20131028: Horror Review--Vampire Diary

Vampire Diary

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. British live action feature length film, 2006, rated R, 89 minutes, horror, aspect 1.85; spoken word is English.
2. IMDB: 4.2/10.0 from 492 user ratings.  Estimated budget, 650,000 pounds.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 'No score yet,' and 38% liked it from 1,375 audience ratings.
4. Netflix: 2.4/5.0 from 43,494 audience ratings.
5. Directed by: Mark James, Phil O'Shea; screenplay by Phil O'Shea.
6. Starring: Anna Walton as Vicki, Morven MacBeth as Holly, Jamie Thomas King as Adam, Kate Sissons as Haze, Justin MacDonald as Brad.


2. Setup and Plot
1. Holly is doing a low-budget documentary about the Goth scene in London, UK, and in particular about faux vampires.  She meets Vicki, who claims to be a supernatural being, a 'real' vampire.


2. On that note, is Vicki just another Goth cosplay enthusiast?  If so, this looks like a psychological drama, not horror.  If not, then how much of reality are we expected to ignore to embrace the film?


3. Someone (who else...) kills Eddie early on. Holly and Vicki record the reactions to his death by substantial exsanguination.


4. Holly and Vicki start their lesbian relationship, which is, not surprisingly, neither believable nor interesting nor titillating.  It is, however, out of focus, out of frame, low on contrast, low on color saturation.  It is rather emblematic of the film as a whole: dreary and non-engaging.


5. Brad disappears from the Goth scene; some weak indicators point to Vicki.  Vicki shows Holly a tape of her killing Brad.  Holly helps Vicki with the problem.


6. The discussion of what 'real' vampires are like was boring, over long, and not believable.


7. Holly tries to find a way for Vicki to survive without killing people.  Surprise.  This fails.


8. Vicki came to Holly already pregnant by a male vampire.  The gestation and the police investigation consume the rest of the film.


3. Conclusions
1. Skip this one.  It's ugly to look at, is short on plot, and has little to redeem it.
2. One line summary: Documentary film maker goes looking for Goths also finds a vampire.
3. One star of five; one blackhole for cinematography.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 0/10 Hand-held badness in the style of Blair Witch.  Almost everything that can be done wrong with a video camera was done in this film.  The dueling feeds from two different very-low-quality hand-held cameras (Holly's and Vicki's) was amusing for a good 8 or 9 seconds.  After that, it was just one more constant nuisance in this train wreck.


2. Sound: 4/10 Mixed bag.  Sometimes in sync with visuals, other times not.  Horrid incidental music.


3. Acting: 4/10 Not too bad on the face of it. Actors hit their marks and read their lines. Still, nothing is memorable about it because no actors were engaging.  This is more about delusional idiots posturing for one another, not about character motivation, or exposition of why certain events happened.


4. Screenplay: 2/10 Twenty minutes of plot stretched out to 89 minutes.  This film has the indie look of keeping whatever footage is recorded, then putting it together in post.  A lot of the footage (particularly at club scenes and some party scenes) does nothing to advance the narrative and does nothing toward explaining character actions.