Begierde

The Hunger (1983)

** (out of 4)

When vampire Miriam Blaylock (Catherine Deneuve) bites a new lover, they don't age, which is a great benefit but that changes when she's done with you and wants someone else. John (David Bowie) finds himself aging at a rapid pace so he goes to a doctor (Susan Sarandon) for help but soon the doctor finds herself under the spell of Miriam.

THE HUNGER features some truly great stuff but sadly it's all pretty much lost in this rather bland movie that's certainly a strange take on the vampire story but in the end there's just way too much style and not a lot of substance. Director Tony Scott certainly likes his style even when it overtakes any sort of story that might have been in the screenplay. There's all sorts of quick edits here and it's clear that the director wants you to be impressed with how many cuts there are in one small sequence. As far as the story goes, I guess they figured since you had two beautiful women naked and making out with each other you didn't need a story.

As I said, there are some terrific things here including the special effects of Dick Smith who had to take a very young Bowie and age him in front of our eyes. The special effects used are simply brilliant and you almost with that the entire 97-minutes would have been devoted to watching Bowie grow old. This sequence doesn't contain the power that it should have, thanks to the direction, but there's no doubt that you're eyes will be one the effects. Another major plus are the actual performances from the three leads. Bowie is marvelous here and steals the film as you really can feel his character's fear of growing old, which of course means his life is going to be over. Deneuve is also extremely good having to work with limited dialogue. The same with Sarandon who falls under her spell.

The now infamous lesbian scene has two beautiful women who are obviously easy to look at but even the style to it wasn't all that impressive. Obviously, I wasn't overly thrilled in how director Scott handled the picture. It's really a shame because there aren't too many horror movies that get this type of cast and in the end you can't help but feel that it was a wasted opportunity even with the great moments that are scattered throughout.

I just watched this film again for the first time in maybe 15 or 20 years and I did forget how slow moving this film is. I don't mind a film taking its time to tell a story but there are so many scenes where nothing happens and the characters are just staring at one another. Lots of style and beautiful cinematography and great sets really set the gothic mood in a contemporary setting. But while all this looks great there really is not much in the way of characterization. Film could have benefited from that. The make-up is terrific as we watch David Bowie age in a short time. For you trivia buffs they're are some recognizable actors in small roles like Willem Dafoe, John Pankow, Ann Magnuson and Jane Leeves. Not a bad film. Well made technically and some effective music but little characterization. A real curio.

A film with lots of style, beautifully shot, almost like a dream. This must be Tony Scott's best film to date, why do you ask? The director shows vision, not only in its visual medium but the editing, the music, the production design, the classical costumes and the chance to work with some talent.

David Bowie is very good, almost perfect for his part and Catherine steals the whole film. Susan Sarandon is also very good, the infamous Lesbian scenes are highly erotic and also very artistic.

This film isn't your usual Vamp movie, the film adds depth to these so-called Vampires.

The film probably required a bit more plot but nevertheless, this is all about style, this film looks fantastic.

Do not watch this in pan and scan, make sure you see it in widescreen because the director and cinematographer make full use of the panavision width.

Vastly underrated, but it's easily the best vampire film. Seems to be regarded as some kind of a trashy lesbian story, with a little bit of horror and gore thrown in for good measure; well, that's nonsense. These critics would have us believe that some silly Dracula film from the 30s is a masterpiece while this original approach to vampirism is a cheap, exploitative, erotic tale. The film is visually terrific, very atmospheric, has a good cast (Sarandon is excellent), and a superb soundtrack. Sarandon and Deneuve naked in bed is not exactly a deterrent, either. The last scene - a combination of visuals and music, is the absolute highlight of the film. If you'd like to read my parody/biography of Susan Sarandon (and other Hollywood intellectuals), contact me by e-mail.

Before embarking onto this one, you must decide whether or not you enjoy films which look like a very extended (and quite expensive) MTV video clip of the early to mid 80's. If you don't, don't bother with this, it'll probably annoy you greatly. If you do, you're in for an indulgent visual ride and great entertainment, because every frame in Tony Scott's cult classic is carefully planned, beautifully orchestrated and wonderfully filmed - from the iconic opening sequence through to the heavily filtered last shot, it's polished until it gleams. Production design is given full reign and is faultless - the sets, lighting and costumes work fabulously with the soundtrack and the editing, creating a very recognisable style which is a genuine product of the trend aesthetics of the decade in question. And there's an added bonus of knowing use of music - this being the film that "relaunched" the Delibes' Lakme aria, paving the way for it becoming a monster classipop hit it is today. The film also employs Ravel at his most frozenly emotional,and, to stunning effect, Deneuve at arguably her most frozenly beautiful. One of those films remembered for perfectly encapsulating the visual style of its times.