October 30, 2025 • 45 mins
In this episode of Houselights, we explore Kathryn Bigelow's "Near Dark." Join hosts John, Darren, and Tristan as they delve into the film's unique blend of vampire, western, and punk rock genres, discuss the performances of its ensemble cast, and examine its cult status and technical execution. Discover how "Near Dark" set the stage for Bigelow's illustrious career and why it remains a fascinating piece of 80s cinema.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to House Lights, as we open up a new
chapter on a new director, the house of Bigelow, Catherine Bigelow,
in specific, a director who has had actually Oscar wins
and nominations in her past. But everybody starts somewhere, So
this week we will be starting our examination of the
works of Ms. Bigelow with the look at her first
(00:44):
full feature, single directed film, Near Dark, a nineteen eighty
seven vampire hillbilly western, biker punk, rock drama thingy, whatever
genre you want to say it is, that's what it is,
according to the critics. I'm happy to be here to
discuss Near Dark, movie I've loved for a long time.
(01:04):
I am a disgruntled father of the vampire pack here
and I have the spur wearing cool kid vampire in
Darren Moser and the never to grow up and always
to feel what it is to be a child for
all eternity Tristan Riddell. So, gentlemen, are you ready to
discuss this little gem from the nineteen eighties that not
(01:28):
many people have seen but has garnered a cult following
Near Dark?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, yeah, it's very dark. I mean, we'll talk about that.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
It is dark. It is time. Yes, oh man, it
is dark.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I actually there was one scene where I said, I
wonder if Darren feels like you can see everything here,
So I can't wait to get into that part of it.
But obviously I'm the old man. I saw this on
video way back in the day.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
This was like a.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Little lost treasure passed around video sort of thing where
friend sees it, and I'm pretty sure it was my
friend Mike was like, oh no, no, you got to see this.
You gotta see this. He puts in the VHS and
I'm like, oh wow, this is a different kind of
vampire movie.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
But you, guys, this is your first time encountering it, right.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Yes, I mean you you talked to me about it
a while ago, like you Okay, So, fans at home listeners,
John has been pitching Catherine Bigelow for a very long time,
essentially since we started the podcast and we moved one
from h Fincher and Nolan and Anderson been years basically
(02:31):
since since Darren started, which which basically it seems it
feels like Darren has been with us since the beginning,
but that's how long he's been pitching it and we
we It's not like we didn't. It's not like we
disliked Bigelow. It was just, I don't know, like we
were just never in a mood for it. And so
you kept telling you kept telling me specifically too. You're like, no, Tristan,
I know you like vampires. You gotta watch in your dark, Okay,
(02:53):
It's really hard to find a copy. So I found
you a copy. John, That's how much I loved you.
I found you a copy and.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Sent it to you, and.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I didn't I still didn't watch it because I didn't
love you that much, but I wanted a viperation for
this podcast.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
And that was today.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
That was today, and that was the first time I'd
ever seen it, and I'd never heard anything about it.
I didn't know what on earth. I didn't know who
was in it. I didn't know.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
All I knew is that it was Catherine Bigelow and vampires.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
That's it.
Speaker 6 (03:18):
That's all I know.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
And Darren, were you surprised to find at least half
the cast of Aliens was in Oh.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
My gosh, I was having Aliens. I had to look
up like, oh, this was the year after that tracks
because they're all I mean, we just it's not quite half,
but it feels like a good chunk of the vampires
are from the Aliens cast. And I think we can see,
you know, between the lines on how that came about.
(03:44):
Someone knew someone and someone said, hey, but they're still actors.
They'd still a gig, still a job. Just because they
were an Aliens doesn't mean they're too good for this.
And so yeah, we get some game over, we get
some fun in the sun, and yeah, but it was
in a way hard to extract that alienness because this
(04:08):
is the following year and they look just the same.
And I mean, you know, sometimes you can see an
actor later, a couple of years later, and they look
different enough that it's easier to detach them from the role.
But when it's the same voice and tone and they're
talking to the same people and it's literally the same
age close enough, it took me a little while to
(04:31):
to stop saying game over in my head. Let's put
it that way.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
That's that's fair, that's very very fair.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
I think that part of the prestige of this movie
for the sort of like the cult crowd that's followed
it around for all of these years is the fact
that it's it's.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Got the shine on it from the.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Fact that it was released very close to The Lost Boys,
and the Lost Boys is a big, polished Richard Donner,
big budget Warner Brothers. The direc of Superman gets to
do whatever he wants to, and we have these giant
crane swooping shots and Keifer Sutherland everywhere and cool vampire
makeup and all of that, and this very much feels
like it's a smaller scale film, So it's it's a
(05:13):
more intimate sort of take. I consider the two an
interesting counterplay with each other though, because Tristan, I'll throw
this to you. Do you see something in the DNA
of Near Dark that makes you feel like this is
very close to Lost Boys thematically as well as time wise,
or do you feel that this the vampires here are
different enough that you don't see too much crossover in
(05:35):
worldview and stuff like that.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Well, I mean, like you said, I mean Lost Boys
is man okay, So like if if Near Dark is
a Western Lost Boys is a music video, yes, that's
kind of how I would say.
Speaker 6 (05:49):
And so, like you know, like it's really like Lost Boys.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
Is really stylized with Neon and it even has like
Echo and the Bunnyman playing, I mean, come.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
On, and one of the best saxophone songs in the
history of rock and roll.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
Yes, and You're Dark. You know, it's it's much more
bleak visually, I mean visually.
Speaker 5 (06:10):
I mean, like you know, like Lost Boys has its
bleak moments, of course, but I mean to me, I
you know, I don't know, I don't I don't really see,
like I'm looking, okay, So, like I'm looking at IMDb here.
So like Lost Boys came out in eighty said, the
same year, obviously only a couple of months beforehand, and
the budget isn't that different. I mean, I guess, I guess,
I'm I'm kind of okay. So, like the budget for
(06:30):
Near Dark was five million, and the budget for Lost
Boys was eight point five And but when you're dealing
with numbers that low, and I say low relative is
relatively speaking. I'm not trying to sound weird, there is
kind of a big difference between a eight point five
million and five million when you're dealing with stuff that's
below ten million, especially with inflation, and you really see
(06:52):
the difference, Like when you look at Near Dark, you're
kind of like, okay, just for inflation, where did that
money go? Like, honestly, where did that money go? And
with Last Boys, you see it on the screen.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
I think, yeah, I think that's fair.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
But I think what it is as well is I
think you see and Darren, I'd like to get your
thoughts on this. I think that when you're comparing the
budget like that, Joel Schumacher, who's a vet by this
point of making The Lost Boys, knows how to make
that eight point five million dollars go. He knows he's
run this ship before. He's like okay, and he has
that to your point, Tress in that music video sensibility,
(07:25):
which is you know how to edit and like and
flash with as little as possible, whereas this is Bigelow's
first film. Do you think Darren, that's the key difference there?
The budgets are a little different, But would a more
seasoned director have done more with it?
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah? It to kind of go to my first netpick.
And this is just speculation. I want to say. It
almost felt like they had only one camera, like ever,
and so everything, all the coverage had to be shot
with a one camera setup. And I don't know that
extra two point whatever million could have rented us the
(08:03):
second camera, but I felt it from the very beginning
the scene where Caleb is talking to May, I was like,
I was almost thrown out of it because every shot
was a back and forth shot. There was like no
two shots. It was like him and then her, and
then him and then her, and then him and then her,
(08:24):
And I was like, where's my wide, where's my master? Like,
I felt it in a different kind of way. It
reminded me, kept making me think of Harry Potter as
so far as they had to shoot that in a
coveraged way because they were shooting children to piece a
lot of it together in the edit because of the acting.
(08:46):
I'm not saying that has anything to do with this.
These are obviously you know, pro actors, but it it
just was jarring because I was like, this is how
you're putting a conversation together, a meet cute of two
of your lead characters. And I almost got a sense
that they were there on different days of shooting and
happened to be edited into the same conversation. It was
(09:09):
almost that bad. And there are other parts throughout this
that are shot like that, the bit at the bar
where they're tearing it apart. Like I never got a
sense of the room because we were cutting everywhere. Someone
sitting over here, someone standing over here, We're breaking the line,
we're moving around like and that was the entire movie.
(09:30):
So to say that, I mean, I say it almost
in jest, but I don't know, maybe an extra camera
for that white shot, for some coverage, for something to
cut to. I'm not saying it only had one camera.
It could have had to it could have had some
other type of shot. It could have been a stylistic thing.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
But it felt it was like that. It did. It
felt like a TVD movie. I think that's the thing.
Is that, like with you saying like one camera, you know,
like a lot of modern sitcoms where it's a single
camera comedy, they sometimes they just use one camera, like
especially if they were shooting on film, like thirty Rock
shot on on one camera, and Tina Fe talked about
(10:08):
how much she hated it because it was film. Their
lines set up, change film the other people's lines. But
then when you know, people started embracing you know, in
the same genre, like when people started embracing digital, like
with parks and rec you'd have you'd have both, you'd
have the close ups on both actors, and sometimes you'd
have a wide depending on so you could have like
two or three cameras at one time. Now granted this
(10:30):
is neither here nor there, but I'm just saying that, Like, Darren,
everything that you're saying sounds like TV, where you're just like, Okay,
we have enough budget for one camera. We do not
have enough time for a masters shot, so we're just
going to be using this one camera to get every
single shot that we need, and then we piece it
together and that's the movie that we have.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
It didn't feel like they explored in editing.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
It was very much like you know sometimes you know,
you look at a movie and you can tell it's
an editor's movie, and other times you're just like, oh no,
like this is this is what they got, and this
is what they pieced together. They just found the best takes,
and this is how they progress the scene. I think,
if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, I kind of
got that feeling too, Darren.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Yes, yeah, there's some parts that are very obviously adr
you know, to fill in the sound, which again, these
are all technical things. Like I'm not it doesn't detract
from the story. Or yeah, we're just acting, but you
felt it. It was very you know, this felt overall
a step above. This is not a student film. This
(11:31):
definitely has caliber to it, but it is it is
a first film. It does feel like that, like there
is a and I mean, hey, I'm ready for us
to be buckled in. I don't know why it took
us so long to get to this director, so we
can just go through her career and see because man,
like you said, we're gonna get to some oscars, We're
(11:53):
gonna knock it out of the park and not too
short of an order.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, I think that one of the things that is
maybe endearing is the fact that it feels like a
first director film. For the bar scene, I completely concede that,
Like I think, even even before I possessed sort of
the more discerning eye for certain things, that bar scene like,
besides everything else, the way that it's shot, the way
(12:18):
that it's put together, it's like the slowest moving bar
fight I've ever watched in my life. That's what makes
it feel like a super first time effort, because it's
like no no cut, Oh god, that this is like
an extra three seconds. I'm not getting a sense of
danger about what's going on here, and I think maybe
a different editor probably could have gotten it tighter for her,
(12:42):
you know, but who knows what the you know, their
working relationship was, like maybe it was no, no, no
trust me, and the first time director didn't have the
confidence to push back on the editor in the bay
or something like that.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
And the bar scene, it's hard because two things. You yeah,
there's no, it's not building, and your victims are just
kind of standing there like NPCs, waiting for the main
character to go up to them. But I could also
see how you could get trapped in the edit where
you have to have all the kills, you have to
(13:17):
have all the you can't just have oh what, wasn't
there another patron who was sitting over there that we
just never saw again. So you shoot all this coverage
and you kind of get stuck in a loop where
you can't trim it only so far, like you have
to include everybody, and then all of a sudden you're like, oh,
this is like a fifteen minute segment. That's just what
(13:38):
it's got to be because you can't edit your way
out of it.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
So I looked up the I looked up the editor
it's Howard Smith. His first big movie was the fourth
segment of the Twilight Zone movie, and then it wasn't
until then he did a few other pictures and then
Near Dark in eighty seven. But after Near Dark in
eighty seven, he does The Abyss in eighty nine, and
he comes back to Bigelow with Point Break in Strange Days.
(14:05):
And in between Point Breaking Strange Days he does Glengarry
Glenn Ross, Oh and I and then he does Dante's
Peak later the Crow.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
Shouting Off, but he's also on a miniorit crew right.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
But the way wait wait wait wait, we're we're still going.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
He does the Glasshouse, he does Sonny and then he
then all of his talent culminates once we get into
the two thousand and four, two thousand and six and
he does Blade Trinity and Snakes on a Plane just
a one two punch, just boom.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It was all starting here. It all built all to
those moments. Yeah, but you know, maybe it is something
then then where I mean, he obviously has some talent,
and maybe it is like you're saying, Darren, it's just
this is what they had to work with. And it
was a first time director not getting as much extra
foot it just.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
She needed, Yeah, get her that coverage that you need.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
And maybe maybe just maybe spending too much budget on
blowing up a truck, because I feel like we could
have gotten around that scene differently.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
That felt a little much. That that felt still felt.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
James camerony where it was like maybe you know, he
was giving notes on the script.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
He's like, yeah, yeah, no, no, blow up a truck.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
People love that it's really really big because you know,
we all know love the camp. We all know the
Cameron loves to blow thing, blow up trucks as they go.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
I do want to say though, that even though this
is her big I should say it's not her first movie,
but her it's her first bigger movie. I mean five
million dollars that's I think that's like thirteen in today's money.
That's nothing to sneeze at. Obviously it's low budget for today,
even thirteen. But still you can see her in this.
You can see Bigelow in this. Like if you've seen
(15:45):
any of our other work, like if you specifically like
Point Break and hurt Locker.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
You have this.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
Really, what's this RM? I'm looking for?
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Like moral ambiguity, a lot of muchismo like she like
her movies have a lot of machismo, and I think
that's definitely prevalent here and in later films. And I'm
not saying that as a knock. It's just there and
you know, kind of like a sometimes frenetic camera work,
you can still see that. And you know, like oftentimes
(16:13):
we ask ourselves, we asked the question like, oh, you know,
like where do you see Anderson in this? Or where
did you see Nolan in this? Like when you see
no like when you watch the following by Nolan, You're like,
where do you see him? And I was just kind
of like, don't. I don't see it, Like I don't
know where we get this guy. But with this, even
if I have my own issues with the movie, like
I see Bigelow in this like I can see a
(16:34):
freshman outing and her fingerprints are all over it, and
I can see her grow into what she is today.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
I can honestly say even with some of the you
know what, let's just tear this band aid off, because
I know that Darren loved the night scenes here, But
even with some of the things where it's like, oh,
you know, there's a little difficulty seeing what's going on
in the darker moments and stuff like that. I think
there's still a color palette that comes through with Bigelow here.
(17:00):
It's a very it's very interesting sort of you can't
quite put your finger on it sort of thing. But
like the way that the palette works with the background
colors and the foreground colors and everything. They never blend,
but they all seem adjacent to each other. There's not
a whole lot of separation going on through a lot
of this, and I'm you know, some of that is circumstance,
(17:22):
I'm sure, but it feels like a choice because I
think you get to, like you talk about Tristan like
hurt Locker and you know, other stuff that she's done,
and you see that sort of similar palette choice going on.
But Darren, let's go ahead, let's embrace it. On a
scale of one to ten, ten being I hated it
(17:43):
and one being I could tolerate it. How frustrating was
it for you to watch the night scenes here?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You know, I gave it a little bit of a
pass because it is a vampire movie where they have
to have things happen at night, like, so I gave
it probably an extra two points on that scale just
because yeah, you're not You're not going to have all
of these day shots or even twilight shots there, but
(18:10):
yet you could still light things where you can see
people and understand what their motivation is. So probably give
it a I'll give it a five right in the middle, like,
and that's with a bonus point, you know, it's I
think it kind of leads to something else about this
(18:30):
movie is I think there's too many vampires. I think
the coven, the group, whatever it is, like, there's too
many people, maybe by one where I want to know
more about each one. I want to know more about
where they're coming from, and we just don't have the
time to invest in all of those characters. I think
(18:53):
we got a little bit, you know, we knew for
you know, Lance Hendrickson's you know, oh, Civil War soldier
Bill Paxson was, I don't know anything about him, but
he was angry, probably maybe a cowboy, he had spurs.
But for Diamondback, I felt like she wasn't even there,
like she was there just to hang on Jesse's arm.
(19:18):
So that I think leads to the darkness and the
dark scenes when you have just all these people shoved
in a car, shoved in a room, shoved in a bar,
like it's almost hard to tell them apart in some ways,
not that I couldn't tell, like, oh, that's Lance and
so and so, But I don't know. Did you guys
get that similar vibe. Did you feel there were too
(19:39):
many vampires or was there just enough?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
I don't think that there are too many vampires. I
think that there to speak to your point about characterization
and stuff, I think the script doesn't support opportunity for
the actors.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
To put too much of a spin on anything.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
These vampires are I guess I struggle for a phrase,
but I guess you would call them plot vampires. We're
we're in an age where we're very used to what
it would call story vampires, whereveryone's got a backstory, and
it feels like they're fully fleshed out being in their part.
They've gone through it man, and they're struggling with their
immortality and everything like that, Whereas you have these vampires
(20:20):
are I'm a vampire, I'm old and I kill and
it's like they're very surface level vampires.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
I guess you could say.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Even if you compare this to the Lost Boys, the
Lost Boys all of those characters.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
You know, they at least work the balancing act of
there are other vampires than Keifer Sutherland. But that movie
very wisely balances the focus onto Keifer Sutherland and say
this is your antagonist and everybody else's his henchmen. This
script slash movie is trying to make everybody equal in
a sense and never succeeds. And that's where they should
(20:54):
have had more. I guess you could say they should
have had more Severins and Diamondback and Homer, like, just
swap that out for two more Severins, and it's just
like a group of jackasses.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
And what a badass Severn. I love that name.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Actually I went to school with a guy named Severn.
He spelled it differ.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
He was not a badass. I'm just gonna say.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No, I think you're I love what you said, John.
Where they're plot vampires, they're there to move the plot
along because honestly, I mean, maybe you could say may
because of the meat cute, but who's the protagonist vampire?
It's a very much an amalgamation of it's the vampire
group that's the character, which isn't a bad thing. It's
(21:38):
just you don't get a lot of backstory like that.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, I think that uh Adrian Pastar is Caleb. He
doesn't get he doesn't do a lot with the role.
I'm not going to throw him under the bus for it. Again,
I think it's a script function more than anything. I
think he's doing what he can or.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
You know, there's not a lot of meat on the bone.
I mean, it's it's not like you said, it's not
his fault. There's a But the problem is is that anybody,
literally any actor could have played that role.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
And I think there should have been just a clearer protagonist,
like I didn't care what happened to him too much, and.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
It was like that.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
I think that's the biggest problem with the movie is
that you don't really care. Whereas, again, to draw the
comparison to Lost Boys, because let's just embrace it. Lost
Boys comes out around the same time you care about
that family dynamic, the two brothers. You know, the older
brother needs his younger brother to help him out, and
he has his friends and everything like, and there's something
(22:35):
dynamic and interesting going on there, and they've moved to
a new town and there's all of this stuff. Whereas
this again is just sort of like, Hey, here's some
events that happened, and they're cool, and it's well structured
and it's interesting, and I think that what really comes through,
especially with this watch, is what we've all been sort
of drawing the line to, which is you can see
(22:56):
where this is going to go with Bigelow, especially if
you've seen her later stuff. You see the potential here
so that I can under you know, sometimes you see
a movie that flops and your your reaction is why
this director get another job? But you see this and
you're like, I understand why somebody could watch this and say,
I'm gonna give you a chance with this and see
(23:17):
what you can do with this point break in this case,
and you know, maybe you can you can give me something.
I see some promise here of what you can do.
The music is very eighties Tangerine Dream. They were an
unstoppable force for many years, Darren, Tangerine Dream. Did they
bring it from near dark or did they undercut the tension?
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Yeah? This was just TV movie from the get go.
You felt parts repeating you felt. I mean, synth is okay,
but it's also a cheaper sound as opposed to like
an orchestra, you know, not that you can't do cool
things with synth. I mean we saw that in Terminate.
We saw that and some other great things, some some
(24:03):
little bits there. So yeah, it's nothing to write home about.
And yeah, to to ask answer your question, did it
enhance the tension, there's no. There's no tension. There's no
tension this movie at all, Like really, I mean, they
give the guy a blood transfusion and he's like, oh
I'm better now. I'm like, oh, okay, I guess that's
(24:26):
a thing, and we're good.
Speaker 6 (24:29):
So apparently that was a studio note, like originally.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
They wanted it that in there, or they like, this
doesn't make sense because no.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
The studio note was they wanted it. They wanted a
happy ending, oh my gosh, and so like. So, so
May was originally supposed to die, and the lesson that
Caleb was going to learn was that, you know, like,
you can't dance with the devil in the pale moon
night and walk away unscathed. And then they're like, no,
one needs to be happier. So they're like May needs
(24:57):
sort of to survive, and they're like, how are we
going to get made survive? They're like, okay, well you
give her a blood trenfusion and she's not a vampire anymore.
They're like, Okay, if we do that to her, are
we going to do it to Caleb? And so that's
what happens to Caleb earlier on, and that's why we
have that. And it feels like a double edged sword.
So okay here, okay, I don't hate it, but I
(25:18):
don't like it either, but I find it interesting because
no one's ever done it before. And that's what I
really appreciate in this movie is that the transfusion, you're
just kind of like, oh, okay, that's all it takes.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
But at the same time, like I said, you've never
seen it before, yes, And so that in itself is
interesting and it adds to the credency of it, of
of the credence of this being its own story, its
own world. And you know, like you said, John, like
there these are plot vampires and that's a plot fix
and it's just moving from one scene to the next,
(25:52):
like getting these people around, and it's just what I like,
if I was writing a vampire story, would I add
that in?
Speaker 3 (25:59):
No?
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Oh, because that's part of the torture of being a vampire.
Is that there's no going back. Well, this one is
just like, oh no, you want to live for a
couple hundred years, but hey, you want to see the
sun again, Just get a transfusion from your father in
law and it'll be totally fine.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Hey, you know, it fixes everything. I think that you're right, Tristan,
that it has the virtue of not having been done before.
And I think that that also added to its appeal
back when people were first encountering it way back when
on VHS was Oh, what a neat different way to
do things, because we've all seen variations of you know, oh,
(26:36):
you know, they're not a vampire until they make their
first kill, or they're not a vampire until the third
night has passed, or there's always an out for the
person who gets turned. There is always an out. And
this is the first one that said, well, why don't
we use something I don't know, scientific and will replace
his blood or something. And it's like, well, okay. Like,
(26:56):
if anything, it feels more than a lot of other
vampire movies even today, it feels more of an embrace
of the modern age to say, well, you know, modern
fix for an old problem, and it's like, oh yeah,
all right, nobody just nobody thought of it before. Sure,
like you can buy that, you can believe that. So,
I mean, I think it's a nifty fix. I think
(27:18):
it's messy the way that it's done here. I think
that it's too slow. I mean, that's the thing that's
really sort of gets under my skin about the movie
is it's ninety five minutes and it still feels too long.
It feels about ten minutes too long.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
When I was I hear what you're saying about it
feeling ten minutes too long, because by the time that
you get there, you feel like you're burning oil. But
when we got to the thirty minute mark, I was
checking the time, which is not a good thing. But
like at the thirty minute mark, I was checking the
time and I was like, only thirty minutes has gone.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
By, which is completely different from we just did House
of Donner, and I, you know, all of us talked
about the fact that it's like, oh, I'll just turn
on Forrest Gump for a little bit, and then all
of a sudden, you're an hour and a half in
and you're like, oh, what what happened? Like you just
you're just sucked in as you go and again. I
think that's a function.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
What do you think, Derek, I think it's a function
just of the script. I think this is really a
script that needed another another pass. What do you think
that could have fixed it?
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Maybe I have the same thing where I pulled up.
I usually look at Wikipedia just to because it has
a simple outline, but it's not like spoiler spoiler, And
I was like, Okay, see where am I in the movie. Oh,
I'm only in the first paragraph, and it's like nothing
has happened yet. There's still so much more to happen
and it's been like half an hour. But what a
(28:45):
story pass fixed that? I'm not sure. I mean, we're
talking about major issues of like, you know, specifically protagonists, drama, suspense, pacing.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Oh you know, I mean, you know, by taking another
pass at it, you know, maybe it doesn't make a
ten minutes shorter or not, but maybe having him meet
may once at least before they decided to go drive
off in a truck together. She has some sort of
allure for him, and he's sort of like intrigued and
they see each other again, and that way you have
(29:19):
more time with them.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
I will say it would have been nice not to
add to the length, but something in the very very
beginning establishing our protagonist. What is he doing. Is it
just a Friday night and he's looking for fun or
does he have a job interview tomorrow or has he
been away from home a lot and he misses his
sister and now he's back on spring break and something
(29:43):
give me context for this boy in his life. And
I'm not saying you need a lot of time to
do that, but there was none of that. It was just,
here's an inciting incident right in the truck.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Even though even just a montage of him, like working
on the farm, bailing hay, doing farmer stuff because it's
a it's supposed to be a part Western, you could
see him on a horse riding in the sun, you know,
corralling something to get it back into the pen or
or something like that. To get that vibe because begins
(30:15):
with purpose. Yeah, right, best I can tell. They they
were dirt farmers, and they were very successful because there
was a lot of dirt everywhere and not a single
crop that I could see on this farm.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
So well, you mentioned genres, and in reading about this,
it sounded like, you know, they she wanted Bigela wanted
to do more of a Western piece, and they couldn't
really get a Western funded. It was, you know, maybe
not this story, but some sort of story. It was
what she was going for. And then this whole craze
(30:49):
of vampire movies are starting to come out and are
fairly popular. So she took the idea of, oh what
if we combined Western aspects, and I think she did
it successful. I think this movie does kind of combine
those genres fairly well. You kind of have the lone strangers,
had him through town, someone has spurs. I know it's
(31:09):
a little on the nose, but it's you know, you
got a saloon. You know. I can see what she's
going for there, but in modern setting. So I applaud
her for that.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
And not just any saloon, but a saloon populated by
the guy that later picks a fight with the terminator
and terminator too, which is really great. Yet another Cameron
connection there. But you know, I feel like, you know, Tristan, earlier,
you said there's not a lot of meat on the
bone with regards to the protagonist, I feel like there's
(31:40):
not a great deal of meat on the bone as
a whole. But what I want to ask is there
were discussions to do a remake of this, and it
was in two thousand and six they were going to
talk about a remake of this, and they had somebody
attached to direct it. And then in two thousand and
(32:01):
eight there was a film that helped put.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
The kaibosh on that plan. Can you guess what film?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
It was?
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Twilight?
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yes, citing that it contained a romance between human and
vampire characters and therefore it was too similar. Now do
you feel that maybe they misjudged it and that the
time for a Near Dark remake was exactly the Twilight time?
Speaker 5 (32:25):
Or that was that was exactly when we needed Near
Dark the most? Yes, I was during this time. I
as I was watching this, I didn't like this movie.
I'm just gonna rip the bandit off. I didn't like
this movie. I really liked what it tried to do.
I really like certain aspects of it. I like there
are certain things I like. I really like seeing Bigelow
(32:46):
start off. I really liked seeing her freshman take with
a larger budget. But I didn't really like it. I
felt like this was pretty joyless and just felt like
like a slog going through. But the entire time I
was watching it like this needs to be remade, This
needs to be remade, Like this is one of those
movies where I know that they like people. Hollywood really
(33:08):
likes to remake good movies. No, don't remake good movies.
Leave good movies alone. Remake the crap ones, or remake
the ones that didn't make a lot of money, you know, like,
remake the ones that have a great idea. But it
was either the wrong time, the wrong director, the wrong script,
the wrong actor, whatever it is. Jared leto the reason
Rema remake tron Aries. No, like this is. This is
(33:32):
one of those movies, and it was I know this is.
I want Bigelow to cecil b the mill this. I
want her to remake this. I want modern I want
twenty twenty five Bigelow to remake this film. And I
think the cloud that she has, the oscar that she'd
be able to slap the producers with. I think she'd
(33:54):
be able to really produce the script that she would
want to produce. And I feel like you'd have well
rounded characters, you'd have some amazing action sequences. That bar
fight would look completely different. Yeah, And I think it
would be a really obviously we're just talking hypothetical now,
but I think it would be a really great character
study on a director's growth. And to say, like, because
(34:18):
in my own film school experience, like my senior year,
the last project I ever did was a remake of
the first project I ever did my freshman year, and
it was a challenge I you know, did for myself.
And I'm schmucky the clown. I would love to see
an Oscar winning director do that kind of thing. And
(34:39):
I this is this is a kernel of a great idea.
And this is going to sound ridiculous, but Manos the
Hands of Fate one of the worst movies of all time.
It's so much fun to watch because it's so terrible.
There is a kernel of an idea there that would
make a fantastic remake.
Speaker 6 (34:55):
This is one of those. This is this is no Manos. Obviously,
I'm not saying that this.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Is what I was about to get agree about that.
Speaker 5 (35:00):
No no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay, I'm
not I'm not making that comparison. It's just that there
is a there's a kernel of an idea, there's a
structure of it that really would work with a modern retelling.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Darren, would you go see a remake of Near Dark
or would you say, bah, they tried it.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Once I'm done, Ah, I would say it depends who
the main character is, who you put in that seat,
because as we've said, the actor they got could have
been anybody. But if they got the right actor, some
name that I know, can you know, sell family son
(35:37):
and kind of drifter, you know, I think that that
was what would put me over to rewatch. But I'd
give it a shake, you know, give it a chance.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Now, before we start talking about our final thoughts and
ratings and everything, you talk about casting Lance Henrickson was Jesse,
but it was originally offered to another Alien's alum, Michael Bean.
Do you think that this is a better movie with
Michael Bean or Tristan. Do you think he dodged a
bullet since he cited that he didn't want to do
(36:08):
it because he quote found the script confusing. Do you
think that Michael Bean saw what was coming and wisely
touched that bullet.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
I think he saw what was coming and dodged that bullet.
Speaker 5 (36:20):
It was It's so hard to say because I feel
like so many of the characters are replaceable, and so like, okay,
so like, can can anyone name all the vampires?
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Like?
Speaker 6 (36:29):
So it's okay. So we have Homer Jesse, Jesse, which
is Lance Hendrickson.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Right, Severn who is Benny Jackson.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
Bill Paxton is Severn, and then Goldstein is Diamondback Diamondback,
and then May have May? Is that that we just? So?
Speaker 4 (36:46):
There you go?
Speaker 5 (36:47):
Okay, yes, dang it, all right, I ruined my point.
I thought there was a sixth line.
Speaker 4 (36:50):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Tristan is now mandated by house lights law to give
this an extra half start minim.
Speaker 6 (36:56):
I will give it an extra half star.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
His rating will be half a star.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
No, it's just I feel like you could, like, if
you didn't have Hendrickson, you'd have Goldstein, and if you
didn't have Goldstein, you'd have May.
Speaker 6 (37:09):
And if you don't have May, I guess I can't
really hear rid of May. But I don't know. It's
just what was the question. I don't even remember now.
Speaker 4 (37:16):
You know what the question is? Really?
Speaker 6 (37:18):
Michael Bean?
Speaker 5 (37:19):
Yeah, no, that I think I think it would have
been improved. I think Michael Bean would have brought an
energy that Hendrickson didn't really bring and obviously big fan
of Hendrickson, big fan of Hendrick Hendrickson. He's a fantastic actor.
He can do a lot with a little, but there
needed to be Jesse needed. Jesse needed to be his
(37:39):
energy level needed to be between Hendrickson and Paxton. That's
where that and I think Bean could have done that.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
I think Hendrickson is a great actor, but I think
he plays a very uh, you know, he's a very
patron like. He he is a father figure. I think
that Jesse and Severn would be more interesting if they
were this roughly the same age, because then you would
see that dynamic because Severn says at one point he
(38:08):
drops a hint that they started the Great Chicago Fire
in the eighteen hundreds because they were partying. And it's like,
I can see those two, you know, two guys who
seem like they're relatively close in age, even if they're
separated by hundreds of years. They have that similar It's
more of a brotherly sort of setup than a father
son set up. Paxon is no longer that the disobedient son,
(38:31):
He's the ahole brother.
Speaker 4 (38:32):
And that's the dynamic that they have going on.
Speaker 3 (38:35):
Now. I agree, I think that's what I was looking
for in the group of vampires is because Jesse wasn't
coming across as I'm the alpha and I'm the one
who keeps us alive, and these are the rules that
you have to do otherwise we're going to get caught.
There was none of that. They were just kind of
wandering around. And I think a dynamic of you know,
(38:57):
Jesse and Severin being more brotherly and kind of like
both kind of wanting to be the leader, but also
kind of leaning on each other and kind of squabbling
and bickering like I think that dynamic would have been
very interesting and also had energy, and we did not
get that.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Well, one thing we did get, and I will say
that the photography, as much as we might have you know,
thrown thrown it under the bus.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Here and there.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I will point out that the director of photography went
on to work with James Cameron on a little film
called Terminator two Judgment Day, and he also shot Ghost
and Alien Nation, which is a delightful nineteen eighty eight
movie worth seeing. Three men and a Baby, but Greed
most importantly also shot Turner and Hooch. So you know,
(39:51):
let's just keep in mind just like with the editor,
this might not be the best work that was ever produced,
but circumstances as they are, they all gave it their
best shot. So that brings us to our final ratings
and reviews. And because he hates it so much, I
will let Darren go first.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
Yeah, I'm going to give this a two. It's a
starting point. I know we're going up from here, but
it's almost there. In a film school study capacity, like
this is the kind of movie you show when you
want to not critique but just look at what is
(40:33):
working and what is not working, because there's a lot
of potential in your plot, in your story and things
like that, and there's just it's not hitting its mark
in a lot of places, and it's just very And
one last thing I'll say is vampire movies and movies
in general, though, when they establish rules, those are really
(40:56):
important because the moment you stop following those rules, you
lose credibility in your story. And I'm not talking about
the blood transfusion because that, even though it was a
stupid rule, they kept to it. I mean more like
the reaction to the sunlight, because when they were in
that oldmobile at the very end, like and they're like, oh,
(41:19):
block it out. You know, you didn't block out anything.
You're in the most windowed vehicle I've ever seen, and
the sun is streaming in as it like just jumped
from dawn to like ten am in about three seconds.
So that was kind of I don't know, wasn't doing
it for me as they were. They eventually did burn,
(41:40):
but it took quite a ways. And I also the
fact that as was it Howard the little Boy, Yeah, Homer,
as he was heading towards his explosion and he's walking
towards us, you could see the station wagon in the
background facing away like parked, like not moving at all.
(42:00):
But then it was intercutting with them having turned around
and heading back to him, and I'm like, but but
then you're showing a shot where they're not facing.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
But that's the only shot that you have talking about
some of the editing problems, And on top of that,
maybe maybe that's a subtext where they were just annoyed
with Homer and they were like, Eh, we got to
make it look like we're going for him, so it
doesn't feel too bad, but he's gonna blow up.
Speaker 4 (42:24):
So you know, oh no, Homer, Oh how horrible?
Speaker 3 (42:30):
So yeah, so rules and shots, so to two stars
from me.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
So, Tristan, are you going uh? Are we winding up
with half star with the extra half star or are
we making it all the way up to two?
Speaker 6 (42:43):
We're going all the way up to two. I'm with Darren,
this is a two.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
Uh.
Speaker 6 (42:48):
I think this is a bad movie.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
It is.
Speaker 5 (42:50):
It's just bad, like you know, like three. To me,
three is good, but it has its issues. Two and
a half is mediocre. Two is bad. You know, like
this this, I will never watch this again. As I
said before, this this is a tough slog like it
just it just it feels so joyless.
Speaker 6 (43:07):
It just feels like you're.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
Going through the motions and it just was I was
so bored and it just felt like we were going
from point A to point B to point you know,
to C to DD. It just felt like, Okay, we're
going to the next moment. But nothing felt motivated. It
just felt like we were just like listlessly floating from
(43:28):
one scene to the next. And I needed more purpose,
I needed more immediacy. And I really like the concept
of like this happening in such a short amount of time.
I love, like I said, like this needs to be remade.
I love the idea of he meets a girl and
she fights him and he's like, oh crap, what's going
to happen to me? And then he's just like, haha,
(43:50):
it's not just me. I'm a part of a nest.
And then he has a problem with that nest and
then they go after his family. I think that's a
great story. It's very basic, and I'd love to see
it again. This is two stars easy.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
I think that this is not a bad movie. I
don't think it's a great movie. I don't think it's
a bad movie though. I think that there is a
charming aspect to it in that you can tell that
Paxton's having a great time. He's getting probably no direction.
He's just showing up and just hey, what if I
(44:21):
did this? It's like sure, do that, Bill, and he's
having a lot of fun with it. I think that
there are a lot of moments like that where it
doesn't necessarily stitch together as a complete film experience, as
it were, but there are moments of enjoyment to be had.
Caleb in the bus station when the detective is you know,
(44:46):
harassing him and stuff like that. There you know, there
is some legitimate tension here and there. I can't deny
that there is some semblance ofst Alga about it because
I saw it when I was so young and it
was so different. But I think it still is different
because again, the movie that kills it from being remade
(45:10):
is Twilight, and it's like what, But like, the whole
sensibility of this thing is actually kind of cool.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
Like it's a punk rock version of a Nan Rice story.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
I like that.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
So I'm gonna come with a three. Like I'm not
gonna watch it regularly, but I enjoy it.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
I have a good enough time with it. So that's
where I am.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
But this is far from Bigelow's last film. It's her
first big budget film, but that means there's inevitably another
film to talk about.
Speaker 4 (45:37):
Darren. What is it? We will be discussing next week.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Next week, we're ramping up Gears with an action packed
spectacle with nineteen nineties Bluesteele Here on house Lights
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Join the Revolution, Join the net Party.
Welcome to the ned Palty.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to House Lights, as we open up a new
chapter on a new director, the house of Bigelow, Catherine Bigelow,
in specific, a director who has had actually Oscar wins
and nominations in her past. But everybody starts somewhere, So
this week we will be starting our examination of the
works of Ms. Bigelow with the look at her first
(00:44):
full feature, single directed film, Near Dark, a nineteen eighty
seven vampire hillbilly western, biker punk, rock drama thingy, whatever
genre you want to say it is, that's what it is,
according to the critics. I'm happy to be here to
discuss Near Dark, movie I've loved for a long time.
(01:04):
I am a disgruntled father of the vampire pack here
and I have the spur wearing cool kid vampire in
Darren Moser and the never to grow up and always
to feel what it is to be a child for
all eternity Tristan Riddell. So, gentlemen, are you ready to
discuss this little gem from the nineteen eighties that not
(01:28):
many people have seen but has garnered a cult following
Near Dark?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, yeah, it's very dark. I mean, we'll talk about that.
Speaker 4 (01:37):
It is dark. It is time. Yes, oh man, it
is dark.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
I actually there was one scene where I said, I
wonder if Darren feels like you can see everything here,
So I can't wait to get into that part of it.
But obviously I'm the old man. I saw this on
video way back in the day.
Speaker 4 (01:54):
This was like a.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Little lost treasure passed around video sort of thing where
friend sees it, and I'm pretty sure it was my
friend Mike was like, oh no, no, you got to see this.
You gotta see this. He puts in the VHS and
I'm like, oh wow, this is a different kind of
vampire movie.
Speaker 3 (02:07):
Cool.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
But you, guys, this is your first time encountering it, right.
Speaker 5 (02:11):
Yes, I mean you you talked to me about it
a while ago, like you Okay, So, fans at home listeners,
John has been pitching Catherine Bigelow for a very long time,
essentially since we started the podcast and we moved one
from h Fincher and Nolan and Anderson been years basically
(02:31):
since since Darren started, which which basically it seems it
feels like Darren has been with us since the beginning,
but that's how long he's been pitching it and we
we It's not like we didn't. It's not like we
disliked Bigelow. It was just, I don't know, like we
were just never in a mood for it. And so
you kept telling you kept telling me specifically too. You're like, no, Tristan,
I know you like vampires. You gotta watch in your dark, Okay,
(02:53):
It's really hard to find a copy. So I found
you a copy. John, That's how much I loved you.
I found you a copy and.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
Sent it to you, and.
Speaker 5 (03:02):
I didn't I still didn't watch it because I didn't
love you that much, but I wanted a viperation for
this podcast.
Speaker 6 (03:06):
And that was today.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
That was today, and that was the first time I'd
ever seen it, and I'd never heard anything about it.
I didn't know what on earth. I didn't know who
was in it. I didn't know.
Speaker 6 (03:15):
All I knew is that it was Catherine Bigelow and vampires.
Speaker 4 (03:18):
That's it.
Speaker 6 (03:18):
That's all I know.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
And Darren, were you surprised to find at least half
the cast of Aliens was in Oh.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
My gosh, I was having Aliens. I had to look
up like, oh, this was the year after that tracks
because they're all I mean, we just it's not quite half,
but it feels like a good chunk of the vampires
are from the Aliens cast. And I think we can see,
you know, between the lines on how that came about.
(03:44):
Someone knew someone and someone said, hey, but they're still actors.
They'd still a gig, still a job. Just because they
were an Aliens doesn't mean they're too good for this.
And so yeah, we get some game over, we get
some fun in the sun, and yeah, but it was
in a way hard to extract that alienness because this
(04:08):
is the following year and they look just the same.
And I mean, you know, sometimes you can see an
actor later, a couple of years later, and they look
different enough that it's easier to detach them from the role.
But when it's the same voice and tone and they're
talking to the same people and it's literally the same
age close enough, it took me a little while to
(04:31):
to stop saying game over in my head. Let's put
it that way.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
That's that's fair, that's very very fair.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
I think that part of the prestige of this movie
for the sort of like the cult crowd that's followed
it around for all of these years is the fact
that it's it's.
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Got the shine on it from the.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Fact that it was released very close to The Lost Boys,
and the Lost Boys is a big, polished Richard Donner,
big budget Warner Brothers. The direc of Superman gets to
do whatever he wants to, and we have these giant
crane swooping shots and Keifer Sutherland everywhere and cool vampire
makeup and all of that, and this very much feels
like it's a smaller scale film, So it's it's a
(05:13):
more intimate sort of take. I consider the two an
interesting counterplay with each other though, because Tristan, I'll throw
this to you. Do you see something in the DNA
of Near Dark that makes you feel like this is
very close to Lost Boys thematically as well as time wise,
or do you feel that this the vampires here are
different enough that you don't see too much crossover in
(05:35):
worldview and stuff like that.
Speaker 5 (05:37):
Well, I mean, like you said, I mean Lost Boys
is man okay, So like if if Near Dark is
a Western Lost Boys is a music video, yes, that's
kind of how I would say.
Speaker 6 (05:49):
And so, like you know, like it's really like Lost Boys.
Speaker 5 (05:51):
Is really stylized with Neon and it even has like
Echo and the Bunnyman playing, I mean, come.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
On, and one of the best saxophone songs in the
history of rock and roll.
Speaker 6 (06:02):
Yes, and You're Dark. You know, it's it's much more
bleak visually, I mean visually.
Speaker 5 (06:10):
I mean, like you know, like Lost Boys has its
bleak moments, of course, but I mean to me, I
you know, I don't know, I don't I don't really see,
like I'm looking, okay, So, like I'm looking at IMDb here.
So like Lost Boys came out in eighty said, the
same year, obviously only a couple of months beforehand, and
the budget isn't that different. I mean, I guess, I guess,
I'm I'm kind of okay. So, like the budget for
(06:30):
Near Dark was five million, and the budget for Lost
Boys was eight point five And but when you're dealing
with numbers that low, and I say low relative is
relatively speaking. I'm not trying to sound weird, there is
kind of a big difference between a eight point five
million and five million when you're dealing with stuff that's
below ten million, especially with inflation, and you really see
(06:52):
the difference, Like when you look at Near Dark, you're
kind of like, okay, just for inflation, where did that
money go? Like, honestly, where did that money go? And
with Last Boys, you see it on the screen.
Speaker 4 (07:02):
I think, yeah, I think that's fair.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
But I think what it is as well is I
think you see and Darren, I'd like to get your
thoughts on this. I think that when you're comparing the
budget like that, Joel Schumacher, who's a vet by this
point of making The Lost Boys, knows how to make
that eight point five million dollars go. He knows he's
run this ship before. He's like okay, and he has
that to your point, Tress in that music video sensibility,
(07:25):
which is you know how to edit and like and
flash with as little as possible, whereas this is Bigelow's
first film. Do you think Darren, that's the key difference there?
The budgets are a little different, But would a more
seasoned director have done more with it?
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah? It to kind of go to my first netpick.
And this is just speculation. I want to say. It
almost felt like they had only one camera, like ever,
and so everything, all the coverage had to be shot
with a one camera setup. And I don't know that
extra two point whatever million could have rented us the
(08:03):
second camera, but I felt it from the very beginning
the scene where Caleb is talking to May, I was like,
I was almost thrown out of it because every shot
was a back and forth shot. There was like no
two shots. It was like him and then her, and
then him and then her, and then him and then her,
(08:24):
And I was like, where's my wide, where's my master? Like,
I felt it in a different kind of way. It
reminded me, kept making me think of Harry Potter as
so far as they had to shoot that in a
coveraged way because they were shooting children to piece a
lot of it together in the edit because of the acting.
(08:46):
I'm not saying that has anything to do with this.
These are obviously you know, pro actors, but it it
just was jarring because I was like, this is how
you're putting a conversation together, a meet cute of two
of your lead characters. And I almost got a sense
that they were there on different days of shooting and
happened to be edited into the same conversation. It was
(09:09):
almost that bad. And there are other parts throughout this
that are shot like that, the bit at the bar
where they're tearing it apart. Like I never got a
sense of the room because we were cutting everywhere. Someone
sitting over here, someone standing over here, We're breaking the line,
we're moving around like and that was the entire movie.
(09:30):
So to say that, I mean, I say it almost
in jest, but I don't know, maybe an extra camera
for that white shot, for some coverage, for something to
cut to. I'm not saying it only had one camera.
It could have had to it could have had some
other type of shot. It could have been a stylistic thing.
Speaker 5 (09:47):
But it felt it was like that. It did. It
felt like a TVD movie. I think that's the thing.
Is that, like with you saying like one camera, you know,
like a lot of modern sitcoms where it's a single
camera comedy, they sometimes they just use one camera, like
especially if they were shooting on film, like thirty Rock
shot on on one camera, and Tina Fe talked about
(10:08):
how much she hated it because it was film. Their
lines set up, change film the other people's lines. But
then when you know, people started embracing you know, in
the same genre, like when people started embracing digital, like
with parks and rec you'd have you'd have both, you'd
have the close ups on both actors, and sometimes you'd
have a wide depending on so you could have like
two or three cameras at one time. Now granted this
(10:30):
is neither here nor there, but I'm just saying that, Like, Darren,
everything that you're saying sounds like TV, where you're just like, Okay,
we have enough budget for one camera. We do not
have enough time for a masters shot, so we're just
going to be using this one camera to get every
single shot that we need, and then we piece it
together and that's the movie that we have.
Speaker 6 (10:47):
It didn't feel like they explored in editing.
Speaker 5 (10:51):
It was very much like you know sometimes you know,
you look at a movie and you can tell it's
an editor's movie, and other times you're just like, oh no,
like this is this is what they got, and this
is what they pieced together. They just found the best takes,
and this is how they progress the scene. I think,
if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, I kind of
got that feeling too, Darren.
Speaker 3 (11:09):
Yes, yeah, there's some parts that are very obviously adr
you know, to fill in the sound, which again, these
are all technical things. Like I'm not it doesn't detract
from the story. Or yeah, we're just acting, but you
felt it. It was very you know, this felt overall
a step above. This is not a student film. This
(11:31):
definitely has caliber to it, but it is it is
a first film. It does feel like that, like there
is a and I mean, hey, I'm ready for us
to be buckled in. I don't know why it took
us so long to get to this director, so we
can just go through her career and see because man,
like you said, we're gonna get to some oscars, We're
(11:53):
gonna knock it out of the park and not too
short of an order.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Well, I think that one of the things that is
maybe endearing is the fact that it feels like a
first director film. For the bar scene, I completely concede that,
Like I think, even even before I possessed sort of
the more discerning eye for certain things, that bar scene like,
besides everything else, the way that it's shot, the way
(12:18):
that it's put together, it's like the slowest moving bar
fight I've ever watched in my life. That's what makes
it feel like a super first time effort, because it's
like no no cut, Oh god, that this is like
an extra three seconds. I'm not getting a sense of
danger about what's going on here, and I think maybe
a different editor probably could have gotten it tighter for her,
(12:42):
you know, but who knows what the you know, their
working relationship was, like maybe it was no, no, no
trust me, and the first time director didn't have the
confidence to push back on the editor in the bay
or something like that.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
And the bar scene, it's hard because two things. You yeah,
there's no, it's not building, and your victims are just
kind of standing there like NPCs, waiting for the main
character to go up to them. But I could also
see how you could get trapped in the edit where
you have to have all the kills, you have to
(13:17):
have all the you can't just have oh what, wasn't
there another patron who was sitting over there that we
just never saw again. So you shoot all this coverage
and you kind of get stuck in a loop where
you can't trim it only so far, like you have
to include everybody, and then all of a sudden you're like, oh,
this is like a fifteen minute segment. That's just what
(13:38):
it's got to be because you can't edit your way
out of it.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
So I looked up the I looked up the editor
it's Howard Smith. His first big movie was the fourth
segment of the Twilight Zone movie, and then it wasn't
until then he did a few other pictures and then
Near Dark in eighty seven. But after Near Dark in
eighty seven, he does The Abyss in eighty nine, and
he comes back to Bigelow with Point Break in Strange Days.
(14:05):
And in between Point Breaking Strange Days he does Glengarry
Glenn Ross, Oh and I and then he does Dante's
Peak later the Crow.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
Shouting Off, but he's also on a miniorit crew right.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
But the way wait wait wait wait, we're we're still going.
Speaker 5 (14:21):
He does the Glasshouse, he does Sonny and then he
then all of his talent culminates once we get into
the two thousand and four, two thousand and six and
he does Blade Trinity and Snakes on a Plane just
a one two punch, just boom.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
It was all starting here. It all built all to
those moments. Yeah, but you know, maybe it is something
then then where I mean, he obviously has some talent,
and maybe it is like you're saying, Darren, it's just
this is what they had to work with. And it
was a first time director not getting as much extra
foot it just.
Speaker 6 (14:53):
She needed, Yeah, get her that coverage that you need.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
And maybe maybe just maybe spending too much budget on
blowing up a truck, because I feel like we could
have gotten around that scene differently.
Speaker 4 (15:06):
That felt a little much. That that felt still felt.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
James camerony where it was like maybe you know, he
was giving notes on the script.
Speaker 4 (15:14):
He's like, yeah, yeah, no, no, blow up a truck.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
People love that it's really really big because you know,
we all know love the camp. We all know the
Cameron loves to blow thing, blow up trucks as they go.
Speaker 5 (15:24):
I do want to say though, that even though this
is her big I should say it's not her first movie,
but her it's her first bigger movie. I mean five
million dollars that's I think that's like thirteen in today's money.
That's nothing to sneeze at. Obviously it's low budget for today,
even thirteen. But still you can see her in this.
You can see Bigelow in this. Like if you've seen
(15:45):
any of our other work, like if you specifically like
Point Break and hurt Locker.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
You have this.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
Really, what's this RM? I'm looking for?
Speaker 5 (15:53):
Like moral ambiguity, a lot of muchismo like she like
her movies have a lot of machismo, and I think
that's definitely prevalent here and in later films. And I'm
not saying that as a knock. It's just there and
you know, kind of like a sometimes frenetic camera work,
you can still see that. And you know, like oftentimes
(16:13):
we ask ourselves, we asked the question like, oh, you know,
like where do you see Anderson in this? Or where
did you see Nolan in this? Like when you see
no like when you watch the following by Nolan, You're like,
where do you see him? And I was just kind
of like, don't. I don't see it, Like I don't
know where we get this guy. But with this, even
if I have my own issues with the movie, like
I see Bigelow in this like I can see a
(16:34):
freshman outing and her fingerprints are all over it, and
I can see her grow into what she is today.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
I can honestly say even with some of the you
know what, let's just tear this band aid off, because
I know that Darren loved the night scenes here, But
even with some of the things where it's like, oh,
you know, there's a little difficulty seeing what's going on
in the darker moments and stuff like that. I think
there's still a color palette that comes through with Bigelow here.
(17:00):
It's a very it's very interesting sort of you can't
quite put your finger on it sort of thing. But
like the way that the palette works with the background
colors and the foreground colors and everything. They never blend,
but they all seem adjacent to each other. There's not
a whole lot of separation going on through a lot
of this, and I'm you know, some of that is circumstance,
(17:22):
I'm sure, but it feels like a choice because I
think you get to, like you talk about Tristan like
hurt Locker and you know, other stuff that she's done,
and you see that sort of similar palette choice going on.
But Darren, let's go ahead, let's embrace it. On a
scale of one to ten, ten being I hated it
(17:43):
and one being I could tolerate it. How frustrating was
it for you to watch the night scenes here?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
You know, I gave it a little bit of a
pass because it is a vampire movie where they have
to have things happen at night, like, so I gave
it probably an extra two points on that scale just
because yeah, you're not You're not going to have all
of these day shots or even twilight shots there, but
(18:10):
yet you could still light things where you can see
people and understand what their motivation is. So probably give
it a I'll give it a five right in the middle, like,
and that's with a bonus point, you know, it's I
think it kind of leads to something else about this
(18:30):
movie is I think there's too many vampires. I think
the coven, the group, whatever it is, like, there's too
many people, maybe by one where I want to know
more about each one. I want to know more about
where they're coming from, and we just don't have the
time to invest in all of those characters. I think
(18:53):
we got a little bit, you know, we knew for
you know, Lance Hendrickson's you know, oh, Civil War soldier
Bill Paxson was, I don't know anything about him, but
he was angry, probably maybe a cowboy, he had spurs.
But for Diamondback, I felt like she wasn't even there,
like she was there just to hang on Jesse's arm.
(19:18):
So that I think leads to the darkness and the
dark scenes when you have just all these people shoved
in a car, shoved in a room, shoved in a bar,
like it's almost hard to tell them apart in some ways,
not that I couldn't tell, like, oh, that's Lance and
so and so, But I don't know. Did you guys
get that similar vibe. Did you feel there were too
(19:39):
many vampires or was there just enough?
Speaker 2 (19:42):
I don't think that there are too many vampires. I
think that there to speak to your point about characterization
and stuff, I think the script doesn't support opportunity for
the actors.
Speaker 4 (19:53):
To put too much of a spin on anything.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
These vampires are I guess I struggle for a phrase,
but I guess you would call them plot vampires. We're
we're in an age where we're very used to what
it would call story vampires, whereveryone's got a backstory, and
it feels like they're fully fleshed out being in their part.
They've gone through it man, and they're struggling with their
immortality and everything like that, Whereas you have these vampires
(20:20):
are I'm a vampire, I'm old and I kill and
it's like they're very surface level vampires.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
I guess you could say.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Even if you compare this to the Lost Boys, the
Lost Boys all of those characters.
Speaker 2 (20:32):
You know, they at least work the balancing act of
there are other vampires than Keifer Sutherland. But that movie
very wisely balances the focus onto Keifer Sutherland and say
this is your antagonist and everybody else's his henchmen. This
script slash movie is trying to make everybody equal in
a sense and never succeeds. And that's where they should
(20:54):
have had more. I guess you could say they should
have had more Severins and Diamondback and Homer, like, just
swap that out for two more Severins, and it's just
like a group of jackasses.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
And what a badass Severn. I love that name.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Actually I went to school with a guy named Severn.
He spelled it differ.
Speaker 4 (21:14):
He was not a badass. I'm just gonna say.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
No, I think you're I love what you said, John.
Where they're plot vampires, they're there to move the plot
along because honestly, I mean, maybe you could say may
because of the meat cute, but who's the protagonist vampire?
It's a very much an amalgamation of it's the vampire
group that's the character, which isn't a bad thing. It's
(21:38):
just you don't get a lot of backstory like that.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Yeah, I think that uh Adrian Pastar is Caleb. He
doesn't get he doesn't do a lot with the role.
I'm not going to throw him under the bus for it. Again,
I think it's a script function more than anything. I
think he's doing what he can or.
Speaker 5 (21:55):
You know, there's not a lot of meat on the bone.
I mean, it's it's not like you said, it's not
his fault. There's a But the problem is is that anybody,
literally any actor could have played that role.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
And I think there should have been just a clearer protagonist,
like I didn't care what happened to him too much, and.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
It was like that.
Speaker 2 (22:14):
I think that's the biggest problem with the movie is
that you don't really care. Whereas, again, to draw the
comparison to Lost Boys, because let's just embrace it. Lost
Boys comes out around the same time you care about
that family dynamic, the two brothers. You know, the older
brother needs his younger brother to help him out, and
he has his friends and everything like, and there's something
(22:35):
dynamic and interesting going on there, and they've moved to
a new town and there's all of this stuff. Whereas
this again is just sort of like, Hey, here's some
events that happened, and they're cool, and it's well structured
and it's interesting, and I think that what really comes through,
especially with this watch, is what we've all been sort
of drawing the line to, which is you can see
(22:56):
where this is going to go with Bigelow, especially if
you've seen her later stuff. You see the potential here
so that I can under you know, sometimes you see
a movie that flops and your your reaction is why
this director get another job? But you see this and
you're like, I understand why somebody could watch this and say,
I'm gonna give you a chance with this and see
(23:17):
what you can do with this point break in this case,
and you know, maybe you can you can give me something.
I see some promise here of what you can do.
The music is very eighties Tangerine Dream. They were an
unstoppable force for many years, Darren, Tangerine Dream. Did they
bring it from near dark or did they undercut the tension?
Speaker 3 (23:41):
Yeah? This was just TV movie from the get go.
You felt parts repeating you felt. I mean, synth is okay,
but it's also a cheaper sound as opposed to like
an orchestra, you know, not that you can't do cool
things with synth. I mean we saw that in Terminate.
We saw that and some other great things, some some
(24:03):
little bits there. So yeah, it's nothing to write home about.
And yeah, to to ask answer your question, did it
enhance the tension, there's no. There's no tension. There's no
tension this movie at all, Like really, I mean, they
give the guy a blood transfusion and he's like, oh
I'm better now. I'm like, oh, okay, I guess that's
(24:26):
a thing, and we're good.
Speaker 6 (24:29):
So apparently that was a studio note, like originally.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
They wanted it that in there, or they like, this
doesn't make sense because no.
Speaker 5 (24:37):
The studio note was they wanted it. They wanted a
happy ending, oh my gosh, and so like. So, so
May was originally supposed to die, and the lesson that
Caleb was going to learn was that, you know, like,
you can't dance with the devil in the pale moon
night and walk away unscathed. And then they're like, no,
one needs to be happier. So they're like May needs
(24:57):
sort of to survive, and they're like, how are we
going to get made survive? They're like, okay, well you
give her a blood trenfusion and she's not a vampire anymore.
They're like, Okay, if we do that to her, are
we going to do it to Caleb? And so that's
what happens to Caleb earlier on, and that's why we
have that. And it feels like a double edged sword.
So okay here, okay, I don't hate it, but I
(25:18):
don't like it either, but I find it interesting because
no one's ever done it before. And that's what I
really appreciate in this movie is that the transfusion, you're
just kind of like, oh, okay, that's all it takes.
Speaker 4 (25:30):
Yeah, all right.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
But at the same time, like I said, you've never
seen it before, yes, And so that in itself is
interesting and it adds to the credency of it, of
of the credence of this being its own story, its
own world. And you know, like you said, John, like
there these are plot vampires and that's a plot fix
and it's just moving from one scene to the next,
(25:52):
like getting these people around, and it's just what I like,
if I was writing a vampire story, would I add
that in?
Speaker 3 (25:59):
No?
Speaker 5 (26:00):
Oh, because that's part of the torture of being a vampire.
Is that there's no going back. Well, this one is
just like, oh no, you want to live for a
couple hundred years, but hey, you want to see the
sun again, Just get a transfusion from your father in
law and it'll be totally fine.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Hey, you know, it fixes everything. I think that you're right, Tristan,
that it has the virtue of not having been done before.
And I think that that also added to its appeal
back when people were first encountering it way back when
on VHS was Oh, what a neat different way to
do things, because we've all seen variations of you know, oh,
(26:36):
you know, they're not a vampire until they make their
first kill, or they're not a vampire until the third
night has passed, or there's always an out for the
person who gets turned. There is always an out. And
this is the first one that said, well, why don't
we use something I don't know, scientific and will replace
his blood or something. And it's like, well, okay. Like,
(26:56):
if anything, it feels more than a lot of other
vampire movies even today, it feels more of an embrace
of the modern age to say, well, you know, modern
fix for an old problem, and it's like, oh yeah,
all right, nobody just nobody thought of it before. Sure,
like you can buy that, you can believe that. So,
I mean, I think it's a nifty fix. I think
(27:18):
it's messy the way that it's done here. I think
that it's too slow. I mean, that's the thing that's
really sort of gets under my skin about the movie
is it's ninety five minutes and it still feels too long.
It feels about ten minutes too long.
Speaker 5 (27:33):
When I was I hear what you're saying about it
feeling ten minutes too long, because by the time that
you get there, you feel like you're burning oil. But
when we got to the thirty minute mark, I was
checking the time, which is not a good thing. But
like at the thirty minute mark, I was checking the
time and I was like, only thirty minutes has gone.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
By, which is completely different from we just did House
of Donner, and I, you know, all of us talked
about the fact that it's like, oh, I'll just turn
on Forrest Gump for a little bit, and then all
of a sudden, you're an hour and a half in
and you're like, oh, what what happened? Like you just
you're just sucked in as you go and again. I
think that's a function.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
What do you think, Derek, I think it's a function
just of the script. I think this is really a
script that needed another another pass. What do you think
that could have fixed it?
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Maybe I have the same thing where I pulled up.
I usually look at Wikipedia just to because it has
a simple outline, but it's not like spoiler spoiler, And
I was like, Okay, see where am I in the movie. Oh,
I'm only in the first paragraph, and it's like nothing
has happened yet. There's still so much more to happen
and it's been like half an hour. But what a
(28:45):
story pass fixed that? I'm not sure. I mean, we're
talking about major issues of like, you know, specifically protagonists, drama, suspense, pacing.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Oh you know, I mean, you know, by taking another
pass at it, you know, maybe it doesn't make a
ten minutes shorter or not, but maybe having him meet
may once at least before they decided to go drive
off in a truck together. She has some sort of
allure for him, and he's sort of like intrigued and
they see each other again, and that way you have
(29:19):
more time with them.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
I will say it would have been nice not to
add to the length, but something in the very very
beginning establishing our protagonist. What is he doing. Is it
just a Friday night and he's looking for fun or
does he have a job interview tomorrow or has he
been away from home a lot and he misses his
sister and now he's back on spring break and something
(29:43):
give me context for this boy in his life. And
I'm not saying you need a lot of time to
do that, but there was none of that. It was just,
here's an inciting incident right in the truck.
Speaker 2 (29:54):
Even though even just a montage of him, like working
on the farm, bailing hay, doing farmer stuff because it's
a it's supposed to be a part Western, you could
see him on a horse riding in the sun, you know,
corralling something to get it back into the pen or
or something like that. To get that vibe because begins
(30:15):
with purpose. Yeah, right, best I can tell. They they
were dirt farmers, and they were very successful because there
was a lot of dirt everywhere and not a single
crop that I could see on this farm.
Speaker 3 (30:29):
So well, you mentioned genres, and in reading about this,
it sounded like, you know, they she wanted Bigela wanted
to do more of a Western piece, and they couldn't
really get a Western funded. It was, you know, maybe
not this story, but some sort of story. It was
what she was going for. And then this whole craze
(30:49):
of vampire movies are starting to come out and are
fairly popular. So she took the idea of, oh what
if we combined Western aspects, and I think she did
it successful. I think this movie does kind of combine
those genres fairly well. You kind of have the lone strangers,
had him through town, someone has spurs. I know it's
(31:09):
a little on the nose, but it's you know, you
got a saloon. You know. I can see what she's
going for there, but in modern setting. So I applaud
her for that.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
And not just any saloon, but a saloon populated by
the guy that later picks a fight with the terminator
and terminator too, which is really great. Yet another Cameron
connection there. But you know, I feel like, you know, Tristan, earlier,
you said there's not a lot of meat on the
bone with regards to the protagonist, I feel like there's
(31:40):
not a great deal of meat on the bone as
a whole. But what I want to ask is there
were discussions to do a remake of this, and it
was in two thousand and six they were going to
talk about a remake of this, and they had somebody
attached to direct it. And then in two thousand and
(32:01):
eight there was a film that helped put.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
The kaibosh on that plan. Can you guess what film?
Speaker 3 (32:07):
It was?
Speaker 6 (32:08):
Twilight?
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yes, citing that it contained a romance between human and
vampire characters and therefore it was too similar. Now do
you feel that maybe they misjudged it and that the
time for a Near Dark remake was exactly the Twilight time?
Speaker 5 (32:25):
Or that was that was exactly when we needed Near
Dark the most? Yes, I was during this time. I
as I was watching this, I didn't like this movie.
I'm just gonna rip the bandit off. I didn't like
this movie. I really liked what it tried to do.
I really like certain aspects of it. I like there
are certain things I like. I really like seeing Bigelow
(32:46):
start off. I really liked seeing her freshman take with
a larger budget. But I didn't really like it. I
felt like this was pretty joyless and just felt like
like a slog going through. But the entire time I
was watching it like this needs to be remade, This
needs to be remade, Like this is one of those
movies where I know that they like people. Hollywood really
(33:08):
likes to remake good movies. No, don't remake good movies.
Leave good movies alone. Remake the crap ones, or remake
the ones that didn't make a lot of money, you know, like,
remake the ones that have a great idea. But it
was either the wrong time, the wrong director, the wrong script,
the wrong actor, whatever it is. Jared leto the reason
Rema remake tron Aries. No, like this is. This is
(33:32):
one of those movies, and it was I know this is.
I want Bigelow to cecil b the mill this. I
want her to remake this. I want modern I want
twenty twenty five Bigelow to remake this film. And I
think the cloud that she has, the oscar that she'd
be able to slap the producers with. I think she'd
(33:54):
be able to really produce the script that she would
want to produce. And I feel like you'd have well
rounded characters, you'd have some amazing action sequences. That bar
fight would look completely different. Yeah, And I think it
would be a really obviously we're just talking hypothetical now,
but I think it would be a really great character
study on a director's growth. And to say, like, because
(34:18):
in my own film school experience, like my senior year,
the last project I ever did was a remake of
the first project I ever did my freshman year, and
it was a challenge I you know, did for myself.
And I'm schmucky the clown. I would love to see
an Oscar winning director do that kind of thing. And
(34:39):
I this is this is a kernel of a great idea.
And this is going to sound ridiculous, but Manos the
Hands of Fate one of the worst movies of all time.
It's so much fun to watch because it's so terrible.
There is a kernel of an idea there that would
make a fantastic remake.
Speaker 6 (34:55):
This is one of those. This is this is no Manos. Obviously,
I'm not saying that this.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
Is what I was about to get agree about that.
Speaker 5 (35:00):
No no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, okay, I'm
not I'm not making that comparison. It's just that there
is a there's a kernel of an idea, there's a
structure of it that really would work with a modern retelling.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Darren, would you go see a remake of Near Dark
or would you say, bah, they tried it.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
Once I'm done, Ah, I would say it depends who
the main character is, who you put in that seat,
because as we've said, the actor they got could have
been anybody. But if they got the right actor, some
name that I know, can you know, sell family son
(35:37):
and kind of drifter, you know, I think that that
was what would put me over to rewatch. But I'd
give it a shake, you know, give it a chance.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Now, before we start talking about our final thoughts and
ratings and everything, you talk about casting Lance Henrickson was Jesse,
but it was originally offered to another Alien's alum, Michael Bean.
Do you think that this is a better movie with
Michael Bean or Tristan. Do you think he dodged a
bullet since he cited that he didn't want to do
(36:08):
it because he quote found the script confusing. Do you
think that Michael Bean saw what was coming and wisely
touched that bullet.
Speaker 6 (36:17):
I think he saw what was coming and dodged that bullet.
Speaker 5 (36:20):
It was It's so hard to say because I feel
like so many of the characters are replaceable, and so like, okay,
so like, can can anyone name all the vampires?
Speaker 4 (36:29):
Like?
Speaker 6 (36:29):
So it's okay. So we have Homer Jesse, Jesse, which
is Lance Hendrickson.
Speaker 4 (36:34):
Right, Severn who is Benny Jackson.
Speaker 6 (36:36):
Bill Paxton is Severn, and then Goldstein is Diamondback Diamondback,
and then May have May? Is that that we just? So?
Speaker 4 (36:46):
There you go?
Speaker 5 (36:47):
Okay, yes, dang it, all right, I ruined my point.
I thought there was a sixth line.
Speaker 4 (36:50):
There you go.
Speaker 2 (36:50):
Tristan is now mandated by house lights law to give
this an extra half start minim.
Speaker 6 (36:56):
I will give it an extra half star.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
His rating will be half a star.
Speaker 5 (37:02):
No, it's just I feel like you could, like, if
you didn't have Hendrickson, you'd have Goldstein, and if you
didn't have Goldstein, you'd have May.
Speaker 6 (37:09):
And if you don't have May, I guess I can't
really hear rid of May. But I don't know. It's
just what was the question. I don't even remember now.
Speaker 4 (37:16):
You know what the question is? Really?
Speaker 6 (37:18):
Michael Bean?
Speaker 5 (37:19):
Yeah, no, that I think I think it would have
been improved. I think Michael Bean would have brought an
energy that Hendrickson didn't really bring and obviously big fan
of Hendrickson, big fan of Hendrick Hendrickson. He's a fantastic actor.
He can do a lot with a little, but there
needed to be Jesse needed. Jesse needed to be his
(37:39):
energy level needed to be between Hendrickson and Paxton. That's
where that and I think Bean could have done that.
Speaker 2 (37:47):
I think Hendrickson is a great actor, but I think
he plays a very uh, you know, he's a very
patron like. He he is a father figure. I think
that Jesse and Severn would be more interesting if they
were this roughly the same age, because then you would
see that dynamic because Severn says at one point he
(38:08):
drops a hint that they started the Great Chicago Fire
in the eighteen hundreds because they were partying. And it's like,
I can see those two, you know, two guys who
seem like they're relatively close in age, even if they're
separated by hundreds of years. They have that similar It's
more of a brotherly sort of setup than a father
son set up. Paxon is no longer that the disobedient son,
(38:31):
He's the ahole brother.
Speaker 4 (38:32):
And that's the dynamic that they have going on.
Speaker 3 (38:35):
Now. I agree, I think that's what I was looking
for in the group of vampires is because Jesse wasn't
coming across as I'm the alpha and I'm the one
who keeps us alive, and these are the rules that
you have to do otherwise we're going to get caught.
There was none of that. They were just kind of
wandering around. And I think a dynamic of you know,
(38:57):
Jesse and Severin being more brotherly and kind of like
both kind of wanting to be the leader, but also
kind of leaning on each other and kind of squabbling
and bickering like I think that dynamic would have been
very interesting and also had energy, and we did not
get that.
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Well, one thing we did get, and I will say
that the photography, as much as we might have you know,
thrown thrown it under the bus.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Here and there.
Speaker 2 (39:27):
I will point out that the director of photography went
on to work with James Cameron on a little film
called Terminator two Judgment Day, and he also shot Ghost
and Alien Nation, which is a delightful nineteen eighty eight
movie worth seeing. Three men and a Baby, but Greed
most importantly also shot Turner and Hooch. So you know,
(39:51):
let's just keep in mind just like with the editor,
this might not be the best work that was ever produced,
but circumstances as they are, they all gave it their
best shot. So that brings us to our final ratings
and reviews. And because he hates it so much, I
will let Darren go first.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
Yeah, I'm going to give this a two. It's a
starting point. I know we're going up from here, but
it's almost there. In a film school study capacity, like
this is the kind of movie you show when you
want to not critique but just look at what is
(40:33):
working and what is not working, because there's a lot
of potential in your plot, in your story and things
like that, and there's just it's not hitting its mark
in a lot of places, and it's just very And
one last thing I'll say is vampire movies and movies
in general, though, when they establish rules, those are really
(40:56):
important because the moment you stop following those rules, you
lose credibility in your story. And I'm not talking about
the blood transfusion because that, even though it was a
stupid rule, they kept to it. I mean more like
the reaction to the sunlight, because when they were in
that oldmobile at the very end, like and they're like, oh,
(41:19):
block it out. You know, you didn't block out anything.
You're in the most windowed vehicle I've ever seen, and
the sun is streaming in as it like just jumped
from dawn to like ten am in about three seconds.
So that was kind of I don't know, wasn't doing
it for me as they were. They eventually did burn,
(41:40):
but it took quite a ways. And I also the
fact that as was it Howard the little Boy, Yeah, Homer,
as he was heading towards his explosion and he's walking
towards us, you could see the station wagon in the
background facing away like parked, like not moving at all.
(42:00):
But then it was intercutting with them having turned around
and heading back to him, and I'm like, but but
then you're showing a shot where they're not facing.
Speaker 2 (42:09):
But that's the only shot that you have talking about
some of the editing problems, And on top of that,
maybe maybe that's a subtext where they were just annoyed
with Homer and they were like, Eh, we got to
make it look like we're going for him, so it
doesn't feel too bad, but he's gonna blow up.
Speaker 4 (42:24):
So you know, oh no, Homer, Oh how horrible?
Speaker 3 (42:30):
So yeah, so rules and shots, so to two stars
from me.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
So, Tristan, are you going uh? Are we winding up
with half star with the extra half star or are
we making it all the way up to two?
Speaker 6 (42:43):
We're going all the way up to two. I'm with Darren,
this is a two.
Speaker 3 (42:47):
Uh.
Speaker 6 (42:48):
I think this is a bad movie.
Speaker 3 (42:50):
It is.
Speaker 5 (42:50):
It's just bad, like you know, like three. To me,
three is good, but it has its issues. Two and
a half is mediocre. Two is bad. You know, like
this this, I will never watch this again. As I
said before, this this is a tough slog like it
just it just it feels so joyless.
Speaker 6 (43:07):
It just feels like you're.
Speaker 5 (43:08):
Going through the motions and it just was I was
so bored and it just felt like we were going
from point A to point B to point you know,
to C to DD. It just felt like, Okay, we're
going to the next moment. But nothing felt motivated. It
just felt like we were just like listlessly floating from
(43:28):
one scene to the next. And I needed more purpose,
I needed more immediacy. And I really like the concept
of like this happening in such a short amount of time.
I love, like I said, like this needs to be remade.
I love the idea of he meets a girl and
she fights him and he's like, oh crap, what's going
to happen to me? And then he's just like, haha,
(43:50):
it's not just me. I'm a part of a nest.
And then he has a problem with that nest and
then they go after his family. I think that's a
great story. It's very basic, and I'd love to see
it again. This is two stars easy.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
I think that this is not a bad movie. I
don't think it's a great movie. I don't think it's
a bad movie though. I think that there is a
charming aspect to it in that you can tell that
Paxton's having a great time. He's getting probably no direction.
He's just showing up and just hey, what if I
(44:21):
did this? It's like sure, do that, Bill, and he's
having a lot of fun with it. I think that
there are a lot of moments like that where it
doesn't necessarily stitch together as a complete film experience, as
it were, but there are moments of enjoyment to be had.
Caleb in the bus station when the detective is you know,
(44:46):
harassing him and stuff like that. There you know, there
is some legitimate tension here and there. I can't deny
that there is some semblance ofst Alga about it because
I saw it when I was so young and it
was so different. But I think it still is different
because again, the movie that kills it from being remade
(45:10):
is Twilight, and it's like what, But like, the whole
sensibility of this thing is actually kind of cool.
Speaker 4 (45:16):
Like it's a punk rock version of a Nan Rice story.
Speaker 3 (45:18):
I like that.
Speaker 2 (45:20):
So I'm gonna come with a three. Like I'm not
gonna watch it regularly, but I enjoy it.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
I have a good enough time with it. So that's
where I am.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
But this is far from Bigelow's last film. It's her
first big budget film, but that means there's inevitably another
film to talk about.
Speaker 4 (45:37):
Darren. What is it? We will be discussing next week.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Next week, we're ramping up Gears with an action packed
spectacle with nineteen nineties Bluesteele Here on house Lights
Speaker 1 (45:51):
Join the Revolution, Join the net Party.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com