← Back to Reviews
in
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.
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.