Vampirella (1996) Review

Vampirella was a comic book created in 1969 by nerd overlord Forrest J. Ackerman and the title character was designed by feminist artist Trina Robbins. Vampirella was an alien/vampire/femme fatale and became incredibly popular, turning into an icon of horror comics and monstrous females. To this day, Vampirella lives in the form of comics and in pop culture but there was a film adaptation made in 1996 that left people baffled.

Directed by Corman alumnus Jim Wynorski (The Lost Empire, The Wasp Woman, Murderbot, Hard to Die, Dinosaur Island), the film was widely given bad reviews and never managed to achieve any kind of notoriety, most people even forgetting it's existence, or simply labeling it as a disposable piece of camp and a generic pick for a bad movie night. For the creators it was just a chance to make a movie based on a known IP, destined to be dumped into Showtime's Roger Corman presents series. 

Is it fun and cheesy or just badly made? Let's see.

Planet Drakulon is being attacked by vampiric rebels, they are led by the fiendish Vlad, who manages to escape to earth and plans on emptying humanity's blood. Vampirella, previously known as Ella, goes to earth looking to defeat Vlad and his minions. These are elements roughly taken from the comics in a very modified fashion.

Unsurprisingly, while not a major classic, the film manages to be entertaining and digestible enough, especially when compared to a lot of bad movies of its kind. One can see that the people involved were at least aware of what they were making and always intended for it to be as campy and exaggerated (or meager) as it could possibly be.

One thing that it has going for it is how much fanservice it has for the movie nerds out there, it's super referential. Wynorski uses the film more as a way to pay tribute to classic and not so classic horror/sci-fi flicks of the campy and cheap variety, using all of the techniques and implementing the gaffs one might expect from the model. Vampirella even meets and saves her creator, Forrest J. Ackerman, when she first arrives on earth. Another highlight is when director John Landis makes a cameo and drops some titles in one brief scene. It's all just about having fun with the tropes and creating a playful and self-aware game that pays homage to the type of B-movies that originally inspired the Vampirella comic to begin with. It's charming in that way but not everyone can be in on the joke. 

It´s a bit of a deviation from the known Vampirella storyline, more so than one would expect, a lot of the set up entails space politics and long, drawn out dialogue scenes that resemble the typical DTV outing more than the epic fantasy horror film it promises. In that regard, is kind of a let down for a lot of the first act, only really serving the goodies once it gets going about 10 or 20 minutes into the picture. Even then, Vampirella (the best part of the picture) isn't as prominent as she should be, mostly being buried beneath waves of dry dialogue sequences with generic bad guys and such.

I also think that Vampirella's outfit wasn't very well done here. It definitely looks as cheap as it should, but it's so crude and shoddy that it simply comes off as feeble instead of gloriously extravagant, which is what I was expecting.

Wynorski wasn't very happy about Talisa Soto being the titular blood-sucking heroine but he had to use her for contractual reasons. I can see why he wasn't crazy about her, she does sort of look a bit like Vampirella but she doesn't have the screen presence a woman like her should have, she looks more like a normal girl in a cosplay than anything else. Still, she isn't terrible in the picture, but her performance (while not awful) just wasn't up to the task.

At the end of the film we are promised a second film titled Dark Avenger of Death but there were no sequels as Wynorski lost the rights to the character a long time ago. However, in 2021 Dynamite Entertainment announced another picture and maybe a TV series but we still haven't seen any footage, trailer, images or even official material from these projects. While Vampirella is all but forgotten, I still think a more proper and bigger movie should be made about her.

Underworld (2003) Review

Underworld was a project conceived by actor/writer/director Kevin Grevioux, his pitch was basically “Romeo and Juliet but with vampires and werewolves” and he decided to give a spin to the formula by making lycanthropy and vampirism viruses instead of supernatural curses, a product of his formation in microbiology.

Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment ended up producing the film but not without some issues. You see, back in the nineties there was a popular tabletop franchise called World of Darkness and two of their games, Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse, had a lot of similarities with Underworld which led the company behind the games, White Wolf, Inc., and writer Nancy A. Collins to file a lawsuit against Sony Pictures. It eventually ended in a confidential settlement. 

At any rate, Underworld was released in 2003 and starred Kate Beckinsale, Scott Speedman, Michael Sheen, Shane Brolly, and Bill Nighy. The film received bad reviews but it did good numbers at the box office and became a subject of interest among audiences because the concept of mixing vampires and werewolves in a romantic fashion with an action female lead was too exciting and striking to ignore. Remember, this was way before Twilight, the idea was new for mainstream audiences.

Vampires and werewolves (here called Lycans) have been fighting since ancient times. The Lycans are no longer as active since the vampires have managed to best them, but a group of werewolf assassins known as the "Death Dealers" are still hunting them down, particularly one of the Dealers, Selene (Kate Beckinsale). She falls in love with a medical student named Michael (Scott Speedman), but things get complicated after he is turned into a Lycan. Now she finds herself struggling between her feelings for the human and her loyalty to her clan. 

The film is flawed to its core, there's no doubt that it's too reliant on exposition, it's derivative, it deviates from it's main storyline into irrelevant segways, the characters are dull, the word building is clunky and the film isn't tightly written nor carefully directed enough for any of that to not matter. Its premise had potential but it gets bogged down and loses itself in a sea of overwritten scenes that just clutter the film with exposition and weightless (but cool) action. Lacking any heavy narrative thread that can carry it, the film can't hold the viewers' investment for long. 

The biggest and most solid aspects of the movie are the somewhat engaging action sequences and the gothic look certainly works wonders. There's a lot of generally amusing Matrix-inspired slow motion choreographies and battle sequences shown here, but none of it can be called memorable, it's all disposable and fleeting at best. The director didn't do a bad job and it might have been a solid effort for the time but it's hardly a great spectacle. Len Wiseman's filmmaking results have been on a downward spiral ever since his first movie, creating uninspired and cliche messes like Die Hard 4 and the Total Recall remake, dreadful stuff. While this is his best picture it certainly wasn't anything special.

Nowadays, the film could be remembered as a curiosity of the time, when black leather pants and the whole gothic look were in vogue but it feels incredibly dated and old fashioned, not to mention lacking substance of any kind. It's a lot of overused tropes rolled into one production, a film that never attempts to elevate its material or even to inject it with refreshing or valuable ideas, it's a rethread of old stories and styles but not much else. Completely one dimensional and with a singular and overplayed note, it's not hard to see why it wasn't well liked. 

Although I have been a bit negative, I will say that there are some rather neat aspects introduced here. The material had a lot of potential as certain elements are redeemable such as Kate Beckinsale's performance and look, the film's moody aesthetic (great production design is key here) and the concept of a war between werewolves and vampires was something rather new in blockbusters. Ultimately, I think these were the reasons people showed up to the movie theater and supported further entries in the franchise. It's also very telling that those are the only things people seem to remember out of it.

Other than that, it's not a film I would recommend to most viewers. It's stale and not highly entertaining aside from some sections. I think most people will be put off by its dullness and the lack of characterization of its protagonists. Only for the hardcore 2000's movie fans and for those nostalgic for the goth fad.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992) Review

It all began with a 1986 cult film I previously reviewed, Night of the Comet, which featured two teenage girls in a post-apocalyptic world fighting zombies and mutants. It was comedic, fresh, down to earth, sarcastic and quirky. This inspired a young writer named Joss Whedon, who would then get the idea to make a show in a similar vein as Night of the Comet but applying his own style to it. 

Whedon has said that he initially conceived Buffy as being a subversion of the typical horror movie trope: Instead of a blonde girl getting killed by the monster down an alleyway, she kicks it's ass. A disposable character being elevated to not only a prominent role, but also to being a special "chosen one." This premise led him to create a story about a girl who is tasked with becoming the next woman to fight the forces of evil.

20th Century Fox became interested in the script Whedon wrote for a feature film with that concept but the executives decided to do some changes. The darker elements would be toned down and the comedy would be less unorthodox. These demands seem baffling to us nowadays after watching the Buffy TV series and becoming familiar with Whedon's work, but back then nobody could really predict how much people wanted a story like that and just how many people would resonate with it. Needless to say, Whedon left the project and abandoned his advisory role, walking off the set because of creative differences. 

The result of this was Buffy the Vampire Slayer from 1992. It starred Kristy Swanson, Donald Sutherland, Paul Reubens, Rutger Hauer, Hilary Swank, David Arquette and Luke Perry. The direction duties were handled by Fran Rubel Kuzui, she had previously been a notable name in Cannes with her feature debut Tokyo Pop in 1988. She was also the one who discovered Whedon's script and was able to get the film done in the first place, she retained the rights to Buffy and was credited in the TV series and in Angel as a producer, even though some sources say she wasn't involved with those shows at all. 

Buffy Summers (Kristy Swanson) is a run of the mill popular high school cheerleader from L.A. Her average and superficial life is often interrupted by strange nightmares about being a vampire slayer in a previous century. One day she meets an odd man named Merrick (Donald Sutherland) who tells her she is a Slayer, a female vampire killer, and her dreams are nothing but memories of the past generations of slayers. Buffy doesn't want such a radical change in her life but recent vampire attacks force her to take action and train to defeat the evil vampire overlord Lothos (Rutger Hauer).

In all honesty, while the show has a lot of virtues I would argue that one my favorite outings in the franchise is actually this medium budget film. Fran brought a very lively aesthetic and a compositional style to Buffy, something missing from the flat TV visuals we get in the series. It manages to achieve a lighthearted humorous tone without falling into the Whedonisms that seem a bit tired now after so many MCU movies and several attempts by many other people at replicating Whedon's writing style. This movie dilutes the quirkiness, scattering it among its tone, mood and cinematic aspects, employing a lot of unconventional and expressive transitions, camera movements and shots that make the film more dynamic, not to mention the abundance of saturated colors and the cartoony personalities of the characters.

Buffy has a greater arc in this movie as the contrast between her initially shallow and trivial valley girl personality eventually grows very organically into a more responsible and substantial one when she is recruited to kill vampires. All done through the character's decisions, by very focused and specific actions, never dragging the story nor filling it with a bunch of subplots that add very little, much less overly long dialogue scenes or speeches. It has an unpreoccupied spirit that's hard to dislike but could also alienate viewers who are looking for a more dramatic work.

The comedy could be hit or miss for some people, I personally find it hilarious because the sensibility the movie establishes allows the actors to be more extravagant and silly in their delivery, something that sort of clashes with the mundane setting and tone the TV show had, which made the Whedonisms stand out more. This is another type of humor, cheeky enough to be out of the ordinary but not full on campy as it never gets drunk in its silliness. It's like one of those 80's indie slacker teen comedies turned into a horror fantasy flick, it's laid back and chill but very endearing. 

If you are just thinking about getting into Buffy I can totally recommend you check out this flick before watching the show as a lot of character progression with the main character is done here. Whedon didn't like the movie and the series only mentions the original script he wrote but you can consider it canon anyways. I could also see someone who originally watched the TV series first giving this one a chance but only if they are willing to do it with an open mind and taking it as it's own thing or at the very least as an alternative interpretation. 

Regarding the acclaimed TV series, that's perhaps something we should check out next year. For now, watch this awesome movie.