Review: Rock of Ages

I knew this film was going to be shit. Knew it so surely that I didn't bother to read the reviews. Perhaps I should have, as it was a bit of a surprise to find that it was a proper people-stopping-what-they're-doing-to-sing musical. I was pleasantly surprised about this, for a while at least.

Rock of Ages is set on the Sunset Strip of the 1980s that nurtured some of the biggest bands of that decade, Guns & Roses included. The film focuses on the relationship and quest for fame of Sherrie (Julianne Hough), a newcomer to LA with stars in her eyes, and Drew (Diego Boneta), a waiter at the legendary (or so we're told) Bourbon Club with dreams of rockstardom. They break-up; she ends up stripping, he joins a boy band. Meanwhile, the mayor's wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) goes on a Moral Majority crusade against the Bourbon, who's owner (Alec Baldwin) and stage manager (Russell Brand) are secretly in love with each other, and crazed rocker Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), who, as a result of liaison with an ingenue Rolling Stone reporter (Malin Akerman), comes to realize that his career's in ruins no thanks to his sleazebag manager (Paul Giamatti). Naturally, it all works out for everyone, and there's a big sing-a-long to "Don't Stop Believing".

As you can see, the plot is clichéd and predictable, adding nothing new to the genre and providing little material with which to redeem itself. Sherrie and Drew are such a cookie-cutter young couple--there is nothing original about them--that they are completely non-compelling. I found myself more interested in the sub-plots, which are given, at times, either too much weight, drawing focus from the main story, or not enough, leaving characters and relationships undeveloped.

While all involved must be given praise their vocal performance, especially since most of the big stars in the cast aren't singers, in terms of acting, performances are all-around terrible. The young leads are incapable of injecting anything interesting into their well-worn characters, and Baldwin delivers every line of the God-awful dialogue while laughing at it on the inside. Zeta-Jones positively feasts on the scenery every time she's on screen, whereas Cruise, perhaps under the delusion he's in an Axel Rose biopic, plays it too seriously, though the role gives him plenty of legitimate reasons to take the performance over the top. Only Brand, whose usual schtick fits in perfectly, and Mary J. Blige (as the strip club madam) do anything remotely watchable. Blige, an R&B legend, delivers a show stealing performance akin to Ray Davies's in Absolute Beginners.

As bad as it was, however, Rock of Ages delivers a lot of laughs, though I'm not sure how many of them were intentional. It was hard to tell what was supposed to be a joke because the way the film was paced; it didn't allow enough time for the gags to sink in properly. But the musical numbers were (mostly) well staged and performed. I'm not a fan of hair metal, so I can't really judge whether or not they "ruined" the songs (though having Zeta-Jones and the PMRC dancing chorus singing Twisted Sister was a little disconcerting), but the music seemed to be used well. However, power ballad after power ballad got a bit tiring and the songs soon lost their ability to make you pump your fist in the air and shout "Rock 'n' Roll! WOOO!!!" They come across as dispassioned. And, sadly, the opportunity for a Jets v. Sharks style rumble between the morality girls and the Stacee Jaxx fans in the "We're Not Gonna Take It/We Built This City" medley was completely squandered, though, as a bonus, I think there were a few rockers from the 80s hair metal scene making cameos in the crowd.

It was at this point when I began to wonder if maybe all the music videos for the featured songs strung together with no pretence of a narrative would be more enjoyable. Still, it was mildly entertaining, though the only reason to not to wait to rent it is that movie theaters probably have a better audio system than you do.

British Actor of the Month--Big Crimpin' Edition

It's been almost a year since I've done one of these. The series title is getting a bit silly now, but I really can't be bothered to go back and change them all (as well as the tags) to British Actor of the Indiscriminate Period of Time.

This random time unit, I'm featuring the men behind my current British TV obsession

The Mighty Boosh

They'll calm your llama down.

Julian Barratt--mustachioed, intellectual, introverted--and Noel Fielding--whimsical, rock 'n' roll, pretty--are the comedy double act behind this ultimate* of cult shows. For most double acts, the the Name and Name format will suffice, but there's nothing conventional about Barratt and Fielding's style, and so they called themselves The Boosh as only an absurd in-joke would do. Starting out on stage before moving to radio and television, The Mighty Boosh features the two of them as self-important yet ineffectual "jazz maverick" Howard Moon (Barratt) and the simplistic, fashionable electro boy (or girl? nobody really minds) Vince Noir (Fielding)--sometimes zookeepers, sometimes shop clerks, but always best friends--as well as a host of other characters played by themselves as well as Rich Fulcher, Dave Brown, Michael Fielding, and, occasionally, Matt Berry and Richard Ayoade. Often mislabeled surrealism, The Mighty Boosh is a world of magic realism in which Howard and Vince go on adventures featuring mod wolves, drug-addled foxes, and transgender lake monsters. With a distinct visual aesthetic and musical numbers, The Mighty Boosh presents hilarious fairy tale-like stories for adults.

But I also wanted to feature the Boosh to highlight many of the really great shows Barratt, Fielding, and their collaborators have been involved in, such as:

Nathan Barley, a biting comedy about vapid trendsetters.  Barratt plays Dan Ashcroft, a "serious" writer at a trendy magazine who rails against the idiocy that surrounds him, not realizing that he's just as much an ass as everyone else.  Fielding and Ayoade have small roles as Dan's roommate and co-worker.  

Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy, a sketch show that blends bizarre humor with psychedelic, hand-painted visuals and music by Fielding and Kasabian's Serge Pizzorno.  Most of the show's strange characters are played by Fielding, but pretty much everyone from the Boosh (except Barratt) has appeared in it.  

The IT Crowd, a sitcom about the geeks who fix your computers, stars occasional Boosh cast member Richard Ayoade as the extremely nerdy Maurice Moss, and Fielding has a recurring guest role as Richmond, a gloomy goth who lives in the server room.  Mid Series 2, Matt Berry also takes over as the company's boss.


Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, in which a down-market Steven King presents the horror show he made in the 1980s about a hospital on the hellmouth.  The show brilliantly parodies low-budget production from the bad dialogue to the appalling acting to the catastrophic special effects failures.  Starring both Dixon Bainbridges (Ayoade and Berry), the show featured both Barratt and Fielding in guest roles as a random Spanish-spouting priest and a pissing ape-man, and is a must-see whether or not you actually like the Boosh.


Snuff Box is a sketch comedy show starring Berry and Fulcher that is structured around loose narratives set in their club for hangmen. Though neither Barratt nor Fielding were involved, the show's quite clever and deserves honorable mention.

*I know I say this about a lot of things, but this time it's true. I remember hearing whispers it on other cult shows' message boards.

Freaks, Geeks, Nerds, Wannabes, and the Normals

The other week I saw an infographic on the difference between geeks and nerds.  Entertaining though it may have been, I found it highly inaccurate.  For one thing, it seems to have confused geeks with hipsters.  Geeky things might be in right now, but wearing a She-Ra t-shirt because it's cool to do so does not make one a geek.  A real geek would never do so ironically.  For another thing, nerds aren't that socially inept.  Sure we might seem that way to outsiders, or "normals," but nerds are quite adept at socializing.  With other nerds, at least, as well as most geeks and many types of "alternative" cultures, which I'm collectively referring to as freaks.  (Bear in mind that I'm not implying that there's really anything freakish about them, just that this is how they're perceived by the mainstream.)  In fact, nerds, freaks, and geeks go together very well, forming social nexi that function like, say, an IT department.

Geek, Girl, Nerd, Normal.  Goth sold separately.

That's right.  If you haven't guessed by now, I'm going to use the British sitcom The IT Crowd to explain the difference between geeks and nerds, as well as how they relate to other sub-cultural groups (in this case, goths) and the "normals."

First up:  geeks and nerds.  Moss we can easily identify as a nerd.  He dresses like one, lives with his mother, and is socially inept.  Roy, then, unironically wearing ironic t-shirts and being (slightly) more capable of successfully interacting with "normals," is the geek.  And yet, they have enough similar interests (video games, watching movies on screens much too large for their apartments, and, obviously, computers) that they hang out all the time.  Really, there isn't that much difference between geeks and nerds.  Both highly value knowledge.  For the geek, it is a highly specified knowledge of a few subjects.  Thus, you have your typical sci-fi/fantasy geek, but you can also have music geeks (see my earlier musings on rock 'n' roll geekery), theater geeks who can quote Shakespeare like it's Star Wars, and--yes--even sports geeks.  (Have your favorite team's stats memorized?  Geek!)  Nerds on the other hand are more into a greater range of knowledge.  For the geek, status is how much they know about something.  For the nerd, it is about how much they know.  Of course, since nerds like to know everything, they often know a lot of the same stuff as geeks.  In fact, it is highly likely that a nerd will also be some kind of geek.  Thus, because there is so much cross-over, it is quite easy for geeks and nerds to get along.

Now for the alternative cultures, or "freaks."  This could be any group--hippies, punks, skaters, ravers--but, since Richmond is a goth, we'll focus on them.  Actually, goths in general work really well to illustrate this point because, as this website adorably shows, there are a lot of different types of goth, many of which are cross-overs with other sub-cultural groups.  So just as the line between geek and nerd is blurred, so too are the lines between goths and hippies, punks, and, yes, even geeks.  Sure, they may look cool with their "alternative" appearance, but isn't a group of people with the same limited cultural knowledge the definition of geek?  You've got to admit, Richmond's obsession with Cradle of Filth is pretty geeky.  And a lot of the goths that I've known have been kind of nerdy as well.  Think about it--nerds have a wide range of knowledge, and goths have to know a lot about literature, music, death, and so on.  Those of you who have actually seen The IT Crowd are probably thinking right now that Richmond's relationship with Moss and Roy complicates my theory of sub-cultures getting along.  They do keep him in the closet--um, I mean, server room--and tend to avoid him when he's not in it.  But it is a relationship that allows them to work together in the ways best for them.  The dark and solitude of the server room is good for Richmond's goth sensibilities (though maybe not so much for his health), and keeping him in there stops him from depressing the rest of IT too much.  And having a room to put him in is helps Moss's need to be hyper-organized.  (Now if only he could get Roy to remember to count how many staples he's used....)  It might not seem like much of a relationship, but it is a lot better than the one Richmond's got with the people upstairs.  He's been moved down to the basement after a goth faux pas, so there is no place for him within the world of the "normals."

Why do I keep putting normal in scare quotes, you might be wondering?  Because, let's face it, normal is never normal, and nowhere is that more true than at Reynholm Industries.  Basically, the company is structured kind of like a high school, only instead of cafeteria tables, the cool kids get to work upstairs while the outsiders have to work in the basement.  However, as cool as the "normal" people may seem, they are, in fact, idiots.  The IT Crowd portrays normal people as a bunch of nutters.  Boss Denholm Reynholm is batshit crazy, and his son and successor Douglas (pictured at right) is batshit crazy and a total perv.  So how did the "normals" get to be the successful people, then?  Well, if we apply Nietzsche's concept of slave morality--Hey!  Don't go!--the "normals" got to be that way because everyone else was far more interesting than they were and they got jealous.  So they basically said that their uninterestingness was the right way to be ("normal"), and they formed this clique so they could keep all the interesting people out.  Because they made it seem all exclusive, some people stopped being interesting just so they could be included.  Soon enough, uninteresting was considered the normal way to be, and all the interesting people became marginalized.  And that is why boring, stupid people who couldn't tell TNG from DSN run the world.  Next time someone makes you feel bad for not being "normal," just remember that they're subconsciously jealous of your awesomeness.

Finally, there's Jen.  She's not a geek or a nerd, but not really one of the normals either.  Jen is what we can call a wannabe*--one of those people who has bought into the myth that being "normal" is better.  She tries to integrate herself into the world outside the basement, but all of her attempts fail, and not always because of her dorky subordinates.  Even if she does think the internet is a small black box kept at the top of Big Ben, Jen is far from as stupid and bizarre as the "normals."  And yet, she won't find a sub-cultural niche and let go of her dream of working upstairs.  In a way I feel sorry for wannabes.  It must be awful to be a really interesting person on the inside but constantly have to convince yourself otherwise to appear "normal."  Unfortunately for them, though, the wannabes have an important function.  Jen, as IT's "relationship manager," smooth over the interactions between the company's geeks, freaks, and nerds and the "normals."  Wannabes are able to move among the world of the normals and the worlds of various subcultural groups, and, as such, act as the go-betweens who keep society together.



*Not to be confused with poseurs, who are normals trying to be accepted by a sub-cultural group they think is cool, but are nowhere near interesting enough to pull it off.

Script Frenzy 2012

Now if I could just finish that post I started about five weeks ago....

The Christmas Blues (And a Time-Traveling Fridge)

1991, the Thursday evening before Christmas vacation is due to begin. Emily sits at the kitchen table for her after school snack while in the other room a piano student bangs out "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" in what she will one day realize is a hilarious reference to that scene in It's a Wonderful Life. But not yet, as she is only nine and won't be seeing it for a few years more. Instead, as she feasts away on a selection of homemade cookies, she does some holiday-themed coloring, wondering if Santa will bring the right American Girl doll (Molly, not Samantha) and if she should maybe check that place Mom always hides the presents to find out. So absorbed in these seasonal concerns is she that she doesn't notice the refrigerator begin to rattle and emit a strange blue glow.

When the rattling and the glow have subsided, the door opens, and an older (though under thirty so not old) version of Emily climbs out.

"David Tennant makes that look so easy," she says, dusting spilled baking soda off her sleeve.

Younger Emily stops coloring and looks up at Older Emily in amazement, while Older Emily takes in the pigtail braids, green leggings, and garish holiday sweatshirt her past self is wearing and cringes.

"I'm not here to give out fashion advice, but next time those," she says and points to the leggings, "come into style, skip it."

Younger Emily just frowns as Older Emily takes a seat at the table and snatches a gingerbread man.

"Anyway, I'm you from the future," Older Emily says.

"No duh," Younger Emily says. "You still haven't fixed your teeth. How did you get here? A Christmas miracle?"

"No, the milk's gone off," Older Emily says, cocking her head at the refrigerator. "I've come back to explain something to you."

"Is this about Santa Claus?" Younger Emily asks. "Because Preston says he's not real, but I--"

"Nah, you'll find that out on your own about two weeks from now," Older Emily says. "Remember that thing you heard on the radio earlier about Christmastime having higher suicide rates than any other time of the year?"

"Yeah," Younger Emily says, rolling her eyes as if to say, of course I remember.

"And it made you wonder how anyone could possibly be unhappy at Christmas," Older Emily continues. Younger Emily nods her head fervently, always eager to learn something.

"Yeah, I mean, how can you not love Christmas?" Younger Emily says. "It's the--"

"Don't say 'most wonderful time of the year,'" Older Emily interrupts.

"I was going to say 'best holiday ever,'" Younger Emily peevishly replies. "So why would you not be happy?"

"Well, what do you think is so great about Christmas?" Older Emily asked, feeling rather pleased at herself for her use of the Socratic method.

"Everything!" Younger Emily exclaims. "The presents and the cookies and the songs and Jesus and family and..."

"A partridge in a pear tree," Older Emily mocks. "You do realize that half the stuff that you think makes Christmas great is all just an idealized version of Christmas no one could possibly meet that's been constructed by the culture industry to get you to buy more crap, all in support of the global capitalist system, don't you?"

Younger Emily blinks.

"And that's bad why?" she asks. Older Emily sighs, remembering that she hasn't heard of Karl Marx yet.

"It just is, okay?" she says. Younger Emily nods.

"Okay, but what about all the non-commercial stuff, like spending time with your family?" she counters.

"And if they're a bunch of assholes?" Older Emily says. Younger Emily gasps.

"You swore!" she says.

"Get used to it," Older Emily says. "Look, family isn't constant. People die, or they get divorced, or they start their own families they'd rather spend time with. And, let's face it, Christmas is catered toward kids. It may be fun now, but at some point, your family's going to decide you're an adult, and then nobody will care whether or not you're having a good holiday."

"Jerks," Younger Emily mumbles with a frown.

"Don't I know it," Older Emily says.

"But there's still Jesus," Younger Emily says. "I mean, He is the reason for the season."

"Er...." Older Emily says, shifting uncomfortably.

"Why do you use 'er' and not 'uh'?" Younger Emily asks.

"Huh? Oh, I guess I picked it up from Harry Potter," Older Emily explains, glad to have dodged the religion question.

"Is he your boyfriend?" Younger Emily asks.

"Yes... Yes he is," Older Emily lies, unwilling to reveal that she has no life.

"Cool," Younger Emily says. "But anyway, people care more about their fellow man--"

"And woman," Older Emily corrects.

"More at Christmas. Isn't that good?" Younger Emily asks.

"Yeah, but people need help all year. Isn't it hypocritical to only give once a year?" Older Emily counters.

"Better than nothing," Younger Emily retorts. Older Emily seems at a loss for words, and so takes a bite of gingerbread man and nearly chips her tooth.

"Ow! Dammit, Mom, learn to bake!" she says.

"So Christmas is good," Younger Emily says, ignoring the second swear. "And people should be happy."

Older Emily looks at her younger self and sighs.

"Look, you won't understand yet," she says. "You can't. One day, because of various life events and changes in perspective, Christmas won't be what it once was. And that will make you sad. But right now, Christmas is what it once was, and that's what makes it so awesome. Does that make any sense?"

"No, not really," Younger Emily answers.

"Oh, well," Older Emily says. "Probably better that way. Wouldn't want to put a damper on that pony you get next year."

Younger Emily's face lights up in amazement.

"Really?" she says.

"No," Older Emily says. Younger Emily's face falls as the refrigerator rattles and begins to emit a blue light again.

"That's my cue to leave," Older Emily says, rising from the table. "I've got to go stop my teenage self from watching Pride and Prejudice. That's one fetish I don't need right now."

And so she enters the fridge without a goodbye, leaving Younger Emily wondering what a fetish is.

Vampire Movie Guide

Some film critics have compared the cinema to a vampire. A series of still images brought to life through the mechanical movement of the projector in an uncanny simulation of life much like... the undead. Maybe that's why there are so many vampire movies.

You may be wondering with so many out there where you should start. Don't worry, I've seen a lot of vampire movies and have ranked them for you. And no, I'm not claiming to have seen every vampire movie ever made, or even all the good ones. If there's one in particular you'd like to recommend, feel free to leave a comment.

Unless you're recommending that certain one (Or five. Seriously, two parts?? Really???) that I absolutely refuse to watch. And I'm not talking about Carl Theodor Dreyer's Vampyr.

 

1) Nosferatu, 1922, F. W. Murnau 

Even though the names were changed to protect the copyright infringed, this silent classic, the first screen adaptation of Dracula is still the best vampire movie I've ever seen. Maybe it's just that silent films really creep me out (Ah! The uncanny!), or maybe it's that the production values don't seem as crappy as most old movies (despite the obvious day for night exterior sequences that are an obvious problem for vampires). Whatever it is, Max Schreck should give anyone nightmares. 

2) Interview with the Vampire, 1994, Neil Jordan 

Now, some of you might think this a travesty that a rather flashy adaptation of the beloved Anne Rice novel beat out the likes of Werner Herzog, or perhaps some of you can't stomach the idea of Tom Cruise befouling your precious Lestat? But remember, kids, this was when he was just a little crazy, and, to be honest, I thought he was dead-on as everyone's favorite Brat Prince. All in all, I thought this was well-done. Ok, so they did try to distance Brad Pitt's Louis from the book's homoeroticism a bit. Fair point. But Kirsten Dunst is excellent as Claudia. And I love the ending, different though it is from the book, though really, not out of character....

3) Dracula, 1931, Tod Browning

Though Nosferatu came first, Tod Browning's Dracula is the ur-text of all vampire movies, and arguably horror movies in general. In fact, so many other films have copied, parodied, or otherwise referenced it, that, if you haven't actually seen it already, you'll feel like you have anyway. Hugely popular--and controversial--in its day, Dracula remains a classic despite its staginess, its sometimes creaky production, and its out dated use of sound. This version of Dracula is one of the most clever uses of Stoker's novel, for it modernizes the story and allows the Count social interactions with his victims, thus making his threat all the more tangible. And then, of course, there is Bela Lugosi's performance--as the foreign yet intriguingly sophisticated vampire--that made Dracula a household name. Lugosi's Dracula is perhaps the most memorable character in film, if not pop culture in general. Face it, it's not Frank Langella kids impersonate on the playground.

4) Shadow of the Vampire, 2000, E. Elias Merhige 

A very dark comedy that imagines Murnau hired a real vampire to play the part of Count Orlock. Probably best appreciated if you have a dry, twisted sense of humor. Wilhem Dafoe's performance really makes the film. 

5) Let the Right One In, 2008, Tomas Alfredson 

A cute little movie about a depressed Swedish boy who befriends a young, depressed vampire girl. Surprisingly (for a Swedish movie), it's not very depressing at all, and rather sweet and heart-warming. Well, for a Swedish vampire movie, anyway. 

6) The Lost Boys, 1987, Joel Schumacher 

A classic piece of 80s camp with not one, but two Coreys! Sure, it's not very scary if you're over the age of, say, eight, but it's hilarious. Don't take it too seriously, and you will have yourself a good time.

7) Horror of Dracula, 1958, Terence Fisher

The first of Hammer Studio's Dracula movies. Although there are a lot of major changes from the book (Mina is Arthur's wife? And Jonathan isn't a total wimp??), it does a pretty good job of staying true to the essence of Stoker's work. And there are a lot of little touches that remind one of the novel, the play, and Nosferatu as well. Although the film's low budget Technicolor production might seem a little dated and campy, the story's fairly engaging, and Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing are excellent as the Count and Van Helsing.

8) Nosferatu: Phatom der Nacht, 1979, Werner Herzog 

Ok, the credit sequence is probably one of the creepiest things I've every seen on film. And there are some really excellent visuals. Klaus Kinski isn't nearly as disgusting as Max Schreck (though those fingernails some close--bleh!), but this is still a good film, in it's arty German way. 

9) Queen of the Damned, 2001, Michael Rymer 

Film critics and hard-core Anne Rice fans panned this adaptation, but it really wasn't that bad, even though they did try to squeeze two books together. Ok, sure, I had trouble with a Lestat who wasn't blond, and, yes, I did nearly lose it and throw things at the TV when they had Marius be Lestat's maker (WTF???? NO!!), but, if you're not familiar with The Vampire Chronicles and haven't seen Interview, you'd probably enjoy it, if the film's slick style doesn't bother you.  

10) Underworld, 2003, Len Wiseman 

Not too bad. It has all your basic action movie stuff. And the concept was interesting. But I felt I was missing something. Was this a comic book that got made into a movie? I wasn't sure, and if it was, I know I shouldn't have felt that way. I mean, I've never read X-Men comics, but I could still figure out the rules. But here, I was lost. 

 11) Bram Stoker's Dracula, 1992, Francis Ford Coppola 

First, let's talk about this as an adaptation. I like to say that this is both the best and worst adaptatioon of the novel. For one thing, of all the Dracula movies, this one gets the most details right. However, it also overly romaticizes the Count, which I'm sure would probably give Stoker fits if he knew about it*. Now let's talk about the acting. I thought Anthony Hopkins made a good Van Helsing (unlike #19), and, despite the weird hair thing, Sirius Black--um, I mean, Gary Oldman does a decent impression of Bella Lugosi as Dracula. But I'm not sure how I feel about Winona Ryder's *ahem* "lovely" English accent, and, dude, casting Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker was, like, a totally gnarly bummer, dude. (FYI, if you've heard intellectual big-shots like Thomas Elsaesser call this movie "the end of cinema" or something like that, they're not talking about it being crappy.)

12) Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, 1968, Freddie Francis

After being accidentally revived, Dracula decides to get revenge on the Monsignor who exorcized his castle by seducing his niece. It's up to her athiest boyfriend and a drunken priest to find the faith necessary to rescue her. In this film we can see the turn toward making vampire movies more explicitly sexy, and, while no one will ever claim this is a great film (the acting is particularly awful at times), it is one of the stronger entries in Hammer's Dracula franchise.

13) The Hunger, 1983, Tony Scott 

David Bowie as a vampire. Sexy!... But now he's really, really old, like a mummy? Ew! And Susan Sarandon is hooking up with Catherine Deneuve for some reason? Though a long-time favorite of goths (OMG! Bauhaus!), this movie isn't easy to follow. Let's just say I now understand what all the film critics on my exam list were talking about when they bemoaned postmodernism's emphasis on style over substance.

14) Scars of Dracula, 1970, Roy Ward Baker

Once again, Dracula has been brought back from the dead, this time to terrorize a young couple spending the night at his castle. Notorious for having the worst effects of the whole franchise (seriously, that bat is the epitome of cheesy), it nonetheless has some redeeming qualities, such as giving Christopher Lee more to do with the character than bite necks and hiss at crucifixes (though he does plenty of that, too). It also stars Doctor Who's Patrick Troughton, who turns in an unusually (for Hammer) good performance as Dracula's morally conflicted manservant.

15) Dracula A.D. 1972, 1972, Alan Gibson

Hippies, tired of Alistair Crowley bogarting their joints (or something), resurrect Dracula, who seeks his revenge on Van Helsing via his nubile great-granddaughter. Bad, but not quite as bad as it sounds, thanks to Lee and Cushing providing their standard performances. All in all, a lot of silly fun.

16) Dracula's Daughter, 1936, Lambert Hillyer

Starting immediately where the 1931 Dracula left off, with the Count having just been staked, this sequel follows his daughter, a painter, as she tries so hard to avoid the curse which plagues her family: vampirism. Though nowhere near as overt as the The Vampire Lovers and other such contemporary vampire films, Dracula's Daughter is notable for its lesbian overtones. And... that's it. Seriously, it's a snooze-fest.

17) Dracula Dead and Loving It, 1995, Mel Brooks 

Not exactly classic Mel Brooks. But it's still funny, especially if you hated Coppola's version. It's one redeeming quality is that it openly mocks the sexual repression that is an undercurrent in Stoker's novel.

18) Taste the Blood of Dracula, 1970, Peter Sasdy

Three Victorian gentlemen, bored with prostiutes and opium, turn to black magic for their next thrill, but when they leave Dracula's servant for dead, the count takes his revenge by going after their daughters. Dracula AD 1972 was essentially a modern day remake of this story, but, surprisingly, was much better than this slow-paced entry to the Hammer Dracula franchise. Although I found Dracula's victims acting like groupies hilarious.

19) Van Helsing, 2004, Stephen Sommers 

Worst piece of crap I have ever seen in the theater. Seriously, the only way to enjoy this reeking turd is to forget everything you know about Dracula, Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde, werewolf lore, and, I don't know, LOGIC MAYBE?? 

20) Lesbian Vampire Killers, 2009, Phil Claydon 

Supposed to be a spoof of Hammer studio's lusty horror films, it's kind of a cross between the style of the Scary Movie franchise and Shaun of the Dead. I laughed once. 

So there you have it. Any comments to the effect of "OMG U HAVN'T SEEN TWILIGHT IT IS TEH BEST MOVIE EVAR!!!!1" will result in instant death. Lestat, David Bowie, and adorably depressed Swedish kids know where you live, and they are hungry.

*Considering Bram Stoker envisioned John Irving, on whom he supposedly had a huge man-crush, playing Dracula, I may have to take that statement back.

Coming to Terms with Slytherin

A few weeks ago, I finally got early access to Pottermore. I was so excited to be able to read exclusive content from JKR, get my wand, and, most importantly, be sorted into my House. Which, of course, would be Ravenclaw. Ever since I first picked up Sorcerer's Stone, I knew I belonged with the blue and bronze. I mean, it is the House for the clever people, and haven't people always been telling me how smart I am? It seemed a rather obvious fit.

So imagine my shock and dismay when I got sorted into Slytherin.

I spent a good portion of the evening telling myself "at least it's not Hufflepuff," but I finally lost my cool and nearly shouted "It's not right! I should be in Ravenclaw, not Slytherin! I'm smart, damn it! And everyone should know that!"

Ah. Hm, maybe the Sorting didn't go as awry as I thought.

Anyway, it's not like there weren't other hints that I might be more inclined toward good ol' Salazar's house. My wand, which, according to Olivander's notes, says that people can expect great things from me, for one thing. Scoring the same as Snape on this fun little Harry Potter-based personality test, for another. And, to be honest, it was kind of my second choice anyway. Gryffindors always seemed just a little too cool in my opinion and Hufflepuffs are too, well, Hufflepuff. So if you can't be the cleverest, you might as well be the evilest*.

And that's another thing. Thanks to Harry, we tend to stigmatize Slytherins as evil power-hungry racist psychos. But that's not a completely accurate picture. Merlin was a Slytherin, after all, although I have trouble understanding how that fits in with when the Arthurian legends should have taken place. (I also suspect that the other three houses also claim this.) We'll get to Snape later, but Professor Slughorn was an okay guy, and Regulus Black turned out to be a good guy in the end. (Plus he was nice to House Elves!) And sure, the Malfoys aren't exactly nice people, but would you really call them evil? Sure, some of the foulest characters in the books--Voldemort, Bellatrix, probably Umbridge--came out of Slytherin. All that proves is that Slytherins are fallible just like any other human beings. If you think the other Houses are perfect I've got two words for you: Peter Pettigrew.

Besides, for us Muggles who had to grow up in the real world, a House Sorting doesn't effect who you are or who you'll become. It just shows you an aspect of yourself. Example: Four Hogwarts students, one from each House, decide for some reason to go to college and get Muggle jobs. (Just go with it.) They all love to read and so they study English, and all graduate with honors. Rob the Ravenclaw becomes a librarian so he can be around books all day and have their knowledge at his fingertips. Hank the Hufflepuff, however, becomes a high school English teacher so he can give others the chance to love books as much as he does. Greta the Gryffindor sets out to write the Great Wizarding Novel. Sally the Slytherin also wants to see her name on a dust jacket but wants something with a little more job security, too, so she becomes a college professor and publishes academically. (And never misses an opportunity to criticize Greta's books. Hey, old rivalries die hard.) All four students have the same interests and abilities, but the differences between them is in their ambitions, attitudes, and approaches to life.

Being in a certain House doesn't suddenly redefine us, nor is it all we are. It's just the most dominant part of our personality when we take the Sorting test. I think we're all a little bit of every House, really. Just look at Snape. We know he's a Slytherin, and yet he could have fit very well into the other Houses. Inventing all those spells as a teenager: Ravenclaw. Spying on Voldemort: Gryffindor. Loving Lily all those years despite her hooking up with the guy who used to pick on him: Hufflepuff. That's why Snape is considered by many to be the most well-written character--he has a fully rounded personality. So, as real people, we're far more complex that just the few traits that define one Hogwarts House.

So, after working through all that, am I now proud to be a Slytherin?

You bet!

Am I going to throw away all my Ravenclaw merchandise or my Hermione costume? (I own nothing Hufflepuff.)

No way!

*It's more fun.