Author: unkle lancifer

Have you ever been disappointed by a film only to stumble across it decades later and find it to be a head smacking work of absolute brilliance? That's my story with VAMPIRE'S KISS. What was I thinking way back in ‘88 when I shrugged this slice of genius off? I guess young Unk was expecting something different (a straight up horror flick) and was just too rigid to go with the funky flow. Well, a changed mind is an open mind I always say and I'm just glad this flick sauntered back into my life. VAMPIRE'S KISS is not your traditional vampire tale; it's a raven black cult comedy, a portrait of a soul longing to connect while dismantling in the process and a "Wish you here!" post card from late eighties, late night New York. It was written by JOSEPH MINION, the guy who wrote MARTIN SCORSESE's AFTER HOURS and maybe if I was privy to that nugget of info way back when, I wouldn't have been so dense to the film's modus operandi. Truth be told though, I think one needs a bit of life experience, a couple of their own soul sucking vampire encounters, to truly appreciate what's going on.

NICOLAS CAGE is Peter Loew an insecure egoist with some real intimacy issues. Here's a guy who wants to fall in love but fears losing himself in the process. One night stands do little to appease his needs and the only sense of self importance he can attain is through vicious power plays at his yuppie job and temper tantrums performed before his therapist (ELIZABETH ASHLEY). He has an interested, fun-loving romantic interest at his disposal, Jackie (KASI LEMMONS), but his head and heart itch for the acceptance of an unattainable beauty, who rebuffed him, Rachael (JENNIFER BEALS). One night a bat flies into his apartment (is it real? I don't know), and he finds his battle with it more arousing than the available Jackie. Clearly Peter is more excited by the "mortal combat" of love, not the actual attainment of it. From this point on he falls into a pit of fantasy where he is owned and can be loved by a nonexistent vampiric entity. In the made up world inside his head, love is finally possible now that choice and consequences have been obliterated. Peter's fears of being drained by love have transformed him into a life draining monster himself. Eventually, like a snake eating its own tail, he consumes himself.

CAGE broke my heart a long time ago. No, I couldn't take a flight on CON AIR with this once astonishing actor, it just hurt too much. Here he is at his pre-sell out, still has a neck, prime; lanky and ridiculous, flailing about like a stringless marionette and shamelessly mugging for all to see. What a great, fearless, go-for-broke, let the chips fall where they may performance. NICK, all is forgiven and bravo. I know that weirdo is still inside you somewhere. I plan to now seek out THE BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL – NEW ORLEANS and to rewatch THE WICKER MAN solely for comedic purposes. I have held a grudge against you for decades and I am now calling a permanent truce. Rank me among your highest supporters…for now.

In contrast to CAGE's intoxicating showboating is MARIA CONCHITA ALONSO as his long suffering secretary Alva. ALONSO delivers such a quiet, restrained alternative to CAGE's manic drooling that the collision of the two approaches is spellbinding. Peter (who even has a photo of KAFKA on display in his office) sends poor Alva on a bureaucratic goose chase that's sometimes uncomfortable to witness but also hilarious. CAGE's excesses are such that I found myself almost hiding behind my hands in sympathetic embarrassment for both parties. It's as if he sends her on an equally fruitless journey as his own out of spite and when her goal is miraculously reached before his, it sparks his final self destructive nose dive.

Director ROBERT BIERMAN deserves accolades for opening every cage in the zoo and for letting the script and the city speak for itself. Downtown New York is really allowed to breathe and be itself on screen yet the visuals never overpower the performances (really how could they?) ELIZABETH ASHLEY as Pete's doctor should also be singled out for delivering some of the film's funniest, most sardonic lines without a wink. VAMPIRE's KISS is currently on HULU and you can watch it for free HERE. Clueless Unk circa 1988 may not recommend it, but I sure as hell do.

I've always felt a bit of a stony disconnect with 1951's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. It's not because it's in black and white, me and black and white movies are prone to secret late night rendezvous all the time. Is it because I saw JOHN CARPENTER's remake first? That never stopped me from getting completely entranced with the original CAT PEOPLE or INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. I've said before that I'm not the type to give up on a film just for not putting out on the first date. My love of JOHN CARPENTER's THE THING is enough for me to own the film it's based on and the other night I gave it another go with happy enough results. It ended up being a fine film to help me put old man winter to bed and watching it with the conscious eyes of a CARPENTER fan delivered some rewards previously missed.

I'm thinking my problem has always been that the film steers clear from the emotional and psychological aspect of horror. It's a stiff upper lip, often times jocular man's man flick whose tone seems closer to that of a war film or western. Most of the characters crack wise throughout the running time and the worst terrors seem readily cured by a hot cup of joe. There's never a real sense of chaos as all involved (save for a wigged out watchman whose bullets have zero effect on the creature) approach the problem at hand with steady, rational aplomb. Moments after the monster gets his arm ripped off by a dog we've learned just about everything we would want to know of the being thanks to some scientists and a couple microscopes. Maybe a little too much even, personally I'd advise a "Don't ask don't tell policy" if my film's main threat was conceived as an "intellectual carrot."

As much as I'd like to shake the whole phlegmatic affair up like a snow globe, I have to admit that some of the stark desolate photography is winning and that there's a few good workable jump scares. I know that's faint praise for a renowned classic but I've always found the unflappable a bit dull. It's certainly entertaining; I just feel I should want to squeeze its cheeks a bit more than I do.

Although the listed director is CHRISTIAN NYBY it's widely known that CARPENTER's hero HOWARD HAWKS cracked the whip on this dog sled. Just as AUNT JOHN has taught me to appreciate, if not love, some films I've neglected, knowing that CARPENTER holds this film in such high regard makes it that much more interesting to me. There's a mismatched group facing an unknown foe just like in ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (and THE FOG), There's a dark shadowy giant with a habit of crashing through hallways just like "the shape" in HALLOWEEN and the final sky gazing moment that warns of future possible terror was lifted directly for THE FOG's elegant epilogue. I also think I understand why NANCY LOOMIS was cast in so many of CARPENTER's films, her girl Friday quip-banter is a chip off of TTFAW's MARGARET SHERIDAN's block. In fact, I'd say in some ways this film resembles those early CARPENTER flicks a bit more than it does his official remake.

Oh boy, you know, I started this post thinking I'd keep talk of CARPENTER's remake to a minimum but that's kind of impossible. I admit it, the whole time I was with the 1951 version I was thinking of it's younger sibling (you can take the Unk out of the eighties but you can't take the eighties out of the Unk.) Who am I kidding? I guess the ultimate truth for me is that nothing can really stand up to CARPENTER's take on JOHN W. CAMPBELL JR.'s WHO GOES THERE? Those other remakes I mentioned, CAT PEOPLE and INVASION, add modern nuances to the films they spawned from (to debatable effect, personally I enjoy them all) where CARPENTER's version just blows the previous take absolutely out of the water and renders it nearly obsolete.

Ugh, I said it. I know not everyone will agree with that but I doubt I'm alone. CARPENTER added the paranoia, the distrust, the believable human aspect that's needed as an appropriate flip side to the alien menace. The original takes on a rather surface issue of invasion and can be seen as a "red scare" parable of us vs. them. CARPENTER tackles something a bit deeper, the very real fear (and this should scare you) that we ARE (or are becoming) "them." The threat may still come from outer space but the territory it marks as a landing pad is the human body, it conquers from within. Ultimately traditional heroics have little effect in the remake as we are left wondering if even our star player MacReady (KURT RUSSELL) is corrupted. The ultimate fear is a global dehumanization, a very profound and real social worry that continues. I ask you, in 2010, is man still "the warmest place to hide" or is the alien menace likely to get more mileage hijacking a laptop?

The ‘82 version may have gotten gaff for relying too heavily on special effects but artist ROB BOTTIN did a bit more than throw blood and prosthetics about. He made it seem that anything was possible and that anything could happen at any moment. His conjurer's hand added yet another significant layer of unease and distrust to the happenings. Suddenly, all bets were off and the audience had that rare experience of not having a clue as to what to expect. Cautious critics can cry "leaves nothing to the imagination!" as much as they like, we now know the reverse was true. BOTTIN's beautiful work in fact, lit the fuse of imagination. He had many of us pondering what shape "the thing" might take next and the possibilities were simply endless. Let's hear it for coloring outside the lines.

Can I just say I hate the cliché of "leaves nothing to the imagination" because it assumes to know the perimeters of my mind? I get the slavish love for subtlety, I think it's great to allow the audience to fill in the blanks when it's done well, but the gall of suggesting that audiences can't expand upon what they have seen just seems like lazy rhetoric to me. It's sad that so many critics in 1982 could mistake legitimate, inspirational artistry for sensationalist gore. Mr. BOTTIN, Mr. CARPENTER, you left a hell of a lot to my imagination, thank you very much. You still do.

Honestly, do you know what's a way bigger imagination killer than visceral, in your face special effects? I'd say it's having your monster be a carrot. Heads with spider legs are not the enemy my friends, walking vegetables are!

Oh no, I've jumped the rails again (and perhaps I'm preaching to the choir), please enjoy my mania while it lasts. I don't mean to disrespect a film that made so many of my favorites possible. The earlier version (maybe it's not even fair to compare the two) really does have a snug, affable atmosphere even if its thrills feel limp. I guess THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD is never going to satisfy this viewer completely. It's not that it's dated and as dispassionate as a distant patriarch, it's because I have no real need to dance with someone so frigid when I know I can just as easily, for the same quarter, have my mind blown.

I once facetiously said that horror heroine Ellen Ripley officially belonged to the world of sci-fi because she broke bread with robots and drove a spaceship to work. The truth is, no amount of blinking computer lights or sparkling stars can keep ALIEN from being one of the purest examples of a horror film in existence. ALIEN may wear a sci-fi jumpsuit but when you look into its eyes, horror is all you see. I started this project hoping to show the similarities between RIDLEY SCOTT's stone cold masterpiece and that of the classic horror films that came before it, but as you'll see I fell off the rails a great deal and included films released after ALIEN as well. The reason for that, I'm sure, is because that is where the greater share of my familiarity (and DVD collection) lies. (I also ended up including some other examples of the sci-fi horror hybrid; both genres have always been thick as thieves anyway-why split hairs?)

Although I may have lost my initial point in the process, I think I discovered a bigger truth, that the mechanisms shown are eternal. As I see it, the notorious scene of the alien baby bursting from JOHN HURT's chest may have signaled an exciting new path ahead for both genres but at the same time it exposed something as ancient and primal as birth itself. ALIEN, Lt. Ripley, have I told you lately how perfect you are?