Ninjas vs. Vampires (Review)

Ninjas vs. Vampires (2010) 

Director: Justin Timpane

Ninjas vs. Vampires is already available on DVD in North America, but it is being released on Aug 29th in the UK from LEFT Films. I missed this film on its initial North American release, so the good people at LEFT Films hooked me up with a screener.

Let me preface this review by saying that movies like Ninjas vs. Vampires are hardest for me to to review. For one, they're low-budget, independent features, so these films become saddled with technical and budgetary restrictions that prevent the movies from being their best. At the same time, films like Ninjas vs. Vampires are clearly made by people like me and for people like me: fans of popular culture and genre film. Ninjas vs. Vampires, for example, is rife with references to other comic books, horror films, and comedies that I love. These filmmakers are people after my own heart and sensibilities, so I want to like them and their films. With this in mind, the temptation is to overlook the film's technical and budgetary problems. I'm not going to do that, however. That would be dishonest. Therefore, I'm sad to report that despite its potential,  Ninjas vs. Vampires is a boring and relatively forgettable mash-up of the horror-action-kungfu-comedy-fantasty genres with lackluster effects.  

SYNOPSIS 

Ninjas vs. Vampires is the sequel to Ninjas vs. Zombies, in which some friends are magically turned into Ninjas so that they can fight some evil soul-eating ghouls. Now, in Ninjas vs. Vampires, these magically-powered Ninjas -- along with a Witch and a Vampire-turned-good -- must tackle a group of evil bloodsuckers hell-bent on...well...becoming invincible or something. At every turn, the film distracts you from the plot with a large cast of characters that are poorly defined. We start with Aaron (Jay Saunders) and Alex (Devon Marie Burt), two friends who are attacked by vampires and saved by the Ninja super team consisting of Kyle (Daniel Ross), Cole (Cory Okouchi), Lily the vamp (Carla Okouchi), and Ann the witch (Melissa McConnell). After Ann wipes Alex's memory so she'll forget the incident, Aaron tracks down the Ninjas to find out what's going on. On the side of the villains, a needlessly large cast of vampires led by the PAINFULLY stale and uncharismatic Seth (Kurt Skarstedt) employ a growing roster of other eccentric-looking vamps to help kill the Ninjas. These weirdo vamps are all trying to be this movie's Boba Fett and include Manson (Daniel Mascarello), a sadistic psychopath bound in leather and chains; Maximillian (Will Stendeback) and Manguy (Dan Guy), who dress like they raided a costume store; and The Bishop (P.J. Megaw), a masked vampire and unintelligible leader of the identically-masked acolytes.

MANSON WAS HERE

There are lots of scenes in houses, lots of crappy-looking day-for-night fight scenes in which people die, and I get increasingly bored with a film that doesn't make clear what's at stake or why we should care until too late into the proceedings. My favorite characters make some truly moving sacrifices, and then they are stripped of their emotional resonance by a pre-credit sequence intended to set up another sequel. Ho-hum.

Rating: 2 / 5 Bad Day-for-Night Scenes

IS IT SILLY?

My main beef with Ninjas vs. Vampires is that the film becomes incredibly silly in the absence of accomplished effects, impressive actors, and a big enough budget for costumes and equipment. Without these crucial elements, most of the action looks like footage of people LARPing in their homemade costumes touched up in Adobe After Effects. "Look at me, I'm a bad-ass Ninja! Heeeya!" / "No, look at me! I'm a Gothic vampire sex pot. Hiss hiss, purrrrrrr!"

This vampire gets a poster but two minutes of screen time

When you see a superhero movie being filmed in person, it never looks as cool as when you see it on the big screen after post-production. Ninjas vs. Vampires, however, looks like a superhero film being filmed in person. It's shot with little flare or visual style, I suspect because of the limitations of a low budget. Also, instead of practical effects, the film relies heavily on low-grade CGI to generate muzzle flashes, magic spells, and blood spurts. Unfortunately, this means that when a vampire is shot, for example, we'll see blood spurts but no actual exit wounds. And it looks fake as hell. The artificiality of the effects enhances rather than obscures the silly nature of story, which looked at objectively has all the sophistication of a superhero comic from the 1990s being dramatized by a group of adults playing Ninja with the patrons of a local vampire Goth club. I'm not saying Ninjas vs. Vampires is any less silly in premise than Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, or Captain America, but unlike these recent Marvel blockbusters, Ninjas vs. Vampires lacks the means to fully envelop us in its comic book-inspired universe. Captain America has the funds and the technology to make us forget how goofy it is to watch a man dressed like the American flag punch a skull-faced Nazi. Ninjas vs. Vampires, in contrast, is filmed on what appears to be a handheld digital camera and has costumes that look too real-world and effects that look too digital. It's an unfortunate place to be, but that's where Ninjas vs. Vampires lives.

Nothing in the movie looks as cool as this publicity still

When Ninjas vs. Vampires is viewed as a stand-alone movie, Aaron and Alex become our entry point characters into film, but we don't get to learn much about them, and their awkward relationship doesn't ground us in the movie's comic book plot. Aaron changes too abruptly from a dork into a kung fu master when he's granted magic Ninja powers whereas Alex spends most of the movie with short-term memory loss. Neither are very compelling characters, and with a few exceptions neither are the rest of the cast. The good guys are broadly defined almost solely by their female love interests (Cole loves Lily, Kyle loves Ann, Aaron loves Alex) whereas the bad guys are defined by their gimmicky wardrobe. To create drama, the women are always being kidnapped or killed or hurt. It's lazy comic book storytelling. I'm just surprised we didn't see any women in refrigerators.  

Characters are difficult to invest in when they can't remember anything

Limited in scope and limited in character, Ninjas vs. Vampires is also limited in technical prowess, and the result is a silly-looking movie. Although a lot of scenes are shot in houses (to save on shooting costs, no doubt), Ninjas vs. Vampires wants to be an action movie, so the fights do move outdoors. Unfortunately, since vampires are involved, the fights have to be staged in the evening or at night. These "evening" and "night" scenes are, in fact, painfully obvious day-for-night shots in which a filter is used to darken the characters in a shade of blue, but it does nothing to change the fact that the sky is bright as the God damned afternoon. Even worse, there are actual night scenes later in the film that just make the filtered scenes stick out like a sore thumb. Again, I feel for the filmmakers. Low-light shooting is hard to do, but the alternative -- day-for-night filters -- is no real substitution. Hokey and fake-looking, these scenes not only obscure the action but remind me of the film's low-budget as I watch.

Night

Not Night

Finally, the dialogue is silly and shallowly dramatic. It's all "Final Hour" hero speeches and stale super villain monologing that might look acceptably cheesy in a comic book word bubble but sounds atrocious coming from the mouths of live actors. When the acting isn't painful, it's stale and perfunctory, with the exception of two performances. Daniel Ross as Kyle is a saving grace. He's genuinely funny, emotive, and fun to watch. His character is comic relief with a welcome bit of soul, and even when he's spouting line references from other movies they make me laugh rather than dwell on how much better those lines sounded in the original source material. The other standout performance is of Manson by Daniel Mascarello. Although none of the vampire villains get much back story, Manson feels like the most complete character. Despite his small amount of screen time, he feels like more of a character than Seth, the Big Bad.

------------------------

All in all, Ninjas vs. Vampires is a disappointment. I empathize with the writer/director and the rest of the crew. The deck was stacked against them from the start; nevertheless, technical issues, low-budget effects, and stale casting and dialogue prevent Ninjas vs. Vampires from being the sort of comic book-inspired action and comedy film it wants to be.

I appreciate Ninjas vs. Vampires for what it wants to be, but I can only judge it on what it is. And it's neither a satisfying nor very interesting movie.

Jennifer's Body (Review)

Jennifer's Body (2009) 
Director: Karyn Kusama

When critics were given the chance to sink their teeth into Jennifer's Body, directed by Karyn Kusama from a script by Diablo Cody, they didn't like how it tasted. While the film is profoundly flawed, its humourous edge and vaguely 1980's vibe is enough to push it ahead of a lot of failed horror films. Unfortunately, not enough to push it into the winner's circle.


SYNOPSIS
Needy (Amanda Seyfried) is best friends with sexy cheerleader Jennifer (Megan Fox) despite the fact they occupy polar opposite ends of the high school social system. Although we get a sense very early on that it has always been Jennifer's needs and wants that dominated the relationship, Needy and Jennifer are nevertheless BFF (they even have necklaces to prove it). One night, Jennifer drags Needy to a local dive to see an indie band called Low Shoulder. During Low Shoulder's set, an inexplicably devastating fire engulfs the bar. Jennifer and Needy escape. Outside and suffering from shock, Jennifer gets into the van with Low Shoulder frontman Nikolai Wolf (Adam Brody) and disappears with the band. When she returns hours later, bloody and abused, she is not the same. Possessed by an evil spirit, Jennifer becomes the most literal embodiment of a man-eater. And she eventually sets her sights on Needy's boyfriend.
Rating: 2.5 / 5 Sexy Succubi

IS IT SHOCKING?

The real flaw of Jennifer's Body is that it's not a very scary film. It tires to ride the line between horror and comedy but never fully commits to either. The film is profoundly and completely without atmosphere. There is gore, however. Jennifer is compelled to seduce and eat the boys at her school, and we get to see some grotesque, mutilated corpses as a result. My favorite scene comes early on when she's about to tear a guy apart in the woods. A group of animals gather to watch the kill. When his body is found, a stray deer is nibbling at the leftovers of his corpse. For the most part, however, the real violence occurs off screen or behind curtains (literally). The film is more about using horror conventions to dramatize the inner conflicts, interpersonal conflicts, and sexual conflicts between these two young women. There's an interesting dynamic to be explored here, but the film sometimes feels hindered by its need to try and be scary. It just never fully commits to the horror (more on this later)

You've got red on you.

IS IT SEXY?


Obviously, this film was marketed around Megan Fox's body. Although the film has no explicit nudity, she wears a lot of tight, revealing clothes and completely vamps the hell out of her character. In fact, by refusing to show full-frontal nudity or overt sex, Jennifer's Body heightens its sexual tones by appealing to the imagination.

Although this film should be noted because Megan Fox proves that she can indeed act and convey emotion as well as be sexy, it's hard to escape the fact that her body is the real focus. The camera just makes love to her whenever she's on screen. The film also introduces a lesbian sexual tension between Jennifer and Needy. At the height of their inter-personal conflict, Needy's complicated sexual feelings for Jennifer come to the fore in an incredibly hot lesbian kissing scene. Handled by other directors, this scene would have been very exploitative, but Karyn Kusama's direction delivers a scene that is both erotic and fitting. The film is sure to titillate young boys and men, but keep in mind we're not dealing with a heavily erotic thriller by any means.

For one glorious moment, every prepubescent teen boy 

(and some of girls) stopped talking in the theatre.

IS IT SURREAL?

In terms of visuals, Jennifer's Body is pretty standard stuff. There are moments intended to reference the ludicrously gross-out effects from the Evil Dead franchise (clearly an inspiration for the film as we see Needy has both an Evil Dead shirt and poster). In the end, however, nothing surreal occurs to torture the audience's perceptions.

IS IT SILLY?

The saving grace of Jennifer's Body is its comedic tone. The script by Diablo Cody is full of her now trademark "hipster" twists of phrase that we heard in Juno. Many people hate her writing style (in the same way people hate Joss Whedon's dialogue), but I appreciate that she's trying to do something new with language. I'm always open to people exploring the English language, even if it doesn't always succeed. In this film, Cody's script provides a number of laughs. Sometimes they come in form of outright quips ("They're showing Rocky Horror at the Bijou next Friday night" / "I don't like boxing movies") and other times in reinventions of common phrases ("You give me such a wetty" [instead of 'woody']). Not every line hits home, but enough do to keep the dialogue energetic (can any Final Destination film say the same?). The film's approach to its horror elements is also quite tongue-in-cheek. I don't think we're supposed to take it seriously when an emo indie band from the city turns out to be Satan worshipers, but it adds an element of fun and satire to the plot. Unfortunately, the sillier aspects of the film come at the expense of the film's horrific and sexy elements. Jennifer's Body simply tries to go in too many directions at once and therefore really goes nowhere. By the end of the film, the story feels like an entirely new movie (one I'd pay to see, mind you, and probably like better than Jennifer's Body itself). Jennifer's Body is neither a terrible movie nor a great movie. It occupies that shady gray area in between,  which means it will probably fade away in the minds of horror fans.

CRITTERS 2 -- Cover Criticism

I wasn't impressed with the modern DVD art for Critters, so let's turn our attention now to the VHS art and modern DVD art for Critters 2 (review). Will they be classic, characterless, or criminal?

VHS COVER

Verdict: CLASSIC!

Although this is technically the movie poster, the VHS box art with which I am familiar features the same ball of Krites, but the box art had less text and a red border. This box art for Critters 2 didn't stray too far from the design of the first film's. Instead of a giant Krite, we see the ball of Krites that appears near the end of the film. A striking visual, lovingly painted and detailed, this box art is one I remember from my youth. Although this image feels more static than its predecessor, it makes up for the static design with such an intriguing visual hook.

Modern DVD COVER

Verdict: CRIMINAL!

Wow, these Critters DVD covers really are abortions of Photoshop. This cover is the worst example of lazy digital DVD art I've ever seen. For one, it shamelessly steals the central image of the classic poster -- the ball of Krites -- and then brutally rapes it into submission with radial blur filters. At least the other Critters DVD covers use stock photos. After blurring the shit out of it, some lazy designer pasted it over a nondescript background and photoshopped in some fire that is WAY TOO BIG to be in scale with the stock-photo barn. TA-DA -- new covers for the Critters mass-market DVD release. This probably took, what, six minutes? Maybe four mintues if you don't count all the times the design intern sat there furrowing his or her brow over whether to click "Radial Blur" five or six times.

CRITTERS -- Cover Criticism

In conjunction with my review of Critters (1986), let's compare its original North American VHS box art to its modern DVD art. Will they be classic, characterless, or criminal?

VHS COVER

Verdict: CLASSIC!

Critters had the perfect type of box art for the mid-1980's. Well-produced and eye-catching, it was ready to perfectly target its audience. The thin-line title text in front of a star field evokes associations with other sci-fi films of the era such as Blade Runner or Alien while the two meteors descending out of the atmosphere on a rural horizon establish the film's setting. Then, incongruously smack-dab in the middle of it all, is a big, fat, hairy grinning monster. Lovingly detailed and illustrated, the monster isn't scary but intriguing. Since the film was rated PG-13, this toothy alien is clearly meant to intrigue the kids browsing the movie store. Additionally, the cover's composition leads the eye in a very satisfying circle. Drawn by the creature, the eye is then drawn to the title. From there, the curving arcs of the meteors bring the eye to the barn and back to the the monster. True to the tone of the film while still exaggerating its qualities, the Critters box art is one of the classics.

Modern DVD COVER

Verdict: CRIMINAL!

Oh my God. What is this crispy turd? It looks like someone made this during an afternoon of learning Photoshop from a drop-in course at the local library. Where to start? How about the obvious? Someone went a little nuts with the clone-stamp tool. They couldn't get more than one stock photo of the Critters to paste all over the DVD? They didn't even appear to change the direction of their eyes, so everyone is looking  to the left. This cover is also guilty of two counts of Bevel and Emboss Abuse as well as one count of Reckless Drop Shadow. I've bitched a lot about the lack of imagination in modern DVD art, and I point to the whole Critters series on DVD as proof. Worst of all, the composition is painfully static. The beam of light and row of cloned Critters keeps the eye focused on the centre title text (which is just painful to read anyways). This leaves a lot of dead space in the bottom third of the image. Bleck. Throw this one in the stockades. No chance for parole.

Horror VHS in the Digital Day?

An interesting post over at HorrorBid (generated by a debate on their forums) poses the question: Is it better to watch horror films on VHS or on DVD and Blu-Ray formats.

Let me be honest. I don't own ANY horror VHS tapes from the 1980s and 1990s. None. It's not a video format I'm a fan of.

For one, VHS looks terrible on my modern wide-screen TV. The picture does not line up properly when I play from my budget VHS / DVD combo. Therefore, my VHS / DVD combo spends most of the time stored away so I can watch DVDs and streaming video via my Xbox 360 because it has an HDMI cable. Primarily, however, I don't own a lot of VHS horror because when I was old enough to spend my own money the VHS had already given way to the DVD revolution. I've watched and rented a lot of horror films on VHS back in the day, but even now I own fewer films than I've actually seen. I still love VHS horror box art as an art form (you heard me -- an art form!), and that is largely why I've started this blog. I just never occurred to me to buy VHS tapes.

Even back in the day, I wasn't a fan of watching VHS films despite my love for their packaging. Until I saw the films on DVD as an adult, I never really experienced the value of many classic horror films. Take for example Sam Raimi's Evil Dead. When I rented the original Evil Dead VHS, the picture looked something like this.

Only darker. Grainier. A nauseating ride of visual sea sickness. I spent most of the time just trying to figure out what was going on. Even the parts that were clear were still grainy and hard to see. For years, I enjoyed Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness better only because their VHS copies were less stressed. It wasn't until about four years ago that I finally got to see Evil Dead on DVD and realized it was legitimately one of the best and scariest horror films ever made. It quickly became my favorite of the series (putting me in a minority, I know. Let's save that debate for another day.)

Therefore, when people ask me if I've seen 'this horror movie,' or 'that horror movie' from the age of VHS, my usual response is, "Sort of." Based on the quality of the VHS films I rented in my youth, one can hardly say I saw the films at all. 

Picture and sound quality aside, renting a VHS movie often resulted in misadventure and heart break. For example:

Rosemary's Baby on VHS: Rented three or four times from different stores only to have video stop or break on each occasion.

Gods and Monsters on VHS: First attempts to rent the film resulted in me receiving a mislabeled copy of Pierce Brosnan's Grey Owl and, once, a copy of Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground that was itself mislabeled as Grey Owl.

These are just two of several memorable examples of VHS-related snafus. I could have sworn someone was fucking with me on purpose. Never mind all the VHS tapes that suicided into my VCR by barfing spools of tape into the machine, killing itself and the machine in the process (not unlike a very lethal bee).

One the one hand, I see the appeal of watching VHS horror. I do miss the gritty, worn look of a film print when those films are still visible on screen. I don't miss popping in a film to see nothing but the VCR work itself into a heart attack trying to tame the wild tracking.

If you ask me, the best way to watch a horror film, regardless of VHS or DVD, is in a small, intimate theatre with a like-minded group of horror fans.

This intimate screening is exactly what we offer through Horror in the Hammer. Horror in the Hammer is a group of writers, artists, filmmakers, and fans based in Hamilton, ON who host and sponsor horror-themed events. Each month, we do a film screening at the Staircase Theatre (27 Dundurn St. North) called FRIGHT NIGHT THEATRE. This month we screened Korean vampire film Thirst. Next month, we're screening Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge. Come check us out if you like variety in your horror and an intimate horror movie experience. Don't worry, I won't try and cop a feel -- unless that's what you're into.