Styria

Styria (Aka Angels of Darkness) is a superbly made independent Gothic thriller. I noticed one of the reviewers was thoroughly confused. I guess some people like movies like their chain restaurants. Not me. I was excited to let go and experience something unique and unexpected. The title of Angels of Darkness doesn't do this film justice. It's way to generic and unsubtle. This film is more like a classic supernatural tale. It's very dreamlike and beautifully shot. The acting is wonderful as well. I think the key to watching this film is letting go of expectations about what a supernatural movie or a vampire story should be about. There are lots of ideas and well explored themes. But I think the the thing that I loved the most was the overall MOOD! I can't wait to watch it again!

Lots of potential but no PUNCH. It does not follow through. The actors seem to be sleep walking through their roles. Probably fault of the director. Completely unsatisfying ending. Filled with clichés and scenes that done better in other movies. I kept thinking the movie was finally going to make the viewer jump but did not. Ultimately not worth the time or effort.

'Styria' is a very different kind of vampire film. In fact, its so different, I didn't realize it was a vampire film until the halfway mark.

It is a slow-paced, character-driven movie. Dr Hill (Stephen Rea) has been granted access to murals in an old castle. Tagging along, is his young daughter, Lara (Eleanor Tomlinson). She has a back story, but it is not clearly defined or explored, and I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to root for her. She is suicidal, but unconvincing - not sure if the character or the acting is to blame; probably a bit of both.

Sitting in the forest, a car speeds past Lara, crashing into a tree. A young woman emerges and starts running. Another person in the car (who is not shown) tries to run her over, but then drives away, leaving the woman dirty and petrified. This is Carmilla (Julia Pietrucha). Lara decides to help the girl, and takes her to the castle. She doesn't tell her Dad, who is incredibly ignorant in not noticing her. Carmilla keeps coming back every night, and the girls wander into the forest for a bit of adventure.

The two girls soon bond and there's lesbian inclinations, but - as with everything else in this movie - it is not well explored. From the beginning one notices something weird about Carmilla, but the viewer is kept guessing almost until the third act. While the film has some eerie moments, most of these moments are diminished when the girls start chattering.

The narration and the plot are uneven. Moments in the film looks like it is more suited for medieval times, and personally I think it would have worked better had it been set in another time. It doesn't work so well in present time.

Ultimately, I found the film a bit on the boring side. I don't think I'm going to remember this. There are far better vampire movies out there.

This starts reasonably enough, an academic travels behind the then Iron Curtain to undertake a restoration project on what in the UK would be a listed building. Travelling with him is his daughter, who is a troubled young woman, not the least on account of the razor blade she carries around with her which has been used to, well, just look at the scars on her arm.

Then there is Carmilla; she is real enough on account of her escaping from a crashed car, but exactly how real are her nocturnal visitations, and is she a vampire or a witch?

The former, 'twould appear, because this is an update of the novel "Carmilla", a precursor to Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Alas, unlike the 2013 adaptation of "The Monkey's Paw", our Gothic lesbian femme fatale does not age well, and is more than a little confusing, as is the end of this extremely disappointing film.

For shame!!! I can honestly say that if it wasn't for those two suspicious film "reviews" (who both seem to coincidentally promote Hulu) that were heaping unending words of praise and wonderment for this "film", I would have let this snooze-fest pass me by without allowing it to steal any more time from me than it already has; however, every time I see a fake review, I get so angry so as to allow that emotion to motivate to write my own. At least this way, people have access to at least one review not promulgated by a shill or anyone else with a pecuniary interest in promoting a film.

So I felt as though the story was lacking in any substance which kept my interest. Characters underdeveloped, nothing in the plot which got me to care what happens next. In fact, the only redeeming part of this endeavour was Stephen Rea, although methinks that he is the type of actor who always shines no matter where he's put. Long story short, I quit watching about halfway through. So to be fair, it is possible that the last half of the film could have been the greatest cinematographic event of a lifetime, but I wasn't in the mood to stick around and find out.