by non-action I mean horror/drama, or any mix of the two. By horror, i mean a well done horror movie with some sort of plot-- not some stupid slasher movie.
My favourite in this category has to be Interview with the Vampire. It mixes mostly drama with just the right ammount of horror to make it a dark yet entertaining movie. The mix is just about right-- not too dark as to be disturbing, but not gory enough to ruin the great acting.
The plot was well done, it is the story of a vampire who has trouble letting go of his human conscience despite the fact that his purpose and existence depends on being a killer. It's a classic man vs. himself conflict with a vampiric twist.
the sets were also done exquisitely. The places where gore was called for -- such as the betrayal of lestat and Louie's revenge on the vampires at the end -- was well done because it got the point across without sacrificing the classy atmosphere of the movie.
Unfortunately, I first watched this movie in it's Tv edit-- with many of the key points omitted. UPN aired it last year the friday before the buffy finale, and I started watching the movie about half an hour into it, so I missed the beginning but Fortunately I taped the rest and have watched it several times since then, so I know the movie well.
UPN's edits also destroyed the ending-- with some scenes omitted, I had trouble tying the movie together. After renting and watching the uncut movie tonight, I found that most of the omitted parts were cut to simply allow time for commercials than for indecency. Sure, some scenes that were cut were a little too risque for TV, but most weren't. (f*** UPN, f*** adverising.)
Final synopsis: Interview with the vampire is a great movie and I recommend it to anyone. My only regret is that I wish i'd seen the full version first instead of the desecrated TV edited version.
After watching interview with the vampire, I eagerly rented and watched Queen of the Damned, expectign the same quality that I saw in interview. After watching both, I find it hard to believe that both were written by the same author. QOTD was definitely inferior for the following reasons, IMO:
1. after watching Interview, I felt that lestat should have been played by the same actor in QOTD. While watching QOTD, I had a hard time believing that it was the same lestat. He just looked too different.
2. There were several glaring plot contradictions between QOTD and interview with the vampire (IWV). For one, according to QOTD, lestat was asleep for 100 years, but we clearly saw him at the end of Interview in modern times. Second, Armand from IWV claimed to be the oldest vamp in the world after 400 years of exiastence, but QOTD's maurius was MUCH older (since 700 BC). Third, In IWV, Lestat claimed to have learned absolutely nothing from his maker (which was revealed to be maurius in QOTD. However, Lestat apparently learned a lot from Maurius in QOTD. How could such glaring contradictions be overlooked by the author what wrote both stories and knows the stories better than anyone? However, QOTD's music was its one redeeming factor. IWV's music was also supurb.
3. The best part in QOTD was when lestat was made into a vampire and then when mauruius was mentoring him -- after that, when the plot returns to modern times, it just falls apart and seems too random.
(I didn't mean to write a revierw, but I believe i got my point accross![[http://forums.massassi.net/html/smile.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/smile.gif "http://forums.massassi.net/html/smile.gif")
)
------------------
Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next." They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.
[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited March 26, 2004).]
My favourite in this category has to be Interview with the Vampire. It mixes mostly drama with just the right ammount of horror to make it a dark yet entertaining movie. The mix is just about right-- not too dark as to be disturbing, but not gory enough to ruin the great acting.
The plot was well done, it is the story of a vampire who has trouble letting go of his human conscience despite the fact that his purpose and existence depends on being a killer. It's a classic man vs. himself conflict with a vampiric twist.
the sets were also done exquisitely. The places where gore was called for -- such as the betrayal of lestat and Louie's revenge on the vampires at the end -- was well done because it got the point across without sacrificing the classy atmosphere of the movie.
Unfortunately, I first watched this movie in it's Tv edit-- with many of the key points omitted. UPN aired it last year the friday before the buffy finale, and I started watching the movie about half an hour into it, so I missed the beginning but Fortunately I taped the rest and have watched it several times since then, so I know the movie well.
UPN's edits also destroyed the ending-- with some scenes omitted, I had trouble tying the movie together. After renting and watching the uncut movie tonight, I found that most of the omitted parts were cut to simply allow time for commercials than for indecency. Sure, some scenes that were cut were a little too risque for TV, but most weren't. (f*** UPN, f*** adverising.)
Final synopsis: Interview with the vampire is a great movie and I recommend it to anyone. My only regret is that I wish i'd seen the full version first instead of the desecrated TV edited version.
After watching interview with the vampire, I eagerly rented and watched Queen of the Damned, expectign the same quality that I saw in interview. After watching both, I find it hard to believe that both were written by the same author. QOTD was definitely inferior for the following reasons, IMO:
1. after watching Interview, I felt that lestat should have been played by the same actor in QOTD. While watching QOTD, I had a hard time believing that it was the same lestat. He just looked too different.
2. There were several glaring plot contradictions between QOTD and interview with the vampire (IWV). For one, according to QOTD, lestat was asleep for 100 years, but we clearly saw him at the end of Interview in modern times. Second, Armand from IWV claimed to be the oldest vamp in the world after 400 years of exiastence, but QOTD's maurius was MUCH older (since 700 BC). Third, In IWV, Lestat claimed to have learned absolutely nothing from his maker (which was revealed to be maurius in QOTD. However, Lestat apparently learned a lot from Maurius in QOTD. How could such glaring contradictions be overlooked by the author what wrote both stories and knows the stories better than anyone? However, QOTD's music was its one redeeming factor. IWV's music was also supurb.
3. The best part in QOTD was when lestat was made into a vampire and then when mauruius was mentoring him -- after that, when the plot returns to modern times, it just falls apart and seems too random.
(I didn't mean to write a revierw, but I believe i got my point accross
)------------------
Old aunts used to come up to me at weddings, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next." They stopped after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.
[This message has been edited by Pagewizard_YKS (edited March 26, 2004).]
![[http://forums.massassi.net/html/biggrin.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/biggrin.gif "http://forums.massassi.net/html/biggrin.gif")
![[http://forums.massassi.net/html/tongue.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/tongue.gif "http://forums.massassi.net/html/tongue.gif")
![[http://forums.massassi.net/html/redface.gif]](http://forums.massassi.net/html/redface.gif "http://forums.massassi.net/html/redface.gif")
