Nosferatu (1922)

Initial Thoughts?

Vera Bradley: You may not think a silent film from over 100 years ago would be rife with humor, but Mona and I found ourselves nearly in tears laughing over several parts of this movie. While it must obviously be said that the pacing and acting of this movie is completely different from movies of the current era, it is perfect to watch with a friend who is likewise willing to suspend their expectations.

The highlights of this movie are its shadowy gothic visuals and the perfect contrast between the main human character and Nosferatu. The main human character does have a name, however Mona and I unilaterally dubbed him The Fool within two minutes of the movie starting, for his crushing lack of ANY situational awareness. The actor, Gustav von Wangenheim, pulled off some 10/10 facial expressions and mannerisms, and when paired with the OBVIOUS vampire, Count Orlok, his blissful ignorance was hilarious.

As for the aforementioned shadowy gothic visuals, I’ll just put these here:

EXQUISITE.

Mona Bloodstick: This is your wife?? Seriously?? That’s YOUR wife?? Cuz damn….. Seriously, this is your wife?? Hmmmm. Y’know, she’s got a nice throat….tell you what, that house across the street from your wife sounds pretty good….

I loved this movie. Just look at that actor. I've never met anyone who has a face that looks more like a fool than he.

1: How did this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

VB: This movie uses some very classic vampire tropes, being copied illegally, as it was, from Dracula lol. Some good blood sucking, long-distance hypnosis, coffin sleeping, etc. It is also important to note that at the time this came out, there were not really any existing film tropes for vampire movies, which gives it the benefit of figuring out its own vibe without being tied to an existing canon.

MB: It's kind of like the cradle of vampire tropes. Where we have the sexy Dracula and Carmilla vampires, we also have the ugly old vampires. All in all, nothing really upset me here and while Orlok is incredibly powerful, he has a decent amount of weaknesses for him not to be OP.

2: Any good kills?

VB: The kills in this movie are very different from those in other vampire movies. When the Count arrives in the European town and brings a “plague” with him, the ensuing death toll is illustrated with a procession of coffins through the streets. While not as dramatic or bloody as other movies, I did think this was a pretty striking image, and painted the scene very succinctly. The most dramatic death, (SPOILER ALERT) comes at the end with the self-sacrifice of the main character’s wife. This scene is quite minimalist and filled more with symbolism than it is with gory feasting. Again good in its own way, but not the type of kills you come to expect of later vampire movies.

MB: As Vera said, if I was comparing the kills in this movie to sex scenes, these kills would be more of a "fade to black" than full on poundtown. Considering the time period and the limitations this movie had due to copyright, I'm pretty pleased with it. I would be annoyed if a modern day self-proclaimed horror movie went this route, but I am pleased in this case.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence?

VB: This isn’t explicitly addressed, as it is more the story of humans suffering from a vampire attack than it is the story of a vampire. However, the viewer can extrapolate that eternal existence reduces a being into a parasitic shell of their original form– led by their worst desires and without conscience. To get REALLY pretentious, a Freudian might say this highlights a regression to the Id, buuuut that’s a pretty tenuous take considering the source material (Dracula) was written 3 years before Freud published his work on the subconscious. However, this movie came out 22 years after Freud, so maybe some of that slipped in there– subconsciously (wink). However I am neither pretentious nor a Freudian so of course I would never say any of that nerd shit.

MB: Don't listen to Vera she absolutely does say some of that nerd shit. Anyways, Count Orlok is totally chilling with his permanent state of death, but he is absolutely so far removed from his human self that it's hard to determine if he was ever upset about it at any point. Was he ever human at any point? It's possible he just erupted from the ground. Maybe he just hatched from an egg.

4: Sex appeal?

VB: Nosferatu is not a sexy vampire, but he IS absolutely perfect for this film. His costume design/makeup are exactly what they should be. He is grotesque in a way that is unsettling but also leaves the door open for comedy. He is SO OBVIOUSLY not human and yet The Fool is fully oblivious. Mona and I both agreed upon watching the 2024 version (review coming soon) that it could have been improved by keeping the exact same character design as this one. No notes.

MB: He is perfect for the film, I'm not even mad about the lack of sex appeal. Part of the reason I'm okay with it is because sex still plays a big role in this movie, see the vampire tropes section.

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

VB: I fear not. There seems to be no vampire camaraderie and his castle isn’t even thaaat cool.

MB: Call me vain, but if being a vampire means I turn into a shriveled up old man, I gotta pass.

Final thoughts?

VB: Mona and I watched this as a double feature with the 2025 Eggers version, and I would highly recommend doing the same. The 1922 version provides originality, impeccable vibes, and a sense of awe at the fact you can watch a vampire movie from over ONE HUNDRED years ago. What it lacks in modern pacing and sound-having, the 2025 version provides, including more detailed elaboration on the tight, symbolic scenes of the former. I would give this movie an 8/10 when watched in the right conditions.

MB: Ate and left no drops of blood. I loved this movie, it holds up better than a LOT of modern day vampire movies. I would totally watch it again. Ahead of its time. 

"Your wife has such a beautiful neck..."

- XOXO Vera Bradley & Mona Bloodstick

Jennifer's Body

Initial Thoughts?

Mona Bloodstick: All it takes is someone saying the words Jennifer’s Body and I start thinking about Panic at the Disco. This is a movie that I really wanted to like, but it just was kind of eh. The premise is pretty cool but it just seems to fall flat. Still, I've never seen a movie about a brunette vampire who is in love with her blonde human friend and kills boys to a delicious soundtrack. This is truly one of a kind.

Vera Bradley: I was not allowed to watch R-rated movies as a teenager, so I waited in anticipation for years before finally experiencing the promise of the many instagram clips and screengrabs that had taunted me endlessly. Honestly? I was a bit disappointed. I think if I rewatched now, with expectations tempered, I would still find enjoyment in the guts and slightly campy premise, but at the time I was a bit let down to find that Jennifer was the bad guy.

1: How did this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

MB: To be honest, this is barely a vampire movie. It’s pretty obvious the creators were influenced by vampires as there are some heavy vampiric themes such as eating people and having sharp teeth and strong powers. There is an emphasis on virginity and Jennifer is killed by being stabbed through the heart.

VB: This is only a vampire movie by loooooosest definition (has to eat people to gain energy), but I think the vibes of the movie pass the vampire test. Honestly any movie with enough budget spent on fake blood (for consumption) gets a pass from me. The scene where she returns home and is vomiting black blood is VERY striking.

2: Any good kills?

MB: A good amount of the kills are quite satisfying, others are just a bit sad. It pleases me that Needy kills the band in the end but I would have preferred to see the terror in their eyes as Jennifer mercilessly slaughters them one by one.

VB: Agreed with the above. It is very satisfying to watch her kill boys but eventually the movie has to make a moral judgement on it of course. Lots of blood, and also (initially at least) a bit of humor is sprinkled in there which always makes a vampire movie better IMO.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence?

MB: Honestly Jennifer seems to be loving her time as a vampiric being.

VB: She is not quite human anymore so she doesn’t have the same qualms- she is at this point a vampiric predator, and as long as she has prey I think she’s fine.

4: Sex appeal?

MB: The most. The whole point of this movie is that Megan Fox is so hot and sexy. Amanda Seyfried is too, but she’s wearing some weird glasses. Seriously, their attempt to make Needy look like an insecure nerd is just a weird pair of glasses.

VB: Yes. Sex appeal is the whole point: Megan Fox is an anglerfish, and her hotness is that little light that dangles from the top of the anglerfish’s head. It really is very satisfying to watch a hot girl destroy annoying men.

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

MB: No, but I do think that I would do a better job about being a vampire than Jennifer does.

VB: Nah.

Final thoughts?

MB: I am so torn on this movie. I feel that at some points the writers were genuinely trying to write lesbian friendship pining romance story about being sexualized without your consent and how you shouldn’t assume anyone is a virgin because your sacrifice will backfire (rookie mistake guys). But most of the time it just seems like a lame excuse to show two hot girls kind of almost kiss. Still a fun time though.

VB: Similarly I am torn: definitely a meta move to use Megan Fox, who has been problematically sexualized since she was like 15, as the lead in this movie about the sexualization and subsequent weaponization of a woman’s body, but also it just kinda fell flat in the end (plus ultimately it still just felt like sexualization of her body tbh.) It’s like it half wanted to be commentary but half just wanted to be a cheesy 2000s slasher. Overall it is still a very fun watch though, and Jennifer is SUCH a good character. This movie is at its best when Jennifer is doing her thing.

"You're killing people?!" "No, I'm killing boys."

~ Vera Bradley and Mona Bloodstick

The Lost Boys

Initial Thoughts?

Mona Bloodstick: This is the first movie we have reviewed for this blog where I have not been on the side of the vampires. These guys suck! Quick summary: a pair of brothers get mixed up with a group of TikTok vampires and then they have to Home Alone their asses to save the day. I greatly enjoyed this movie despite the vampires lacking in the coolness department. The biggest takeaway I had was if you do not have a TV, your kids will get mixed up with vampires.

Vera Bradley: POV: me and my vampire boys saw you from across the boardwalk and think you’re cute, wyd?😏🧛

It was not until I watched this movie that it dawned on me how similar the effect MTV had on 80s kids was to that of TikTok on Gen Z. Put these vampires in a line-up with a dozen TikTok E-boys and I would have a hard time picking them out. They also are just as creepy as the TikTok POVers that cross my feed on occasion (Karmic retribution from the algorithm), making their vampirism the least unsettling thing about them.

The Lost Boys is a fun, campy 80s movies with all the great tropes. It is, however, a movie in which the 80s aspect is pulling more weight than the vampires aspect. These are the first vampires whose side I am NOT on. They truly just feel like guys you’d meet at a frat party in LA: these vampires want to be Billy Idol so bad and they have been practicing in the mirror waiting for their big break. Their behavior would fit into the movie so much better if there was some kind of flashback or reveal that showed they were only turned like a year ago or something, because these guys are sooo not ageless immortal beings.

1: How did this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

MB: A very interesting take on half-vampires and becoming a vampire. All you have to do to become a vampire is drink vampire blood and then kill someone? I have many more questions. Also, full vampires are able to eat human food? What’s up with that? Another huge question that was brought to my attention is smoking. Should vampires be able to smoke? Clearly these guys can, but how does that work considering they are but reanimated corpses who have no need for breathing?? It certainly looks cool, but should it be allowed??

VB: This movie does very fun things with some tropes, but tramples over others. I really like that the tropes they used were turned into full on scenes instead of just given a background nod. For example, when Michael is undergoing transformation, there is a scene where he and his brother look in the mirror to find that Michael is semi-transparent, which is how his brother finds out he is a vampire (and he waves his arm behind him in a very lighthearted and silly way). Garlic and holy water become true stars in one of the very best scenes in the movie (discussed further below), and the vampire hypnotism here (“you’re eating WORMS, Michael”) is iconic enough to get a reference in What We Do in the Shadows.

However, there are some other vampire tropes that are fully discarded. For example, these vampires can eat??? They can also smoke, which might be a little easier to overlook, but coupled with the eating I am very perplexed. Honestly that’s not even a trope, it’s just a very baseline part of being a vampire? The undead only eat blood– that’s their thing. It just combines with the other stuff to make these vampires feel more human than immortal undead being.

In terms of 80’s tropes (which I’ll throw in just for fun), I’d say my top two were the nerdy friends supplying vital information specific to their nerd fixation over the phone, and the soft-focus implied sex scene, complete with so much drapery.

2: Any good kills?

MB: The absolute best kill scene. The Frog brothers make a special soup out of holy water and garlic and then drown a vampire in it. It makes a MESS. There is bloody garlic water coming out of all the house’s orifices. There are a couple other human-on-vampire deaths too, all pretty satisfying. None of the vampire’s kills are very interesting, but they do look mysterious. and leave you anticipating more

VB: YES. Some of the best I’ve seen so far. The best one was when the two nerdy boys tripped the vampire with the most blonde extensions into the bathtub of garlic and holy water (extra strength), transforming the vampire into a skeleton dripping with melted flesh and the tub into a churning whirlpool of pink goo, which then shot from every single plumbing fixture in the house. That’s gotta be a top 5 vampire kill for me. Honestly at the moment I can’t think of a better one so it might be number 1.

This kill was slightly tarnished, however, by the fact it absolutely should not have been possible. Once again illustrating that these vampires are all show, this vampire absolutely had those boys in his clutches and then just… hesitated for a really long time? Forgot that he had fangs? I really don’t know how any self respecting vampire would end that situation without two tasty teenage snacks.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence?

MB: Not much time is spent grappling with being a vampire. It is obvious that the half vampires don’t really want to be full vampires, but they are clearly enjoying the powers they have as half-vampires. All of the fun with none of the responsibility.

VB: Straight up not at all. As mentioned previously I do not believe these vampires are more than 27 years old. Also, while usually in a film like this it might focus on the main character’s struggle with this after being turned, Michael is conveniently just turned into a “half-vampire” (???????), and gets to revert after the killing of the head vampire? What a cop-out. It makes me SICK.

4: Sex appeal?

MB: Yes but mostly no–there isn’t much sex appeal on the side of the vampires as they mostly are pretentious prisses but there is a lot of homoerotic tension coming from the head vampire and the older brother. There is also a really weird sex (?) scene between the older brother and the half-vampire girl he is in love with.

VB: These vampires are supposed to be sexy, and technically, like two of them are. But the way they act is sooooo cringe so no thank you. And while Michael is a very beautiful half-vampire, my confusion about what age he is supposed to be is just too weird for me. Plus, even he is susceptible to the aura of cringe that seems to hover about the vampires. Exhibit A: when he drank the blood in the vampire trap house and then there was just a weirdly long shot of him mogging??

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

MB: Not really but if I WERE a vampire in this universe I would be way cooler than these losers.

VB: Firm no. The main reason to be a vampire is the fun vampire hijinks with your vampire crew. Yet, the camaraderie was severely lacking in this movie. David (the leader) was the ONLY vampire who talked in this film. The others, aside from saying Michael’s name once or twice, were essentially mute! It was so strange- they were only there to give the illusion of a vampire gang, without any of the actual dynamics.

MB: Yes, it’s almost as if the creators wanted to avoid paying actors for a speaking role.

Final thoughts?

MB: Again, I loved the bathtub holy water scene. I also have such an appreciation for the younger brother. My top three scenes with him are his Mondrian bathrobe, teasing his older brother for having an earring (while he also has an earring), and his reaction to the older brother being a vampire. It was such a Phineas and Ferb reaction! “Just wait until mom finds out you’re a vampire,”! Loved it. The twist at the end was especially satisfying. Would absolutely watch again.

VB: Final thoughts: I give this movie a 6.5/10– it’s not the greatest vampire movie, but it is a fun watch. Really it is mainly a teen angst/pseudo gang type film: the plot would not have changed drastically if the vampires had guns instead of fangs. Consequently, however, there was the very funny side effect of Michael’s brother reacting to his transformation as though he had caught him smoking pot behind the school. Remember, kids: no matter what your friends say, vampirism isn’t cool.

"I still want you Lucy"

~ Mona Bloodstick & Vera Bradley

Interview with the Vampire (movie)

Initial Thoughts:

Vera Bradley: Tom Cruise, I didn’t know you had it in ya.

Brad Pitt sucks the life out of this vampiric series of unfortunate events, while Tom Cruise puts on airs I’d never dreamed him capable of (gayness-wise).

There are two types of vampire movies: those told from the human perspective, and those told from the vampire perspective. Those told from the human perspective view the vampire as an insidious scourge, their detachment from human mortality a hallmark of their cruelty and sadism. Vampires eating people is bad, and no matter how sexy the vampires are, they must eventually be stopped. Vampire movies told from the vampire perspective, on the other hand, don’t engage with the morality of their actions in the same way. After all, lions don’t cry about the lost future of the antelopes they kill, they just enjoy their lunch. (This format is the highly superior, in my opinion). This movie is a human perspective movie masquerading as a vampire perspective movie. What could be a fun vampire lark is instead two hours of bitching and moaning from the least interesting character in the whole movie.

This movie could have been greatly improved by following Tom Cruise’s character, Lestat, rather than Brad Pitt’s character, Louis. Louis is supposedly special because he kept his human “soul”, or morality, through his hundreds of years being a vampire. Everyone fawns over him and falls in love with him for being a vampiric unicorn. The thing is, despite every other character telling us that he is so special and so human, the film never actually shows this. He was angsty about feeding on humans at first but eventually accepted its necessity to his survival, making the only evidence of his “human soul” his pissy mood for all 2 hours of the movie. Lestat, on the other hand, was a sadistic joy to behold, his final 2 minutes on screen nearly redeeming the dull preceding hour.

Mona Bloodstick: I know this movie was not meant to be funny. In fact, the writers must have taken funny bone suppressants, restraining themselves from anything remotely resembling a joke. Still, I couldn’t help myself from laughing at how seriously these vampires take themselves. Where the script lacks, Tom Cruise and Kirsten Dunst bust their chops successfully carrying the movie with the tips of their fangs. Notice I left out a certain third leading actor who goes by the name of Brad “Doe-eyed Mary Sue” Pitt. He could be replaced with a bloodless corpse that has an immovable mouth and there would hardly be a difference.

1: How did this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

VB: This movie contains strong vampire tropes, placing them central to the plot in some instances: there are key vampire deaths caused by exposure to the sunlight as well as burning. Coffins are stated to be necessary to sleep in, though it is not explained why, which honestly confused me a bit. Some tropes are dismissed, such as garlic, crucifixes, and stakes to the heart. There are even some tropes introduced I hadn’t been aware of, like the blood of the already dead being poison to vampires. I found the human vs animal blood treatment acceptable; vampires can drink animal blood for a while but it is really no sustainable substitute, unlike some media which makes it a loophole.

MB: They are pretty classic vampires, but they do not seem to have as many weaknesses as other iterations. Crucifixes or silver do not harm them, but sunlight and fire are big issues. And they dress just like your classic vampires with classic vampire locks. There is extreme homosexual subtext which is also fitting within the vampire canon.

One thing this movie could have benefited from is more lore. Are there only vampires and humans? Is the dad from Spy Kids really the oldest vampire at only 400 years old? Mary Sue is seen watching the original Nosferatu which blew my mind. Do you understand the implications?!?! There has to be some vampire that knows another vampire that knows something.

2: Any good kills?

VB: Most human kills are made to be kinda depressing/sympathetic, so while they were satisfyingly heavy on the drama and blood department, they were also pretty heart-wrenching. There were some good vampire kills as well though.

MB: YES. These vampires are killers through and through. There are so many victims, human, animal, and vampire. The human killing scenes are incredibly well done, but the vampire killings are incredible. Would have loved to see a full on vampire fight sans the goofy flying.

3: How do they deal with the curse of eternal existence?

VB: By fucking DWELLING on it. Louis mopes around for 200 years and concludes that his life is empty. Talk about a cyclical thought process- dude needs a therapist. I will say there is a nice dialectic set up here with Lestat and Louis as each other’s foils, but rather than highlighting the contrast to its full effect, most of the movie is devoted to Louis’ lame vibes. Lestat has embraced his vampiric identity, understanding that a vampire’s gotta do what a vampire’s gotta do.

MB: Horribly–or at least Mary Sue does. Tom Cruise seems to have reached the acceptance stage of the grief process, if he had any grief in the first place. Mary Sue does not crack a smile once throughout the two hours this movie runs. I might feel a twinge of sympathy for him had he not asked Tom Cruise to turn him into a vampire. For the love of Dracula, you asked him!! AND if you are so sick of being a vampire, there are easy enough ways to end things!! Him feeding on rats and other creatures is so annoying. Stop acting like a goddamn monk.

Thankfully, Mary Sue isn’t the only vampire. While I may not be pleased with how they spend their time, the other vampires appear to be at peace with their state of undead. Kirsten Dunst is an exception to this. I will give her a pass, because she seems most annoyed that she was turned into a vampire as a child and not as a grown woman with boobs. I too would be pretty annoyed if that was my fate. If not for the last scene in the movie, I would be very annoyed with the way the writers handle vampirism. Tom Cruise tells his hapless human victim what we all have been thinking; he’s sick of listening to Mary Sue’s whining for 200 years! I am a bit more interested in hearing his side of things.

4: Sex appeal?

VB: Yes sir. If you had told me that there would be a movie in which I was more attracted to Tom Cruise than Brad Pitt, I would have been quite surprised. Yet here is that very movie. Tom Cruise has somehow transformed himself from the straightest man I can imagine, a cult member with republican vibes to boot, into this delightful anime prince! He accomplishes a believable transition from the human into the monstrous, toying with Lestat and finishing off whores with the same dangerous but alluring glint in his eyes. As Taylor Swift once said, “Baby I’m a nightmare dressed like a daydream.”

MB: INCREDIBLE. Regardless if you find any of these actors attractive, half of their budget had to be spent on aphrodisiacs. I’m not sure if this should fit in the sex appeal category, but I do find it hilarious how Tom Cruise baby traps Mary Sue with Kirsten Dunst. They are so obviously a couple but I guess 1994 wasn’t ready for that yet. Everyone is in love with Mary Sue here. And I mean everyone. The movie tries to explain it by having numerous characters describe him as “still human”. UM? The fucking MIME VAMPIRE is more human than he is!! I guess if you measure humanity in whining he might be the most human. I am also a little upset that the narrative skips over most of the 20th century. We could have had vampires in bell bottoms!! Vampire zoot suits!! Mary Sue could have saved Archduke Ferdinand!!

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

VB: Not if I had to hang out with Louis. Generally it’s a no, as the vampires are typified into either whining bores (like Louis), or soulless aristocrats (like the vampire society). There is no vampire fun to be had aside from watching dumb plays about human mortality and torturing people, apparently. Lame-O.

MB: Maybe. These vampires have some really cool powers and are missing some of the most common vampiric weaknesses, but they don’t seem to be using them to the best of their ability. Mary Sue and Kirsten Dunst spend a large part of the movie looking for other vampires. Eventually, Mary Sue runs into a vampire mime on the road. The mime leads Mary Sue and Kirsten Dunst to a horde of vampires who run a theater. Seriously? Immortality, powers beyond comprehension, enough sex appeal to run the Playboy mansion, and you decide to be theater kids who put on shitty plays? I would prefer to hang out in a 24 hour Walmart in Texas. Go to a damn nightclub!

Final Thoughts:

VB: This movie should be turned into an anime about Lestat and Louis as chaotic opposite boyfriends. I do not care about Louis’ vampire revenge but I do care about Lestat’s indulgent grin as he bemoans Louis’ incessant, centuries-long whining.

MB: Not the best vampire movie out there, but incredibly entertaining and a must watch for any vampire freak. I think I would have grown bored in a movie theater, but in the comfort of my home and Vera Bradley by my side, I was well entertained. 5/10.

“Goodnight sweet prince, may flights of devils wing you to your rest.”

~ Vera Bradley & Mona Bloodstick

Vampyros Lesbos

Initial Thoughts:

Mona Bloodstick: The name of the soundtrack album for this movie is “Sexadelic Dance Party”. And by golly does it live up to its name! The point of this movie is The Vibe. This is not a movie you would sit around and watch with some of your pretentious movie buff friends, but rather something you put on the TV in the background while the lights are dim and rose petals are everywhere. You’re busy, but the soundtrack is so good that you occasionally glance at the screen hoping for some action–only to be met with deja vu as you see the same scene each time. Fantastic! I must admit that the last time I saw this was with Vera during her Celebration of Unlife extravaganza many years ago and thus, not willing to subject myself to a rerun, my memory may be a bit lacking.

Vera Bradley: Do you often find yourself watching 1970s softcore porn for the plot? Do you like psychedelic jazz, and also vampires? If so, you may be the perfect audience for this 92 minute music video of a movie. This film has some of the most liminal space I’ve experienced via a TV, filled as it is with mostly empty rooms sparsely populated with mid-century modern furniture. I once read (with lasting incredulity) that dreams are only about 20 seconds, but our brain stretches them out. That is exactly how this movie felt. 20 seconds of storyline stretched into an hour and a half of sitar music. Part of the reason I couldn’t tell you the plot if I wanted to is that I watched it over a year ago, but to be honest that is also how I felt as soon as it ended. A woman becomes a vampire, I believe.

1: How does this movie handle classic vampire tropes?

MB: They do drink blood! And speak to victims through dreams. And they are quite sexy. That’s about where it ends, though. Nadine can walk around in the daylight and even is around running water. That being said, the aesthetic is distinctly vampiric.

VB: There is definitely some drinking of blood, which is one of the highlights of the movie. I will also say that in terms of aesthetic, red permeates the screen in a very visually pleasing way throughout most scenes. I also remember a good amount of long-distance vampire hypnosis/seduction (an often overlooked trope, but one of the most classic).

2: Any good kills?

MB: There is at least one death in this movie according to Wikipedia. I did not remember watching it so it must not have been very good.

VB: I feel vaguely that perhaps a man died.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence?

MB: By recruiting blonde women to join your everlasting solitude! There is no place for these vampires to bitch and moan about their state. Immortality is a curse–but it also comes with the BIGGEST metaphorical vampire dick you’ve seen.

VB: This film is far more about the vibes. There is no future or past, there is only the hazy sense that there is a room, and in it is a vampire or two. And really, wouldn’t immortality come with a similar derailing of time?

4: Sex appeal?

MB: OOooooh boy. If I had to rank every vampire movie/tv show/video game in terms of sex appeal, this would be at the top. And below that would be several empty spaces. That is just how sexy these vampires are. This movie also reminds you of just how sexy its vampires are about every ten minutes when the same random soft porn scene plays. Not that I’m complaining! Again, the purpose of this movie is The Vibe, and The Vibe includes fresh outta hell lesbian bloodsuckers.

VB: If nothing else. These vampires ooze sensuality, undulating before the viewer’s eyes as though begging any gender studies majors in the room to mention the male gaze.

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

MB: Probably? It seems that all vampires do is be sexy which wouldn’t be too bad. And it would be nice to walk around in the daylight while sipping a glass of lesbian blood. What seems more enticing to me is simply existing in the beauty of 1970s Turkey. For aesthetic purposes yes, for any meaning beyond looking hot, probably no.

VB: Tbh it feels like it might be kind of boring. They don’t really talk very much so it would be an eternity of loaded glances and undulation. But I also get the sense that they are drugged UP. So it is possible that in this universe becoming a vampire comes with a special vampire high which could be fun if you’ve got to live forever.

Final thoughts?

MB: By all means I should love this movie but again, it would be better as background noise for other activities. The Vibe makes it seem like an extremely long music video. Not the best explanation of vampire lore, but altogether a fun watch.

VB: Final thoughts: I give this movie a 5/10. While I do enjoy the occasional 70s experimental film, this one felt a bit too stretched thin to hold my attention, plot-wise. I was also led to believe there would be much more lesbianism. I will say that visually, Franco sets up some excellent tableaux, and he absolutely accomplishes the fuzzy, confused feel of a drug-induced dream that I assume he was going for. But if you were drawn to this film due to its cover image and/or title, maybe just buy a poster.

XOXO

~ Mona Bloodstick & Vera Bradley

What We Do in the Shadows (movie)

Initial Thoughts?

Vera Bradley: What We Do in the Shadows is one of my all time favorite vampire movies, so I was VERY excited to show it to Mona Bloodstick. This is a little bit like Napoleon Dynamite meets Big Brother (I’ve never seen the show but I can only assume) meets vampires. Now, onto the criteria (we are working out the criteria currently so this may be subject to change in later reviews).

Mona Bloodstick: Vera Bradley has been begging me to watch this movie for the longest time. Much like the werewolves in this 2014 masterpiece, we finally bit the silver bullet together. I could not have been more pleased with this film. The atmosphere Waititi and Clement created makes me lust for more–good thing there’s a show we will be reviewing in the next few weeks.

1: How does this movie handle classic vampire tropes? 

VB: VERY well, I think. You’ve got classic vampire/werewolf rivalry, some fun no reflection stuff (but they CAN take selfies), and they adapt the necessity of an invitation in very well to the modern world, as the vampires need to be invited into the club in order to party. There’s also use of the sunlight trope, some fun hypnosis, and obv they sleep in coffins.

MB: This movie does an amazing job creating vampires that fall within classic vampire tropes. These vampires feel like real bloodsucking boys next door. They can be killed by sunlight, wooden stakes, hate silver, and any sight of a cross has these fanged fuckers in tears. I am very pleased that the writers stayed away from the garlic joke–it is incredibly difficult to get this trope right. In terms of power scale, these guys are just right. With great power comes incredible disadvantages.

While some may be tired of it, I am a sucker for the vampires vs werewolves trope. This movie does it so well it may turn haters back on. And I absolutely LOVED seeing them all get along in the end.

2: Any good kills? 

VB: I’d give the kills in this movie a solid 4/5. Nothing too crazy, but lots of blood and some nice dramatic scenes. Not tooooo too many kills overall.

MB: Yes! Since this is a comedy movie, I was not expecting there to be a satisfying kill. I was pleasantly surprised, but would have loved to see more kills. Loved seeing Viago make a mess with that one girl despite his careful efforts at protecting his couch. Would have loved to see more of the vampire vs werewolf fight.

3: How does this movie deal with the curse of eternal existence? 

VB: I think it’s pretty clever- basically when you live forever you still gotta deal with roommates, amiright? :/ The vampires get down about it sometimes but mostly they’re just your average Joe trying to make the most of each day. They don’t really worry too much about the moral effects of their need for human blood, which lends to much more humor.

MB: One trope that I am sick of is the vampire who spends their eternity moping around and being sad about being a vampire. BO-RING. Waititi and Clement address this issue astonishingly well. Sure, we get the whole, “wah wah I can’t eat my favorite foods anymore” bit from Nick, but it’s over quickly enough. A familiar and another former servant are shown begging for immortality. When the familiar achieves vampirehood, she is super chill with it. REFRESHING. Drinking human blood is but a chore for them. I was very interested in the child vampires, who also seemed at ease with their hunt for blood.

I loved the romance aspect between Viago and Katherine. I know this is a comedic movie, but him watching her every night in the retirement home warms my heartstrings. I am so glad they got their happy ending.

4: Sex appeal?

VB: These vampires are not much more sexy than your average Joe. Most of the guys in the house are pretty loser-y. (And only like 2 women vampires are shown, 2 of which are children). I do think Vlad is kinda sexy though so were I in this universe that would be some consolation.

MB: Listen–sex appeal was definitely not on the writer’s radar but DAMN these are some hot vampires.

5: Would I want to be a vampire in this universe?

VB: I do not really think so- there don’t seem to be many perks here and they live in a pretty shitty house. If I had to be either a werewolf or a vampire from this movie I’d rather be a werewolf- they kinda get the better deal but they also get to hang out with vampires, if that’s your thing.

MB: Ehh–it wouldn’t be the WORST thing in the world to be a vampire in this universe, but in the vast canon of the vampire cosmos, there are definitely better worlds to eat virgins in. Still, if vampires were real, this is probably the closest thing to how they might act.

Final thoughts:

VB: This movie is super funny and absolutely hits the spot, vampire-wise. I give it a 10/10 and would recommend to anyone. I do think the later TV adaptation (of the same name) is even better, just by nature of the fact that it has way more time to expand. It is basically a perfect continuation- once I figure out a way to review an entire TV show I will definitely be doing so. Uh oh- the sun is rising, so I’d better wrap this review up- wouldn’t want to get fried!

MB: 9.5/10–I loved it. This is how real vampires would act. I also need every line in this movie carved into my skin. As I saw someone say on Letterboxd, this movie feels just like cracking open a dead one with the boys.

XOXO 

~ Vera Bradley & Mona Bloodstick

Test Post

 Hello it is I Vampira Ballerina. I have come from my long slumber. Beneath the earth. I am oh so hungry and I have decided that the best way to find some lunch is to post content for you crazy vampire freaks. COMMMMEEEE TO MEEEEE.