Vampire

If your idea of vampire films involves buckets of blood, fast-paced action, a ton of ultra-violence, a fair bit of sex, then more blood, this film will not be for you. You will be bored stiff, and will find little satisfying in this film.

However, for those people who can appreciate something more than that, and value the more subtle approaches to filmaking, then this is definitely worth a look.

This is an art-house style movie, with a good, and suitably heart-wrenching story, directed, filmed and lit in a stunningly beautiful, and thoughtful way.

Acting is superb throughout, but its the sets, the lighting, and the film work itself that make this film shine. And it does. I didn't find it boring, or even particularly slow paced. I had enormous empathy for the situations of both main characters, and was pleased that the ending avoided all the cinematic clichés of the past 50 years.

You could view it as depressing, and in many ways it is, but I don't mind that in a film. If I want inane one-liners, and throw-away vampire entertainment, I'll watch Buffy, or Blade. If I want something a bit more intelligent, thought-provoking, and different, then this is it.

I happily award this film 10 / 10 - I haven't enjoyed a film as much as I did this one for quite some time. i will be buying it on DVD.

The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.

I enjoyed this film. It has a dreamy quality to it and has an element of mystery. The design is nicely evocative and the pacing is almost languid. If this is the intention then bravo, because it perfectly captures what Alex, the titular vampire, must feel through the century plus of his undead life. Night after night of ceaseless existence which must be filled with stimulation and not just the stimulus of hunting humans. It captures the loneliness that such a creature, still endowed with all the normal feelings that he once knew in his human life, must endure. In fact, it captures this better than "Interview With A Vampire" does.

If you seek a bloodbath, look elsewhere. This is a vampire film about longing and despair and well worth a viewing.

The first thing I'd like to say about this movie is that the synopsis is incorrect. While the vampire "Alex" (Julian Sands) does in fact drink the blood of animals, it also clearly shows him drinking the blood of humans and he admits doing so as well. So it isn't like he's a "pacifist" or the vampire equivalent of a vegetarian or anything. I say this in order to make the mood of the movie more understandable. It's a dark film and I think Julian Sands does a good job showcasing the brooding and sad state of emotion that has come over him. Likewise, Suzanne Hamilton (as both "Anne" and "Virginia") also shows a certain sense of loneliness that is necessary for the character as well as a sober film of this type. To be sure, this is not an action-packed film with all of the usual clichés thrown in for good measure. The vampires in this film can function during the day without bursting into flames and there are no scenes of wooden stakes through the heart. So some viewers may not enjoy the film because of the lack of action or preset notions they have come to expect. On the other hand, I don't believe that this is a film without flaws either. In some parts it is both slow and dull and I think it was due more to the director (Shimako Sato) trying to create something "artistic" rather than something just simply enjoyable. But that's just my opinion. I also would have preferred that Julian Sands had shown a bit more passion instead of keeping things so lifeless and understated. In short, this isn't a bad movie. But I don't think it set any new standards of excellence either.

Regarded as oftimes somewhat of goth-fodder and less worthy of consideration, the romantic vampire film, especially in its more modern incarnations has seen some bad times. Tale of a Vampire certainly satisfies the goth-fodder side of things but it's a surprisingly fine film nonetheless. It stars Julian Sands as Alex, a cultured, melancholy creature of the night who falls for Anne, an employee new to his preferred library for research. She shares his melancholy search for companionship, with the bonus of being the spitting image, indeed perhaps some reincarnation of his long lost love Virginia. The film takes a slow approach with luxurious atmosphere, one of its most notable features is the cinematography of Zubin Mistry and its transformation of London exteriors into a gorgeous nightworld, a phantasmagorical realm of blue hues, streets that fair gleam in the rain and puddles that seem like deep pools. A place of dark beauty, where past and present can twine, fantasy, romance and the real, in visual contrast with sad and sylvan romantic flashbacks of a brighter palette. A dreamlike ambiance pervades the film, as well as the aforementioned shifts in time and reality there are moments where characters shift gears imperceptibly, connecting tissue of relationship dialogue elided as the plot moves on emotional inevitability rather than laid out structure. Writer/director Shimako Sato clearly isn't aiming to snag fans of tight plotting or fast pace here, but captures perfectly her mournful themes. Julian Sands does well in his role, not terribly expressive but imbued with tired, sad intelligence and bracing flashes of violence. Suzanna Hamilton is even better as Anne, lonely, fair aching for love but still dignified, moving stuff, whilst a spot of antagonism is provided by a suitably sinister Kenneth Cranham. There's even some nice bloodshed in this one, not a whole lot but certainly a couple of unexpectedly brutal moments, its certainly not afraid to get its hands dirty every so often. There are minor flaws in the pacing and construction here I think, Cranham's character appears too late, potentially interesting side roles come to naught and there are bits and bobs of plotting and thematics that are introduced and then fall by the wayside but in general I was more concerned by these problems after watching the film, whilst sat there in front of it I was largely captivated. Tricky to throw out a full on recommendation with this one, as many will no doubt find it sappy or boring, but if macabre romance and beautiful visuals tickle your fancy, this is well worth a look.