Seems last week's Hallowe'en blog about Robert Pattinson, Stephen Moyer, Brad Pitt and all those other sexy creatures of the night got your collective blood up, so after swift reflection (if not in mirrors) you bit back with the vampire movies that have possessed you including Salem's Lot, Dreyer's Vampyr, George Romero's Martin, and the much gorged on Near Dark, which, as I shall explain, changed my life. It's nice to know you all feel you have a stake in this blog and for that I'd like to fang you (That's enough bleeding vampires, Ed.)

Tagged with:

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 45. Posted by vanfilm

    on 13 Nov 2009 23:27

    Keep it Gothic, keep it sexy, keep it scary and spare me the teenage angst.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 45: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 45: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 44. Posted by Cliff

    on 9 Nov 2009 17:42

    has anyone any advice as to how to vbiew this content?
    thanks

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 44: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 44: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 43. Posted by Filmjunkie

    on 9 Nov 2009 13:04

    Mark,

    Just listening to your latest podcast, whilst day-dreaming at my desk about a film i saw for the first time this weekend - Near Dark.

    No idea that you had all been rightly giving it the accolade this past week, and in logging onto your blog for the first time to say my bit about it, realised i was pipped to it by you and your following.

    Great to see that the film (that i had previously no knowledge of) is recognised and appreciated by you all. For me it definitely ranks up there as one of the best vampire / occult films. Can't seem to stop thinking about it.

    I saw that a remake is potentially in the works, but is on hold during the current Twilight releases... please don't! groan!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 43: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 43: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 42. Posted by Dave B

    on 8 Nov 2009 19:39

    It was in an issue of Empire where they asked a number of directors whether they would be embracing the 3D format that Sam Mendes gave the best response, "I have, it's called the theatre." I think that sums it up for me.

    Back on topic: Glad to hear you've watched at least one episode of Buffy, Dr. Kermode. However you need to see the first three seasons to see why Twilight is very outdated.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 42: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 42: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 41. Posted by Ed

    on 8 Nov 2009 12:11

    My parents watched a vampire movie in the cinema on their first date. It was the fearless vampire killers. This movie must have meant a lot to my dad because he insisted on me watching it at the age of 5. Needless to say I've had some long nights shivering with fear, and vampires have turned up in my nightmares ever since. Though these days they dont frighten me at all.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 41: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 41: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 40. Posted by Akay

    on 6 Nov 2009 15:04

    again. content not working ... grmmbbbll.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 40: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 40: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 39. Posted by Michiel de Groot

    on 6 Nov 2009 09:06

    @ Mark Harrison

    The problem here is, which is also, I think, the good doctor's problem: it's often putting style over substance. Up was great because of its characters, not because of its 3D. Like you said, 2012 will probably have glorious 3D, but a useless story and characters. By the looks of it, so will AVATAR. Yes, there haven't been really great 3D movies yet, but I don't think cinema is about spectacle and illusion at all. It helps, certainly, to propel a good (or even a bad) movie along, but the main reason cinema exists, for me at least, is storytelling.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 39: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 39: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 38. Posted by Markus

    on 6 Nov 2009 08:06

    Like the internet cartoon "are you coming to bed""I can't . This is important. Someone is wrong on the internet" I felt compelled to respond to Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo's 3-D cinema discussion on the Culture show.

    Hoping for an in-depth appraisal and encouraging speculation on what this could mean for the future of cinema I came away disappointed at the seemingly luddite view of Mark Kermode. I usually like his reviews, especially on films I don't care for, and of course I don't always agree with all his opinion. But on the future of 3-D cinema he displayed a surprising lack of understanding of what cinema has ALWAYS been about. It has first and foremost been about spectacle and illusion. From the very earliest film pioneers attempting to run us down with trains to flying us to the moon. The desire to fool the senses and engage the imagination in a way theatre couldn't do.

    These most successful of these types of film require speed, depth of field, and space. Imagination doesn't hurt either or a style of film making that benefits the 3-D requirements.

    Which is why the most successful 3-D films to date have been CGI animations. Disney himself pioneered the layered look of animation in SNOW WHITE, trying to make the film more dimensional. Ardman/ Pixar produce 3-D animation (albeit viewed in 2-D). For animation of this sort, It's a natural (and necessary) progression to 3-D cinema to properly showcase the format. But I believe it to more than just an evolution of animation.


    Hitchcock was cited as a more successful user of the 3-D and interestingly his style of film making would answer the question what film would benefit from the technique over it's 2-D counterpart. VERTIGO is an obvious candidate. Standing on the dizzying edge of building looking into the abyss is captured perfectly in 3-D. Spacial scenes where depth is required such as in NORTH BY NORTHWEST with a distant featureless horizon chased by a crop duster or on immense stone faces of Mt. Rushmore. I believe Hitch would have embraced today's more sophisticated 3-D techniques and used them to tell better stories as are many of today's most visually imaginative directors. (Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott) Enhancing the moment has been a Holy Grail in the Cinema of the Spectacular, placing you in the film for today's illusionists.

    I can think of numerous films that beg to be seen in 3-D. Any of the STAR WARS films (the canyons of the Death Star; the circling dog fights) SPIDER-MAN (and any super hero film where the grand battle on the roof tops takes place) SEVEN, BLADE RUNNER and GLADIATOR ( form the intimate tracking around a crime scene with spacial awareness to the towering cityscapes, rain of arrows and spears and colosseum grandure) Add Terry Gilliam to the list; BRAZIL's cloud soaring scenes and nightmare battles will have added depth. His film making is very theatrical.

    Film makers gifted with a visual flair can see the future of the Cinema experience and can best tailor their films to it.

    Doug Trumbull (of 2001: A Space Odyssey fame; a film that would benefit from 3-D) took what he had learnt on the film BRAINSTORM and applied it to Hollywood Roller coaster rides. He explored the science of perception and how the brain could be fooled by motion and imagery (film after all is just that, 24 frames per second trickery, although Trumbull discovered the real magic came at 60 frames per second!)

    James Cameron has taken up the baton in the digital age with AVATAR. Unsurprisingly he has chosen a spectacular science fiction backdrop to showcase the technology (although he had used it to a lesser degree in GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS, taking you to a place you couldn't go; the Titanic)

    This illustrates that pioneering film makers have always been striving to make the cinema experience as real as possible and will continue to do so. To dismiss it is to ignore the possibilities it can offer. To lump it with 50's gimmickry is to do it a disservice. it's not about poking you in the eye. It's about immersing the viewer in the films environment. It's not the showmanship of Sensurround; fleeting novelty. But one step closer to stepping through the canvas window into a virtual world. Whether or not you want to take that step is like deciding if you want to see a film of the book or radio play. Do you want the extra dimension? Imagination shouldn't be relegated to 2-D by dimensional fascists in the same way irrational supporters of literature and radio view film.

    I think the hang up of those who see 3-D as a gimmick; the threat or unnecessary addition to the cinema experience betray the same fear of change theatre goers must have felt to the emergence of cinema. Yet 3-D cinema in time will get us back to that theatre experience. Except we're on stage, roaming the set, getting up close to the actors, and then being transported to locations as far as the poles, as far a space itself. To deny 3-D is to deny the evolution of the cinema experience that was formulated in its very early days.

    3-D cinema requires a big canvas to truly work. The giant formats of the 50's like Cinema would have been ideal, filling the peripheral vision but that's an impossibly costly format change. The 3-D cinema of today is the compromise, not the ideal. Having to still fit within the constraints of conventional cinema. If anything, it's 2-D cinema that's the problem. The question shouldn't be when was the last time you saw a good 3-D film, more like when will there be a good cinema worth showing a 3-D film in? Currently the only answer lies with IMAX.


    I think Mark Kermode needs to see a good 3-D movie in a good cinema made by a director who knows how to draw you into the picture. And if he is a luddite to the premise of 3-D cinema, then I am probably a philistine to film. I go to the cinema about 3-4 times a year and they are always the big spectaculars. A bunch of talking heads I can see on TV (the home of story and characters (;)) where I tend to get most of my film experience from). I look to the cinema for the "Big Screen" escapism, something todays TV's (at the moment) can't provide.

    As an indication of how seductive spectacle can be, I will probably see 2012 at the cinema. I'm under no illusion that the story and characters will be secondary (if present at all). It'll be the CGI Apocalypse I'll be going for. And I'll probably think it would've been better in 3-D!
    Placing you in the moment, in danger be it from a speeding train or collapsing world has been a part of cinema from day one. An equal and valid part as much as story and characters. The difference being in my case, 3-D will actually get me into the multiplex. The film industry will make money from me. It's show and business.

    It's the future of cinema as we know it... until we get Holo-decks in our front room! (Now that IS the future!)

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 38: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 38: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 37. Posted by daryn shepherd

    on 5 Nov 2009 14:09

    I think this stubble talk owes a lot to the twilight saga. Are we now Kermhards? Are you team follicle or team epidermis? WHAT HAVE WE BECOME? Next we'll be shipping* mark with the BFI building, WHAT NEXT?

    One of my favourite vampire films was the Warhol/Morrisey BLOOD FOR DRACULA with Udo Kier. I love how it gets all its supposed depth out of the way in the first few scenes (that echoing and beautiful opener where a virgin-blood-deprived dracula is seen applying his make up so as he may appear in full glory, sad and poignant) and then the film descending into madness, horrible offensive dialogue and hilariousness as Dracula gets ill as the landowner's daughters are quite 'loose'. Horribly entertaining. Complete visible intended disregard for the potent mythology surrounding the vampire. A WAKE UP CALL TO ANNE RICE.





    *Shipping being the process, in the land of fan fiction, creating, erm, romantic entanglements with characters who in the original series/novel/film wouldn't usually get together

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 37: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 37: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 36. Posted by Ann - host

    on 5 Nov 2009 14:08

    Hi everyone
    I'm sorry for the technical difficulties with international viewing, this should be working for you all now - enjoy!
    Ann

More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next