the case. Toy Story 3 is just as good as the first two. My minor complaint is that there is that one thing that is missing. It might be the 11 year gap between the films, but there is that little special thing that made me love the first two films that this one doesn't seem to have. Buzz seems a little underused as do the other toys, but this is a small issue that doesn't ruin a great film.

There are 3 scenes in the film that made me almost cry. Hey, I said ALMOST. The first one is pretty early on, when Woody calls for a meeting, something we are accustomed to in the previous installments. But this time we don't see dozens of toys coming out from under the bed, behind closets or out of bins. It's just these guys. All the other toys that we see in the background are gone. Even though they were never the main characters, or given a lot of screen time, there was something about each one that we seemed to love. This people were a family and that family is broken. Wheezy, Bo Peep, Etch, RC, Lenny the Binoculars, Mike the tape recorder, Rocky Gibraltar the gladiator. Dozens of lovable background characters that made us love that room so much more.

The other two scenes are near the end, one in which the toys join hands in fear of their ultimate doom. It's their realization of the end and their bonding together that got to me. The other is the final send off from Andy. The film builds on the previous adventures these characters had to tug on the heart strings. It never reaches the emotional depths of Up, but these are two totally different films. The way they chose to end the series, in my opinion was perfect and sad.

There are hundreds of new characters, all introduced at the Daycare. At first you would seem to think that you will be overwhelmed with all the additional characters, but it is never an issue. The two most prominent new characters are Lotso Hugs and Ken, who is voiced by Batman himself. Some of the more interesting new characters are never given a chance to shine, they belong to Bonnie in her room, mainly my new favourite Mr. Pricklepants.

The film mixes adventure, comedy and drama all perfectly. It's not as funny as the first two, but it is more adventurous. The animation doesn't call for anything fancy, these are toys after all, yet Pixar finds a way to still dazzle the eye. The climax of the film has a lot going on and it is edge of your seat entertainment.

To end this review, I'll simply say the last thing Andy said before leaving the toys..."Thanks Guys"

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 51: June 20th, 2010

Men of Honor

Another military film about training.

The inspirational and true tale of one black man who tries his hardest to become a deep sea military diver. Cuba Gooding Jr. is this man and the hard ass who is training him is none other than Robert De Niro.

Men of Honor seemed like another boring military film that focuses on one character who must overcome adversity while training to become a part of a special unit in the service. Then of course there will be the officer who trains them, he will be a hard ass who doesn't take any B.S. from anyone. The more he pushes you, the harder you become, the two usually hate each other at the beginning, but then come to terms and respect each other. In some cases they even end up liking each other. The third act of the film usually details the life of the character after he graduates the class. Men of Honor follows this criteria to a capital T.

With that being sad, I still found myself interested in the characters and the performance. This is an interesting film that pits two leading men who seem to have had bad luck with roles in this recent generation. Cuba Good Jr. can't seem to find his footing after winning an Oscar for Jerry Maguire, today the poor guy is in the direct to video market. In this performance he tackles it with true pride. His determination to provide the role with some credibility shines through. I usually find his work to be more or less with every film. Men Of Honor is one of his better performances. Robert De Niro has taken a big hit since his heyday. It seems that ever since the one role in Rocky and Bullwinkle, his script choices have been pretty dull. Some people refer to his roles post 2000 to be the sell out years. Men of Honor might be an exception, he brings his usual De Niro self to an otherwise thankless role. We don't know much about his character, other than he has a short temper and refuses a lot of orders.

The film has a one dimensional presentation and it hurts the plot and characterization. Despite this, it does hold together well for most of the running time. I always find that after the training sequences of the film are over, they tend to drag on afterwards. This film is no different. The most interesting part of the film is over and yet we are still sitting here watching events unfold that we have little interest in. The romance between Cuba and his gal is thin and Charlize Theron is given so little to do I wondered why she was even in the film.

Men Of Honor has everything that an inspirational film that is based on a true story should have. Our man character is black and has to overcome the racism of everyone around him. Nothing new, but knowing that it was based on a true story does lend to some moments where we respect that character for what he accomplished. Some scenes are really well done, specifically one where one character receives a medal of honor, which should have went to Cuba, but because he was black they gave it to the one guy who didn't deserve it.

The film is long and drags after the more entertaining parts are finished, but it's not a total loss. I can recommend it for people who are into the military film genre, this one has great performances that overcome a lazy script.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 52: June 21st, 2010


The comic book film that re-started this generation.

Mutants are feared and hated, they have special abilities that humans don't. Magneto is a mutant who believes a war is brewing between mutants and mankind, so he sets out to turn everyone into a mutant. Professor Xavier and his team of X-Men believe mankind is good and can live peacefully with mutants, they must stop him.

There have been many comic book films before X-Men, the most notable ones are Superman and Batman, yet there have even been lesser known comic book characters getting their big screen debut before the mutants. Tank Girl, Blade and The Crow all got their chance and they did pretty well (well, maybe not tank girl) but I think it was X-Men that kick started this wave of comic book films that we have today. 2 years later we got Spider-Man and then every other film coming out was based on a comic book. X-Men, ten years later, still remains to be one of the better adaptations.

The key role in the success of this film was the casting choices. Patrick Stewart as Professor Charles Xavier is not only a stroke of genius, but the most obvious choice. Newcomer Hugh Jackman gives us a dead on portrayal of Logan aka Wolverine and since this film has become a superstar in Hollywood, even getting his own film, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Ian McKellen plays the villain Magneto and even though his physical appears make him appear fragile, his use of speech and demeanor make him terrifying in a unique way, you believe that he is as dangerous as they say.

Being a big fan of the comics, I was anticipating this film with a big smile on my face. I liked it then and as I mentioned earlier, it still holds up today. There are some shoddy special effects that jump out at you more now than ever, but as a whole, this comic book adaptation hits the right notes. Bryan Singer uses homosexuality as a comparing theme for mutants. Being a homosexual himself, he seemed to be able to portray the issues of separation and isolation that mutants feel. This is further explored in the sequel.

I can help but feel that by the film's conclusion, they could have gone a little bigger. The conflict between Sabretooth and Wolverine is not as engaging as a fan of the comics would want and the changing of Rogue into the Jubliee character from the animated series might rub some people the wrong way. Sabretooth is not as vicious as he could be and Rogue is an annoying teenage girl.

X-Men is a good film that is shy of being great. Everything that was mishandled here was made right in the sequel. X-Men proved that comic book films can be smart and not just for fans/geeks who collect comics.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 53: June 22nd, 2010


A sequel that outshines the original.

An attempt on the Presidents life doesn't help the X-men's cause for peace between mutants and mankind. Magneto is still up to no good and a new enemy surfaces, Stryker, who seems to have a past with Wolverine. Wolverine tries to find answers to his past through this mysterious man who wants to kidnap mutants.

X2 opens with a bang and is one of the best scenes in the entire trilogy. We are introduced to a popular x-men character, who is visualized perfectly and is one of the best character adaptations the films have ever done and the sequence itself is entertaining. So much that it immediately grabs you and tells you that this film is a sequel that outshines the original and it does. Bryan Singer took the flaws of the original and fixed them here, he makes a sequel that is not only bigger, but better. Many times sequels fall under it's own need to do things on a grander scale, but here it works.

We are introduced to some new characters, such as Nightcrawler, Pyro and Lady Deathstrike. All three of these characters shine in this film and elevate it to making this sequel the best in the series. Deathstrike has a brutal and violent fight scene with Wolverine, it seems he has finally me his match this time around. Styker is played by Brian Cox, he is deliciously evil and a nice face to see against the x-men then just having it be Magneto again.

The action sequences are better here, more rough and tough. They are choreographed to make it not only more real, but more entertaining. They fit the comic book form a little more here than in the previous installment. The risk in this film seems a bit greater as well, the stakes are risen in the sequel and it makes us care more about the characters and the outcome then what one would initially think.

Halle Berry and her role as Storm is still one of the weakest parts of the series. Her lines fall flat and her sincerity doesn't seem genuine. Her bits with Nightcrawler seem forced and she somehow manages to take one of the coolest characters from the comics and make her quite lame here. James Marsden improves here as Cyclops, he has more emotional baggage to carry here than last time. It's always hard to act when your eyes are covered, I give him credit despite having less screen time.

This film is darker, not everyone makes it out alive. It sets up one of the best story lines the comics have ever introduced, the Dark Phoenix Saga. The script is tighter as is the acting. Rogue is still an annoying teen, but she has matured a bit since last time. The special effects are improved and the direction is more polished. If I were to point anyone into the direction of an x-men film, this is the one I'd tell them to watch.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 54: June 23rd, 2010

X-MEN: The Last Stand

The weakest in the series, this includes X-men Origins.

A so called cure is found in the blood of a young mutant, which divides the world into two sections. Those who want it and those who don't. Magneto and his brotherhood seek to find this boy and capture him, while the X-men must stand together and stop him, once and for all.

With this film being the third in the series, the filmmakers decided to go big...really big. Let's go heavy on the eye popping action and forget to bring a decent script and competent director with it. X-Men: The Last Stand is a hot mess and seems to have destroyed the series. Seeing as they are already re-booting it.

Singer left to go to Superman Returns, say what you will about that film, but the true losers here were the fans of x-men. The Last Stand is what I originally feared the first film would be, a thrown together film with too many mutants to handle. Brett Ratner was in my opinion, the wrong man for the job. It seemed like the studio needed the film to be pumped out quickly and they got this man to do the job. Easy money, fans will still pay to see it right? After all, we got Beast in it now. The fact that this film has too many characters is a big problem, they have no idea what to do with them. Look at the poster I chose to post here, it has Angel on the cover, yet he has two scenes in the film, at the beginning and at the end. If this isn't a desperate attempt to grab at whatever lucrative moments they have, I don't know what is. X2 was juggling enough characters to start, there was no need to add this many more, especially when they do nothing.

It seems they disregarded the source material and went with whatever story they cooked up. Characters are different (Leech) and we are given a so called climax that barely makes me want to root for either side. The film is called The Last Stand, yet we get Wolverine, Storm, Colossus, Beast and some kids. This is not The Last Stand fans want, nor is it good writing. Having Cyclops and Professor X out of the picture doesn't make things harder for us or make us think the x-men are in more danger. Instead it angers us at the pathetic attempt at trying to shake things up in the comic book world. Out of all the X-men story lines, the Dark Phoenix is probably the most recognizable. There is so much story, emotion and depth to the character and story line that it took around 4 episodes of the animated series to do it some sort of justice. This film makes it seem like an after thought. They already had a story line, The Dark Phoenix Saga was too big for one film, especially when you already had a plot for the film by itself.

The film might please the average movie goer, but it failed to hold up any kind of momentum the second sequel gave us. Sure Grammar is great as Beast and the special effects are great, but when the film is so confused by it's own direction and you end of feeling nothing for one of the greatest comic book story lines ever written, you know you have a problem. Magneto is no longer scary in this film and it desperately needed a new villain...and not Phoenix. The Last Stand is all style and no heart, but it's style is still very little.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
A little behind on my reviews, but still keeping up with the movie watching. Hopefully I'll be fully caught up tomorrow night, just been busy as of late.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 55: June 24th, 2010

The House Of The Devil

At Least They Got The 80's Feel Right.

Strapped for cash and needing to pay first and last months rent for a new place, Samantha sees an ad for a babysitter. She calls the place and takes the job. The house is in the middle of nowhere and the job isn't exactly what it seems.

When I first saw the trailer for this film, I was left scratching my head. Why does it look so old? Upon research I found out that they were going for that look. Not only did it take place in the 80's, but it was made to look like it was filmed in the 80's as well. Ti West does an excellent job of accomplishing this, the mood, the environment, the style of the film all scream 1980's horror.

This is my second Ti West film, the first being the horrible and clunky Cabin Fever 2. It's so bad that even he wants to distance himself from it. So going into The house of the devil, I had mediocre expectations. First of all, 80's horror has it's ups and downs. Sure the film can get the feel right, but will I like it? It takes the classic tale of a babysitter in trouble. Most of the film is unnerving and long set ups to the climax.

Those long and suspenseful set ups are what drive the film. We are in this house with Samantha and we know that the end result will not be good for her. We are eagerly awaiting something bad to happen to her the entire time, but West takes his time in building the tension. This works extremely well, but it doesn't pay off for the climax. I felt that the climax wasn't sufficient enough for all the anticipation we had.

Everyone does a good job filling their roles, Jocelin Donahue is great as Samantha and the real stand out here is Tom Noonan as Mr. Ulman, the one who hires her. His mannerisms and calm way of speaking send chills down your spine. How someone so calm, polite and relatively normal looking can be so horrific. It's no spoilers that the house she goes into is going to cause trouble and we know he is behind it, otherwise there would be no film. Her best friend Megan is played by Greta Gerwig and she has the most surprising scene in the whole film, probably my favourite scene.

The house of the devil is a throwback horror film. it's for those people who grew up watching horror in the 80's and want to relive that experience. Those expecting some horrifying grotesque things may be disappointed.

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Yes, I recommend The House of the Devil to everyone although my "legit" rating is
. It's just that my cult rating (after less than a year) is
, and I personally find it twice as good as Carpenter's Halloween, a "'70s horror film".

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Day 56: June 25th, 2010

Near Dark

I'd rather see a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton, than a white face glittery Robert Pattinson.

I was actually suppose to watch The Wolfman, but lost to a vote and people wanted to watch Near Dark instead.

Well, a young good looking cowboy gets bitten by a vampire and he soon becomes a member of the psychotic gang of vamps. The problem is that he doesn't want to be a vampire and he tries to fight the seductive urges of the blood thirst.

The vampire trend is nothing new, it's just made a comeback for this certain phase. Twilight is raking in the cash in the theatres and true blood is reigning HBO. It's good to be a vampire right now. But back in the day, 1987 to be exact. Vampires were not all glittery and award winning, they were mean, cut throat and cruel.

The problem this film has, right from the gate, is two uninteresting leads. The male and the female are boring, wooden actors (before he became a Hero) and it's always hard to stay invested in a film where the leads make you cringe from time to time. Enter Bill Paxton and Lance Henriksen, two characters that rise above what is needed and make the film entertaining and scary.

The two are a part of a vampire family. These characters are far more interesting than our cowboy here. I would much rather watch a film following them. Every little line of dialogue is interesting and their look is unmatched. Bill Paxton is a great psycho, he is off the wall nuts and he looks to be having a great time doing it. Three of the cast members also appeared in Aliens, directed by James Cameron, ex-husband of Bigelow, who directed Near Dark.

The shootout in the motel sequence is really neat and drives the film into high gear. the special effects are too shabby either. Sun can be deadly to these guys and it is quickly proven many times. The death scenes are gruesome and to me are what true vampire films are about.

I watched this on bluray and the one thing that annoyed me is the new cover. They are obviously going for that twilight crowd as they have the female appear to be human and the male be the vampire. Even the bloody make-up, which has no reference in this film. This is false advertising, give me a burnt and bloody Bill Paxton over that trash any day.