|
|||||||||||||||
Bloodsucking Cinema makes a bold claim to example the origins and evolution of the vampire movie, something that isn’t going to be easy for anyone given the sheer number of movies that fit into that category, especially when you factor in that the documentary runs under an hour. While it does look a bit at some of the origins going back to Nosferatu as well as the original Dracula, there are far too many movies to try and squeeze into such a short time period and give enough coverage to where there is some real meat to the history of the genre. In reality, Bloodsucking Cinema is more like watching a “best of” behind the scenes feature from no less than ten different vampire-based horror movies, though it’s really not just scenes from these extra features. There is a great deal of “I remember when” sometimes in conjunction with “when I was growing up” and linked with “I really liked how his was done.” At times you might get a bit of insight on what set a movie apart from others, but it’s much more a decision by different directors like John Carpenter, John Landis and Joel Schumacher with added comments from Cheech Marin and Stan Winston as well as the wisdom of a credible reviewer like Leonard Maltin who is never really allowed to unleash the power of cinema that he has at his disposal. Harry Jay Knowles is also featured, but his comments really feel more like he’s trying to do a review and sell the movie. Then there’s the case of Uwe Boll who had his entry into vampire lore with Bloodrayne and its sequel. The thing is Boll continues to remind us during his segments that it’s a movie based on a video game. Look, we all know exactly what it is that you do when it comes to films and the fact is, the last four or five movies that you’ve directed have all been based on video games, so we get it. Boll also references his “creative” vampire bar scene that he thinks has never been done, though I’d say that the opening club sequence in Blade has a few similarities, though the two aren’t necessarily derivative of one another, but there are definite connections. Also amusing is listening to Len Wiseman, the director of the Underworld films, going on about how original his idea was and how it hadn’t really been done before. Maybe not in a while, but any role-playing fan knew when they heard the plot of the movie that it had in fact been done before and apparently White Wolf, Inc did as well. The movies that are referenced range form the classics, including those done by Hammer, to more recent offerings like Bram Stoker’s Dracula, a movie I think about picking up on Blu ray until I remember there’s one flaw with it; Keanu Reeves. Innocent Blood is actually talked about to some extent which I found a bit surprising since most have forgotten about it and the legendary Lost Boys is also discussed, but the short running time eliminates some movies you’d expect to find. In particular, Near Dark isn’t even mentioned and the documentary doesn’t bother to cover the blaxplotation entries into the vampire genre, both past and present, or some of the more the more hardcore entries like The Bare Breasted Countess. The DVD doesn’t even include any bonus features, something that I’m surprised by considering that, once again, with a short running time there weren’t any interview portions that could have been included that were off topic or more informative that what the documentary attempted to present? Unless you’ve seen right around zero vampire movies, Bloodsucking Cinema isn’t going to bring you much in the way of knowledge or information. Some of the interview segments are fairly entertaining, but anyone should understand how the genre has evolved over time with the use of computer animations. Based on the title alone, there’s scarcely any blood, there’s a fair amount of cinema, but sandwiched in between there’s a keyword that happens quite a bit, and not just the variety that vampires do either. -mike-
|
|||||||||||||||
