Dorkgasm - Media Vs. Media

Best Vampire Film of 2008 | Media Vs. Media

Trevor Curtis — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:08:15 +0000

Twilight vs. Let the Right One In
By
Trevor Curtis

2008 was a big year for vampires. The Twilight series of books have sold millions, while the first film of the novels debuted at #1 at the box-office. While the film and books were wildly popular, a small Swedish film, Let the Right One In (Låt den rätte komma in), wowed the critics of the world, earning numerous accolades. Sadly, the film was snubbed by it's own country's film board, and not submitted for Oscar consideration. But only one of these films can be crowned “Vampire Flick of the Year”. So which should it be? No, Underworld (i.e. World of Darkness Rip-off ) isn't up for the title. If I want bad costuming and snobby posing, I can go to a Ren-Faire or a LARP, thank you.

For the masses, the obvious answer would seem to be Twilight. After all, hordes of fans can't be wrong. Millions flocked to the theaters to witness the beginning romance of Bella (Kristin Stewart) and Edward (Robert Pattinson), a vampire. As I am a consumer of the book series, it interested me to see how the material translated. The verdict: not very well. The biggest problem is one of the film's stars, Robert Pattinson. Given his biggest role yet here, he phones in a performance that isn't even community theater level. He seems to feel all he has to do is look angry, and then smile to be considered an actor. Seriously, there hasn't been this bad a vampire since Brad Pitt's Louis in Interview with a Vampire (A prime example of an hack acting job). Kristin Stewart and the rest do a workmanlike job, with Stewart bringing enough of an airhead charm to the role to pull it off.

Director Catherine Hardwicke, who did a great job with teen drama in Thirteen, drops the ball on several moments in here. Edward's big reveal of his true sparkly nature, a high point in the book, is mere silliness due to some seriously awful FX work. Also, the ending drama of the book seems rushed, as if the director realized she'd spent too much time on the Bella/Edward dynamic, and suddenly had to wrap up a plot she'd only loosely developed. As a plus, I think the hints of the local Native American's true furry nature were handled well, leaving the door wide open for their further exploration in the sequel, coming later this year. Another problem with the movie is Bella's complete acceptance of Edward's vampiric nature. Most, if not all, vampire romances deal with the heroine having to overcome her revulsion of her love's inner monster. Here, its glossed over, leaving an empty sheen much like the entire movie. It leaves Twilight as shiny and empty as its signature vampires appears to be.

Let the Right One In has no shine to it. Set in Sweden during the winter, it reflects all the stark coldness of the Swedish countryside in both its visuals and story. It concerns a small boy named Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) who is bullied regularly at school and seems to be concerned with nothing more than eventually getting revenge. He meets a girl named Eli (Lina Leandersson) who, it turns out, is a vampire. Her feeding, helped by a mysterious older man who lives with her, has spawned serial killer rumors to spread. Oskar, already on his way down a path of violence, seems nonplussed and tries to claim Eli as his girlfriend. Things start going downhill when Eli's slave is caught harvesting blood for her. Oskar stand up to the bullies, trying to impress his new girl. The bullies respond, culminating in violence both sudden and brutal.

On first viewing, it's amazing that this movie didn't get nominated for an Oscar. That two first time actors could put forth such brutally honest performances is a testament to the skill of director Tomas Alfredson. Lina Leandersson, as Eli, is note perfect as a child vampire, managing to somehow convey both innocence and ancient hunger with her eyes. Mark down her name, you'll be hearing more from her. Alfredson deserves credit also, for managing to convey the horror of vampire attacks without going overboard. It's almost a textbook definition of subtle horror, and the natural landscape of urban Sweden is both beautiful and empty, reminding one a lot of Minneapolis.

Is the movie perfect? In a word, no. The first attack by Eli is stolen almost directly from Abel Ferrar's 1995 “The Addiction”. There's also a large homosexual subtext, that seems to be almost homophobic in the way it's presented, from the glares of Oskar's classmates when he stares at them, to the hinting of that a gay relationship may be why Oskar's parents no longer live together.

So, who gets the title? I was hoping Twilight might have been a contender, but after seeing it, it wasn't even close. Twilight is the sort of big, flashy, artistically empty flick that Hollywood churns out of its bowels on a daily basis, despite strong indie-cred from the producers and directors. Let the Right One In is good cinema, a piece of art that both reinforces and surpasses the horror genre. It wasn't even close, this fight. Maybe the Twilight films should stick to fighting the Underworld movies, or if they need a squash, any horror film coming out of the Sci-Fi channel. Let the Right One In is heads and shoulders above them, and goes on the list of movies that deserved Oscars, but weren’t nominated.

Winner: Let the Right One In by TKO.

Click image to visit the site

The Other Boleyn Girl / The Tudors | Media Vs. Media

kenneth.holm — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:36:25 +0000

Media Vs. Media Vs... Media??
The Boleyn Saga
By
Kenneth Holm
Dorkgasm Senior Staff Writer

Well, I just returned from seeing the newest cinematic period piece The Other Boleyn Girl. Was it pretty? Absolutely. Was it good? Well, I have to agree with many people who said it could have been better. I, unfortunately, am in a position of unenviable bad luck. Like most movies that I know are based upon a book, I read the book in advance. One of these days, I'm going to learn to stop doing that.

The Other Boleyn Girl is based upon the novel of the same name by Phillipa Gregory, who has authored other historical fiction books, including the sequel to this one,
The Boleyn Inheritance. Her prose is involving, descriptive, and totally addicting. She wove a tale that was politically intriguing, romantic at its core, and completely believable. At least about as much as one can believe something that is written from a fictional point of view. However, there were several differences, including some important omissions, that I feel it necessary to draw your attention to them.

Firstly, and most incredibly, the movie purports Anne Boleyn to be the eldest sister of the family. Unfortunately, both the book and history seem to agree that Mary was the elder of the two. It would seem that the only reason this was an issue in the story is that the filmmakers wanted Anne to feel entitled to King Henry's love because she was eldest. There was never a first meeting between Anne and the King that went badly in the book. Why they decided to add this in is beyond me completely. However, after Mary Boleyn found herself pregnant with Henry's progeny, the movie did manage to redeem itself by somewhat following the rest of the established storyline.

Another way the book and movie differ is their portrayals of Catherine of Aragon, the wife of Henry VIII. Catherine is one of the most tragic figures in history, and the movie completely glossed over her with but a couple interesting bon mots tossed toward the two sisters. However, in the book, Catherine is fully aware of what is happening and why it is so. There are chapters upon chapters that were written about Catherine fighting tooth and nail to save her marriage, even going so far as to almost cause war. The political intrigue alone of this character should have been somewhat salvaged, as it could have made this movie so much more watchable than it currently is.

The final glaring difference I want to point out is about George, Anne's brother. I am sure that Jim Sturgess of Across The Universe fame is a wonderful actor, but the character of George was totally off from the portrayal from the book. In the book, George is not only a willing participant in the schemes of his sister Anne, but he is one of the chief schemers. Also in the book, but absent from the movie, is the ascertain that George is homosexual. While George being a poof does not really matter too much, it does make the lengths that he and Anne finally resort to much more emotional. Before you ask, in the book George and his sister Anne do bump uglies, resulting in a “monster-baby” that I had hoped would have found its way into the film. I could continue to go on and on about the differences between the book and movie, such as the total lack of Cardinal Wolsey in the movie, but I will not. Instead, I will look at yet another chronicle of the life of Anne Boleyn. It is a little series on Showtime called The Tudors.

This series looks at much of the same time period as the book and movie The Other Boleyn Girl do. Henry VIII is still raging about his lack of child from Catherine of Aragon, and Anne Boleyn still appears to give him a hard time. However, this is where the similarities end. Catherine is a much more important character in this show, while Mary is introduced in one episode and never seen again. However, it is with the other characters where the stories begin to pick up. Cardinal Wolsey, Henry's trusted mentor, is quite a major turning point in this show, as is his zealot-like advisor Sir Thomas More. Both characters serve to enrich the setting and plot, which can best be described as “History for the Attention Deficit Individual”. Now that I have lain bare the differences, let us have a look at who does what better.

The Story:
Well, the movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl is right out. I felt that there was a lot of unnecessary dialogue and not enough emotional punch to make it work completely. The Tudors has a slightly better story, but it is needlessly fleshed out to its maximum extent. Granted, it is an ongoing show and that is one of necessities for longevity. So, without further ado, I proclaim the book version of The Other Boleyn Girl the winner. The book was really quite long, but it was never boring.

The Actors:
Well, since the book has no actors, it is out of the running for this category. However, the movie version of The Other Boleyn Girl does have them, and they all pretty much suck. Eric Bana's Henry VIII was a bit fierce, but ultimately pathetic. The Boleyn sisters had no emotional depth whatsoever, and the whole supporting cast would have been better if they had pulled them from the Bristol Renaissance Faire. However, The Tudors, while not completely accurate historically, is the superb cast. Jonathan Rhys-Myers plays a spoiled and pissy Henry VIII, which is pretty damn close to what he was supposedly like. Sam Neil's Cardinal Wolsey is the perfect foil to Natalie Dormer's scheming Anne Boleyn. Even Jeremy Northram's Sir Thomas More simmers with intensity. Truly superb.

Accuracy:
When something like this is written for entertainment purposes, several facts are usually adjusted for the enthrallment factor. While both versions of The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors tend to... expand upon the existing facts, I personally believe that The Tudors is the more accurate out of the three. It has most of the major players of the time, the major characters seem to be portrayed as they were in life, and the costumes appear to be period accurate, if not a bit too colorful.

My Recommendation:
Well, if it is not abundantly apparent to you by this juncture, I would suggest that you read The Other Boleyn Girl by Phillipa Gregory and watch The Tudors on Showtime. Both are exceptionally entertaining, even if they do play it fast and loose with the facts. By all means, ignore the filmed version of The Other Boleyn Girl until after you have read the book. If you have done that, then go ahead and watch the movie. You'll have as much fun as The Wife and I did when we saw it. We laughed and pointed out the newest fabrications and generally had more fun doing this than watching the actual movie. Tread with film carefully, but cable and prose provide the best rewards.

Dexter: Season 1 Vs. Book

kenneth.holm — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:01:44 +0000

Dexter: Season 1 to Book --Or-- What Showtime Did Wrong By Kenneth Holm Senior Staff Writer My best friend Rich first introduced me to the world of Dexter Morgan. One night, Rich, his girlfriend Christina, Dana, and I gathered around my computer screen to watch the first episode of Showtime's Dexter. It was split into five separate parts, so the viewing was a tad disjointed. After I watched it, I became mildly interested. Here is a serial killer who works for the Miami Police Department as a blood spatter analyst. How droll! What's more, however, is the fact that this serial killer kills other serial killers. Absolutely charming! The first episode drew me into a world that I, regrettably, could not be a part of. Alas, at the time, I did not have Showtime. I was crestfallen, because I had wanted to see how everything worked out for our "hero". Then, a monumental discovery hit me in the face like so many dead carp. It turns out Dexter was based on a book called Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay. I was ecstatic, and quickly ran to my local branch of the Kenosha Public Library to procure myself a copy. It was like love at first sight. Lindsay's fluid prose transported me to a world where good and evil are not easily defined. A world where the best weapon the "good guys" had was, in fact, what normal society would term to be a "bad guy". Dexter was one character to which I could readily relate. I will not go further into that, because I have no interest in turning this article into a psych study. Needless to say, I enjoyed my first visit into Dexter's world. So, being the bibliophile that I am, I hastened back to the library to grab the second volume in Lindsay's superb series, Dearly Devoted Dexter. I wrote my thoughts on both books in reviews located elsewhere on Dorkgasm, so I will not go into those here. What I intend to do here is to go into what the series did right, and what they did wrong. Keep in mind, this piece is strictly opinionated, so if you disagree, cool. Just don't tell me I am wrong if you do not have a legitimate argument to back yourself up. The series starts out wonderfully. Michael C. Hall's portrayal of Dexter Morgan is spot-on. He is cold, chilling, and rightly should be. It's absolute sheer perfection. That's about where it ends, though. Jennifer Carpenter, I feel, does not display the dramatic skills needed to play Debra Morgan, Dexter's foster sister. There's also the physical aspect of Carpenter, as well. Jeff Lindsay describes Deb Morgan in the books as a model-looking type with blond hair and large bosoms. Ms. Carpenter does not have either. Not that I'm that shallow, mind you, but her acting range only calls attention to these facts even more. Playing the title role in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Carpenter worked wonders as a withdrawn, possibly demonically possessed young girl. As a ballsy, brazen police officer, however, I find her lacking. Yet another character that Showtime’s casting department should have thought about longer is Sergeant Doakes. Erik King was effective as Moses Deyell on Oz, but I think his barking-dog delivery is not only ill suited to this character, but distracting on top of it. Was Keith David busy? This brings me to Lauren Vélez, who plays Lieutenant Maria LaGuerta. Where, oh where, did she go so wrong? I can remember New York Undercover where she played tough and no-nonsense quite well. She feels like a neutered dog in this role. No bite, and certainly no bark. I really feel many great opportunities were missed here. What chafes me the most though, as an ardent fan of the book, was the plotting of the season. I understand the Ice-Truck Killer is important. In fact, it should be the most important element of the season. The books provided enough material so that the entire season could have been the first book with no excess. Yet, the writers deigned it necessary to add other side stories to make everyone think that Dexter was not such a bad guy deep down. That's not the author’s point at all. Dexter is a monster that is masquerading as a man. He feels out of place amongst us humans, and he kills for fulfillment. Not really the best neighbor you could ask for. Cody and Astor, the children of Dexter's girlfriend Rita, are so buoyantly happy on the show, you would think they're not products of domestic abuse. Not so in the book. In fact, one could be a little concerned about the demeanor of Cody and Astor. Rita, also, is a sore spot for me. Julie Benz does a good job with the character, but they made her too sexual. In fact, she is far too sexual. The main reason Dex likes her in the book is because she doesn't want to have sex. She is reticent to even kiss the poor bastard. Why the writers felt they had to beef up the sex content is a question I'll be asking well into season two. Well, maybe I am just getting too picky. I mean, shouldn't I just be happy they made a book I love into a television series? Well, that said, let's move onto Rudy, Deb's new boyfriend. Wait a minute. Who the hell is Rudy? He wasn't even IN the book! A new major character? WTF? Oh, wait. It turns out he's Dexter's brother, come to free his sibling from the mundane existence of normal people. What a crock. Never happened in the book, it didn’t need to. Deb was simply kidnapped. No emotional involvement. This plays against type for the Brian character, as he wouldn't have cared enough in the first place. It could have been interesting if Dexter almost killed Debra at the end, but he didn't. Why, you ask? Well, the writers made him into a pussy. That's the sad fact of it. Dexter turns into a pussy at the end of season one. I only hope they don't screw up season two, but Val's review of the first episode doesn't bode well for my hopes. So, in closing, I think the series kinda blows. They took an interesting psychological thriller-cum-dark comedy and turned it into a Lifetime melodrama. The third book in the series, Dexter in the Dark, is out this fall. I hope that Jeff Lindsay doesn't take the same path as Showtime and screw the pooch. I will be watching on September 30, when the second season of Dexter hits Showtime airwaves, but it will be with a hardened and cynical heart. A heart just like Dexter's.