Vampires: The Turning (2004)

 

Think you've seen everything when it comes to vampire movies? Well, how about Thai biker gang vampires interwoven with mystical Thai culture? Eh? How bout dem apples??

So, this movie is a bit of a plot cocktail really. A young American couple are on vacation in Thailand. Connor (Colin Egglesfield) is a kickboxer wanting to get some Thai tips, whilst his girlfriend Amanda (Meridith Monroe) is looking for romance. Amanda ends up getting kidnapped and used as a blood source by a gang of local biker vampires, whilst Connor must try and work out what the heck has happened to her. This leads Connor to discover another group of ancient vampires that are essentially good in nature and don't, or try not to, drink Human blood. Naturally, they are in a centuries-old battle with the evil biker gang of vampires, and it turns out, there is one way to kill all the vampires (in Thailand, I think), save Amanda, and Humanity (at least in Thailand, think).

So what you have here is a mixture of 'Big Trouble in Little China' style Far-East Thai mysticism, some gritty 'Bloodsport' style kickboxing, and some reasonably dark, gruesome modern-day gang action. The movie is shot in Thailand so the overall production values are solid, and everything does look authentic. They shoot in and around real street markets and historic buildings, so there is a sense of authentic, sweaty Thai culture in the air. The only thing with this being, it does tend to feel more like a commercial for Thai holidays.

As for the martial arts and action, yeah its actually pretty good, incredibly. The action is as you would expect, a bit low-budget and hammy, but it works for this type of flick. If you think along the lines of the 'From Dusk Till Dawn' franchise, you'll totally get my drift. There is plenty of blood and gore, it's hammy, but kinda cool. In that category of looking kinda naff but still good fun. But when looking at the martial arts, this is surprisingly where the movie shines a bit. The fight sequences are actually darn good! Egglesfield looks like he can handle himself pretty well, despite my not being able to find out anything regarding any martial arts background.

All the other Asian cast members (unknown to me) also hold their own well and make every punch and kick feel like they're connecting. Heck! Even various flips through the air (as vampires do) actually looked pretty good, to the point that this movie easily looked more authentic than the original 'Mortal Kombat' movies with their bigger budgets. The big finale with all these mystical vampires of the wild East fighting with samurai swords and whatnot, was handled well and not as hokey as you might think.

There is a lot of padding in this movie. A very long bike chase, a long dream/hallucination sequence, lots of Connor wandering around confused etc...Can't deny that. Obviously the acting isn't the best, but it does the job. All the cast come across well and not too cheesy or out of place. Everyone looks good with their ice blue coloured contact lenses. The plot does get a tad confusing at times, a bit too carried away. I'm not sure why this one female vampire can change all vampires back to mortals just by killing herself at the end of a solar eclipse. And yes, the slayers from the original movies are back here, doing what they do in exactly the same way (harpooning vampires, which always seemed like an odd method to me). Not so sure who's paying so much money for slain vampire heads though, I don't recall much from the original flicks.

No this third entry is not connected in any way to the previous two movies, apart from the slayers and their methods. But, I do think this movie is way better than it has any right to be and might actually be better than the previous two in certain aspects (I never thought that much of those movies anyway). A solid vampire flick with some decent martial arts, decent minor league casting, and gory special effects. What more could you ask for?

6/10

Alien: Romulus (2024)

It's the year 2142 and apparently nothing much changes in this 'Alien' universe. Another team of misfits must run around the dark tight corridors of a ship battling aliens and a female is the hero...again, because they just can't move away from that one novel move made by Scott back in 1979 apparently.

So for this little rant I'm just gonna go through my thoughts in a checklist-type fashion because I think it will be easier. The plot you say? Well, there's a bunch of misfits that board this mysterious abandoned ship. Whilst poking around they accidentally let facehuggers loose which leads to aliens and in the end the female and the synthetic are the heroes again, originality eh.

The original 'Alien' film was set in the year 2122 when the creature was presumably killed by getting toasted in the engines of the Nostromo escape shuttle and then drifting off into deep space. But low and behold in our current age where nothing is sacred we find out that the Xenomorph can actually survive in deep space by somehow cocooning itself and it didn't die after all! What kind of species would know how to evolve to survive in the cold radioactive vacuum of deep space? This one apparently. So does this mean there's an alien Queen cocooned out in deep space somewhere? Anyway, the evil Weyland-Yutani company manages to find it (did it not drift off into deep deep space then?), try to experiment on it again, and end up getting all their people killed. Thus leaving a ghost ship floating in space.

Said ghost ship manages to float right into the orbit of a planet with a Weyland-Yutani mining colony on it yet somehow not get detected at all...except by this bunch of misfits. Said bunch of misfits are yet again a perfectly balanced diverse team of young men and women of various ethnic backgrounds, just like reality. Oh and for some reason most of them are cockney's, why? Cos Scott is British I guess? I dunno.

We learn that our female lead character Rain (Cailee Spaeny) is very close to synthetic Andy (David Jonsson), Andy is her surrogate brother. But when Andy has to have an internal disc in his head exchanged for another synthetic he becomes a completely different android and sides with Weyland-Yuntani showing that he cannot really be trusted unless he has the correct disc in his head. Its not Andy, it's really just down to a specific disc in his head. All this should really tell Rain not to get overly connected to Andy, not to get so emotional over him because he is clearly just a machine. But she does, to the point where she risks her own life and others just to save Andy. This is the first time we see a synthetic in this universe switch in this fashion. Change the disc and they can go from kind to emotionless in the blink of an eye which makes them feel way more disposable in my opinion. Why would anyone care about them?

Also, why are these synthetics so super strong? And why do they have such super fast reactions? To the point that they can take out facehuggers mid-leap. I know we saw Bishop showcasing his super fast skills in 'Aliens' but I never really understood why they would be able to do this. They're just androids, not supermen.

We meet another synthetic called Rook who is the same model as Ash from the original film. This model is the rank of science officer and apparently way more untrustworthy and dedicated to Weyland-Yutani than Andy's model. Still not really sure why a company like Weyland-Yutani would have such wildly different looking synthetics for different roles. Like why is the Andy model Black and the others White? Unfortunately the character of Rook is an AWFUL CGI monstrosity which is supposed to look like Ian Holm. Was that the best they could do??

In this film we see how the alien's acidic blood melts its way through the entire hull of a ship with deadly results. This happens a few times. The question is why have we not seen this happen before in any other alien encounters in any other film? We also again see the ridiculous lack of continuity with the gestation period of the alien species. In the original film Scott had this process take time, building suspense. Well not anymore as it all happens within five minutes, yet again.

There's an action sequence where Rain fends off a swarm of aliens using a pulse rifle in zero gravity. Sounds cool right? Sure, but the reason for this was so the acidic alien blood turned into a gloopy substance floating around the corridors. This then enabled Rain and Andy to navigate their way through it more easily. Original? Yes. Ridiculous? Yes. There is no way that would have made it easier to get through the corridors as the blood would simply be everywhere after getting splattered with gunfire. No way they would have been able to avoid all that blood. This also leads me to a small moment where Andy leaps on top of an alien whilst blasting it to pieces with his pulse rifle. So now the acidic blood doesn't matter?? Sheesh!

To top it all off we have yet another horrendous alien newborn sequence (because we all wanted another repeat of that idea). And Rain then manages to kill off said newborn in virtually a beat for beat remake of the finale from the original 'Alien' film, bar a few changes obviously. So no one was bothered by all this? No deja vu??

I have so many thoughts here, it's really hard. This is by no means a bad film, and it's definitely not the worst in the 'Alien' franchise. In fact, I'd say this is actually one of the better 'Alien' films, definitely better than 'Alien Resurrection' and the 'AvP' movies. Being a Ridley Scott production everything looks incredible, like all his films. The attention to detail is phenomenal. This world looks lived in and just incredible. Highly authentic looking, everything looks like it could actually work or do something. All the small callbacks to previous films, the little touches on set details, computer screen readouts, vehicles, costumes etc...The film is set in between 'Alien' and 'Aliens', and visually, tech-wise, sound-wise, it's all absolutely spot on, perfect, faultless.

The problem comes with originality and the plot. The plot is as basic as it gets and offers nothing. The characters are all the same predictable types and having the last man standing be a female yet again is becoming a bit of a joke now. Yes it was unique with Sigourney Weaver and Ripley but that's been done now, it was also done in 'Prometheus' and 'Covenant', time for change methinks. But overall, despite this film looking terrific, once again it feels more like a greatest hits compilation in better definition and with new faces. There are SO many moments in this film that are simply taken from all the others its quite unbelievable. Essentially take bits from 'Alien', 'Aliens', 'Alien 3', the godawful newborn idea from 'Alien Resurrection', chuck in some black goo and voilà!

This film felt more like a necessity in order to sort out the convoluted mess left behind by the failed 'Prometheus' and 'Covenant' films. Hence why this films plot does link with the black goo in order to try and explain what the hell has been going on. But had those films actually made sense and done well I doubt this film would exist because there would be no need for it. 

6/10

Captain Clegg (1962)

 

A rather unusual and not particularly intimidating title for a horror picture. The alternate US title of 'Night Creatures' sounds better but doesn't really fit the bill. I was actually quite surprised to discover this rather tacky, so-called horror, is actually loosely based on a series of adventure books which in turn were loosely based on actual historical events of the 18th Century. Lots of smuggling going on along the South East coast of Kent back then it seems.

This creepy tale revolves around a Captain investigating a potential smuggling operation in and around a small coastal village that just so happens to have a supposed ghosty problem. The village is apparently run by the seemingly inconspicuous village parson (Peter Cushing) who, behind the scenes, does actually run the smuggling operation. The village's ghost problem appears to be a ruse in order to keep people away from their smuggling activities late at night. But does the parson hold a deep dark secret in his past?

Now I know I have given the entire game away with that little plot summary but trust me, it's all pretty easy to see right from the start. This is indeed what you might describe as a charming little British horror flick. I'm sure back in 1962 it was possibly seen as quite scary but these days it's an utterly harmless affair. Again the one thing that lured me into watching this was the usual Hammer casting of Cushing and Oliver Reed. Both actors aren't exactly rocking the boat in terms of range here but both deliver exactly what you would expect in a feature like this. Cushing of course being the highlight with his bony elongated figure and deliciously calm yet devious manner perfectly fitting the conniving parson. His hairstyle (wig) also gave the character a nice religiously eerie presence.

As with almost every Hammer film the visuals are gorgeous and really draw you in. All the sets, props, and costumes (which I'm sure are reused from other films) look wonderfully authentic although I'm also sure they're probably not entirely period-accurate. Like many Hammer productions it's all about the visuals and the thrills and not so much the historical accuracy. Nevertheless they all do the job, alas the same cannot be said for the various location shoots which border on comical at times. Clearly this wasn't filmed around Romney Marshes where the story is set and bizarrely most of the night scenes appeared to have been shot during the day and they've tried to alter the image after the fact. I guess there were issued shooting at night but boy does it detract from the atmosphere.

The ghosts or phantoms that haunt the area of actually the smugglers, and the parson, dressed in robes with skeletons painted on them with luminous paint apparently (would they have had luminous paint in the 18th Century?). These sequences reminded me very much of the silliness of 'Scooby Doo' and even an element of the Ku Klux Klan oddly enough. The scenes of these phantoms galloping across the countryside at night, their robes glowing, unfortunately looked pretty rough as the effects clearly weren't up to much. A nice idea but they weren't able to fully realise it.

Final thoughts? The film's poster is epic, it's literally the perfect hokey Halloween image for any kid's party. As for the feature itself, well I enjoyed it despite it not really living up to the creepiness the poster oh so promises. The actual story is kinda weak and you're not really sure who you should be rooting for. The big reveal surrounding the parson should have been easy to figure out within the first five minutes of the opening (making him the baddie); and the authorities investigating the town are also kinda made out to be baddies too. I guess some of the townsfolk are the goodies despite being smugglers. The atmosphere is certainly present but the final execution is lacking (along with the effects), which is a shame. The night scenes that were obviously shot during the day really spoil everything, or it did for me at least.

6/10

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

 

An eccentric millionaire rents a house that is believed to be haunted in order to throw a party and see who survives? This millionaire appears to be bored with life. But wait! There is of course a more sinister plot afoot, well kinda. Actually it all surrounds a simple murder attempt and no ghosts or ghoulies a tall unfortunately.

So spoiler alert then for this (at the time of this review) 64-year-old movie. Yes, for a movie about a haunted house and starring the King of Creeps Vincent Price, there is no supernatural activity going on in this entire movie, alas. Frederick Loren (Price) invites a small party of specific people over to his spooky soirée. They all share one thing in common, they crave money (don't we all). Apart from the obvious lure of money I'm not too sure why these people would accept such a bizarre and possibly suspicious offer. Looking at it from my own perspective, I would be highly suspicious, but anyway.

The house in question is an actual real location in LA (Ennis House) and it looks awful in my humble opinion. A large ugly concrete block monstrosity that looks like it's been built out of Lego with precast Mayan patterns on them. It literally looks like a Lego set and completely goes against the whole classic 'haunted house' theme. Especially when you take into consideration that the movie's poster showcases a more classic haunted house design. The interiors of the house also have the more classic haunted house style and appearance that most will come to expect, but again this goes against the house's ugly blocky exterior. Alas this contrast makes the interiors look and feel much more like the sets they actually (and obviously) are.

We are told there have been murders in this house hence why everyone thinks it's haunted, but that's as far as it goes. Not sure who owns the house or why they rent it but it does come with an eerie duo of house cleaners. One of which does seem to take presumed delight in scaring one of the female guests half to death by acting mightily scary at random times. I still don't understand why this cleaner did that, what was the point? Didn't seem to have any effect on the actual plot. After a few more (but not that many) ghostly encounters we eventually discover that it's all a ruse by one of the guests and Frederick's wife in order to get his wealth, a shocking revelation. But does Frederick have the upper hand?

For the most part the scares in this movie are mostly people disappearing in rooms, the odd plastic head in a box, a ghost floating outside of a window etc...For the time I'm sure it was intimidating stuff but obviously these days it's all very cute. The main money shot, if you can call it that, is the finale sequence where the supposed skeletal remains of Frederick pop up and floats around the room after his wife, eventually shoving her into a large vat of acid. Yes one room has a large vat of acid in it, don't question it. This sequence is legit laughable in all its absolute crudity and yet at the same time I'm actually impressed they had the gall to keep it in the movie! Heck they liked said skeleton so much it even features on the movie poster. The highlight of this sequence has to be a shot of Frederick standing there controlling the skeleton with the most ridiculous pulley contraption strapped to his body, apparently completely out of sight of his wife! (laugh out loud!).

In the end everything works out just dandy. Frederick successfully kills off his dastardly wife and her lover and proclaims he's ready to accept whatever justice is dished out to him. Yet despite the lack of any actual apparitions we are still led to possibly believe that the house is haunted and that Frederick's wife and lover now also haunt the house. Kinda disappointing we didn't actually get any spooks but despite that I can't say I didn't like the movie. I think this falls under the category of 'the poster is better than the actual movie'. Definitely the epitome of a Price horror flick but ultimately I kinda expected more and not quite as much low-budget effects.

6/10

Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959)

 

'Attack of the Giant Leeches' or if you like...'Giant Leeches Invade Dixieland' or 'Giant Leeches vs. The Good Old Boys'.

So back to the 50's we go with the ever-popular (for the time) monster flick. Or to be more precise, giant bug attack flick. Back in those days it was either aliens, giant bugs, or mysterious monsters. I have mentioned before in previous reviews how during this period virtually every form of bug (and various other species) was used for these types of movies. Giant locusts, spiders, frogs, birds, ants, scorpions, crabs, praying mantis, lizards etc...We've even had killer rocks and trees.

I have also mentioned in previous reviews how these movies tend to be generally exactly the same, and this is no different. Once again giant man-eating creatures are crawling around the outback nowhere near civilisation and terrorising some small all-American town. Usually it's out in the desert somewhere but this time it's deep in the Everglades. Nevertheless the townsfolk are still the same predictable bunch we always see. The good-looking square-jawed White male lead, his attractive White female companion, the elder wiser White male who explains everything (and gives us exposition), and of course the ugly chubby sceptic cops.

The plot? People start disappearing in the Everglades and no one knows why. The main good-looking protagonist and his attractive companion soon think they know but of course no one in town believes them. Eventually they manage to drag everyone (the hick cops) into their way of thinking and save the day, the end.

The monsters in question? Well they are supposed to be leeches...but they don't look like leeches. They kinda look like large squid/octopus tentacles and pretty much act like it too. The monster outfits in question are, predictably pretty bad even by B-movie standards. They appear to be simply large black bin bags or black raincoats stitched together. Yes I know that's what wiki says but that's pretty accurate. Unfortunately we don't even see them enough to enjoy their cheesy appearance, add to that how dark the picture was and it's a bit of a bust really. When we do see them you are clearly able to see it's just men in costume, especially when they 'carry' their prey away.

To be fair the acting all round is actually pretty solid considering. The budget was obviously non-existent but the cast actually do a good job and fit their roles. Leading man Ken Clark was actually pretty buffed up, can't deny a good-looking man with his Brad Pitt-esque locks. As for everything else less said the better really. The way they deal with the leeches is absolutely hilarious (just dropping dynamite randomly into the lake), and all the sequences within the leech lair are quite quite farcical to say the least. But if you're after hokey 50's schlock then you definitely can't go wrong with this one. Really could of done with more leech action though.

3/10

In Search of Darkness III (2022)

The search for Darkness continues and presumably ends with this third part of this quite epic documentary into the 80's horror film genre. Whereas part one covered the more famous and infamous horror flicks, and part two covered the more obscure; part three seems to cover everything in between from the familiar to not so familiar (for me at least).

By now anyone watching this documentary will be well aware of how it plays out and prepared for the onslaught of information, any newbies out there buckle up! Once again the background information to every aspect of all these movies comes thick and fast like a rollercoaster. As before the doc is presented in a year-by-year format and each movie is given its own little segment which in some cases doesn't really delve deep enough, unfortunately, leaving you wanting. But in other cases you get a nice dollop of info that is just enough to satisfy. Whether or not you already know about this information is obviously the key factor in how pleasing it will be. 

As I said in my review of the first two parts, the issue these days is background information for movies is (and has been) easily available either on DVD, Blu-ray, or YouTube etc...for years. Unlike the old days when behind-the-scenes footage/docs/interviews etc...were like gold dust, these days it's beyond common practice. Heck you could even argue that people aren't that bothered anymore with the advent of streaming. Actual physical copies of movies that would have extras aren't the mainstream anymore, strange as that may sound. So essentially, there is a possibility that with many of the movies you may well have seen or heard the information before, although that is less likely with some I'm sure.

Despite this the overall celebration and sheer scope of this series (and this third part) are undeniably impressive. The amount of horror actors, both famous and obscure, that are interviewed is impressive alone. The writers, effects people, horror experts/historians, directors etc...The snippets from all the movies covered or merely referenced. The larger context chapters that dig that bit deeper into specific aspects of the genre, specific actors, specific controversies etc...International horror movies and their effect on the genre. All here crammed into one documentary. I say crammed but they aren't really, this doc is over 5 hours long! But that isn't an issue either as it's perfectly fine to stop and come back another time. The segmentation of the series allows for viewings to be split.

There isn't a great deal to say here that I didn't say already for the first two parts. That's not a negative, it's merely because this is a continuation of the documentary and if you've been watching then you're obviously a fan and know what to expect. But yeah, this is a documentary on all aspects of the horror genre during the 80's and it's flippin' epic. If you like horror then this is for you. If you like some horror movies/franchises but aren't too bothered about horror overall, then you might find this a bit too much and could find yourself tuning out.

The question is, will this documentary carry on and dive into the 90's decade of horror? I hope it does as the 90's is now probably just as iconic for the genre with many true gems.

9/10

In Search of Darkness (2019)

Well what can I say? This documentary is split into two parts and overall is over 8 HOURS long! If that doesn't tell you just how much it will cover then I don't know what will (covers lots!).

What is so impressive about this doc is that it covers almost every aspect of horror, every genre, every sub-genre, even videogames for a small part. Whether you're into the classic 80's bogeymen, Italian clones and rip-offs, horror-comedy, creature features, psychological stuff, mutants, the early blocks of torture porn, or the much-hyped controversial video nasties and apparent snuff flicks, it's all covered here baby.

It really is quite impressive just how many movies get covered in this epic feature. Obviously not everything but virtually a good bulk of it. Each one accompanied by interview sound bites from various people across the board such as makeup artists, the actors, the directors, writers, fans, reviewers etc...

If a movie isn't actually covered then chances are there will be a clip in here somewhere as a reference. The only obvious downside to all this material is quite simply not every movie is given the same amount of time. Some of the more famous and infamous flicks get better longer coverage whilst others are merely skimmed over briefly.

On the other hand, for minor horror fans like myself it's a goldmine for movies I've never heard of and have piqued my interest. Admittedly many of these flicks do look pretty terrible (they haven't dated well in all honesty) but there are definitely some that grabbed me by the ghoulies.

Interspersed throughout this massive highlight reel are segments where specific people are interviewed more in-depth. There are only about four or five of these I think and mostly focus on a few big players like Robert Englund, Kane Hodder, Tom Savini etc...

Again admittedly the info you get here will be either wickedly interesting or so-so. I say this because in this day and age if you're a movie lover (or fan of anything really) then chances are you'll have probably seen and heard much of the stories and behind-the-scenes info/footage from the various people involved. After years of DVD and Bluray extras alongside loads of other documentaries, retrospectives, and YouTube content most folk will probably have seen much of this all before. That was the main issue I had with the sister documentary 'In Search of the Last Action Hero'. There was nothing new, literally seen and heard it all before, multiple times.

So don't go into this expecting all new footage from behind the scenes or groundbreaking stories from beyond the grave, a lot of it is nothing particularly new, for much of the more well-known movies at least. As for the lesser-known titles chances are it's all new, for me anyway.

Overall it's the scope of this thing that impresses so much. The number of people interviewed. The number of clips used. The editing must have been a bitch! And then there's all the copyright tomfoolery! Jesus! Or maybe not? I dunno, seems like it would be.

So, in hindsight, this is well worth your time if you're a horror fan or movie fan basically. It may take you a few sittings to get through it though, but well worth it. Oh and all footage used is uncut, all the blood and gore is right there so all the real fanboy freaks will definitely get their rocks off I'm sure.

9.5/10

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust (2000)

Due to the popularity of the original 1985 anime movie the fans wanted another D flick, a sequel. So with that in mind, over then years later, director Yoshiaki Kawajiri went about planning a follow-up that would be based on the third book in original creator Hideyuki Kikuchi's book series.

So what's happening this time? Well nothing much has changed actually. The year is 12,090 AD and vampires still rule the Earth with their technology and supernatural powers. Nonetheless our good-looking fearless half-breed vampire hunter D is still at it, still tracking down and killing the undead. But would you Adam and Eve it! Another silly girl has gotten herself kidnapped by one of these pesky bloodsuckers. A vampire nobleman named Meier Link has, supposedly, run off with Charlotte. Her father Elbourne hires D to find her and bring her home, or, if she is turned...kill her. So it's another stereotypical plotline again, only this time D has competition from a team of vampire hunters called the Marcus Brothers. Whilst Link hires a team of mutants called the Barbarois.

Now the biggest change here when you see this anime is obviously the visuals. Not that there is anything wrong with the original 1985 look (I personally prefer it), but this 2000 movie is by far a more spectacular offering. The animation was helmed by Japanese animation studio Madhouse Inc. and boy do they nail this. Now I'm no anime expert, in fact I know nothing and have only seen around five anime movies, but for me this was the best-looking anime movie I've seen...bar 'Ninja Scroll'. It's virtually common knowledge that anime looks and moves beautifully and if you ever wanna prove that to someone then show them this movie.

The animation is incredible in this movie. Every shot, every frame, every sequence is like a work of art with loads of details. But apart from the main characters its really everything else that stands out, from major to minor. For example, the animation on D's horse as it gallops looks completely accurate to a real horse. The way D's cape billows and flaps in the wind is perfect. The details on smaller simple bits of scenery like playing cards, mechanics, interior and exterior decoration, garments, weapons etc...are sharp. The composition of Every shot is awe-inspiring, it all looks so good, so epic. And of course the locations/backdrops are far more lavish than before. The dark and gloomy village at the start and the sumptuously gothic looking castle at the end are prime examples of the amounts of detail and design that went into this movie. My simple words do it no justice truth be told but believe when I say there isn't a single part of this movie that doesn't look eye-poppingly good.

As already stated another change this time is the inclusion of a few more characters, mainly the Marcus Brothers. Now these vampire hunters felt a bit cliched to me, your typical anime-type looking characters really. On the other hand they also gave me strong 'Blade II' vibes (although this movie came out before 'Blade II'). But yeah you have the huge hulking male Nolt with a huge hulking axe weapon. The feisty female Leila. Skinny guy Kyle who is good at throwing blades. A malnourished looking disabled psychic called Grove. And their leader Borgoff who looks like a typical samurai type bloke chompin' on a cigar. They also drive around in this armoured tank thing that looks like it's been borrowed from 'Mad Max 2'.

Still, the Marcus brothers are solid bunch of characters that offer more than the main antagonist or his wannabe bride. Alas Meier Link doesn't really give us much and merely comes across like a horny emo teen trying to have his way with a young girl (didn't really like his design either. What's with the hair beads?). He wants her but doesn't want to drag her into his undead world, kinda cliche. If you want the girl just bite her and be done with it. As for Link's obsession Charlotte Elbourne, she does nothing for the entire movie, virtually lifeless. She is merely a walking plot device for Link, D, and the brothers. It's not really surprising that D and Leila get the best plot narrative when discussing their lives in one recuperation scene.

Despite how good this feature looks and some brilliant action scenes (the first graveyard battle) there are still, for me, negative points that were either unexplained or just plain odd. For example, in an early desert set scene D comes across these gigantic manta-ray-like creatures that seemingly live under the desert dunes but can also fly. They don't do anything, they just emerge from the dunes and fly whilst D uses them like stepping stones across the desert. What was that about?  Then on the Marcus brothers team is Grove, the disabled psychic, but what is his power exactly? He can create a ghostly entity that can...shoot laser beams? There is also still a weird issue with technology in this franchise. People use horses (and carriages) even when vehicles are clearly available. There are also various types of guns around yet the main characters use old fashioned weapons like swords and axes.

Then of course there's the whole storyline of vampires using spaceships (spaceships??) to get to 'the city of the night'  which just felt a bit naff frankly. Is this city on another planet? Is it real or a metaphor for death? I must also mention the added plot twists involving the long-dead vampire ghost Carmilla who roams the castle of Chaythe (where Link is trying to get to and where the spaceship is). I felt she wasn't really needed. Her role and plot twist just seemed to be a twist for the sake of a twist. I felt like that was time that could have been used for D's battle with Link.

This leads me to the mutant Barbarois. Link hired the Barbarois to protect him, he paid them a hundred million Dollars, so Dollars are still a thing then? But this had me thinking, what would mutants living in some underground temple thing want with money? They didn't appear to use any technology, but surely they wouldn't need it with their mutant skills. And once again, as with the first movie, I question how life on Earth got to this point with mutants of such a wide variety of powers. Take Caroline for example, a female who can change into trees and vines etc...basically she's like an X-Men character. I also found the Barbarois leader looked just like a more evil version of the Dungeon Master from 'Dungeons & Dragons'.

The few negatives aside this gothic western fantasy is still one of the best animes I've come across. The quality in the visuals is second to none despite the fact I actually do kinda prefer the more simplistic look of the first movie. But the slicker visuals and animation really boost the action sequences this time; seeing mutant Benge backflip away from view as a string of silver arrows strike the ground. The highly detailed horse-drawn carriage of Link crossing a massive elaborate arch bridge leading to the even more intricately detailed castle Chaythe. Or the staggeringly atmospheric and excellent graveyard battle. Add to that a genuine orchestral score to set the mood and the obligatory graphic violence (with some nudity) which suits this franchise so well.

Call me crazy but I actually prefer the original anime movie over this. Why? I dunno really, I guess the original just has that simplistic charm which warms my cockles. It's like comparing slick modern-day videogame graphics to retro pixel graphics. For me retro pixel graphics win every time, even though I do admire and enjoy slick modern-day graphics. You don't need to have seen the original movie to enjoy this, but I recommend both.

8/10