Execution Counts More Then Ideas

[chris_gerrib]

I decided not to go out for dinner last night, in part because I'm trying to get back on the "eat less" wagon. For various and sundry reasons, this led me to watch the evening broadcast of the Science Fiction Channel's magnum opus Bloodsuckers. The movie was proof that it takes more then a good idea to make a good movie. Let's discuss, shall we?

The concept was simple enough. Older, experienced captain takes young rookie officer under his wing. Granted, they are hunting vampires in space, (apparently there are multiple species of such) but substitute the alien of your choice and it will play. (One must make a compromise or two to get a movie made.) At any rate, experienced captain dies alone with the rookie on the rookie's first mission. Captain's crew is suspicious of the new guy.

The short-handed crew makes a stop at a "transit station" where they drop off the sole survivor from the previous mission (a hot blond given to wearing low-rider pants and midriff shirts with deep Vees). The crew leaves (some of the soldiers reluctantly) then gets a call - the transit station is being overran.

Turns out that the hot blond / sole survivor is working with a group of vampires led by Michael Ironside, who's busily chewing scenery (literally, as it were). The humans are upset at man's environmental degradations of space. Alas, their allies aren't what you'd call reliable. The surprise reveal is unusual as well - the Captain, killed in Act 1, has come back as a vampire - loyal to the vamps, no less!

So, we've got some good ideas - loyalty, eco-terrorism, how respect is earned. But unless the producers thought "executing an idea" meant "take it out back and kill it" they did a really bad job of executing these set of ideas.

First, the production values were only about a half-a-notch above Plan Nine From Outer Space. In the first sequence at the transit station, it looks cheesy but at least it's an interior space, consistent with the exterior shot of an orbiting space station. The second sequence reveals that the "main corridor" is actually the (sunlit) front of a warehouse! The computer-generated spaceships look like something done on somebody's lunch break from a paying gig, and the only set that got any money at all, interiors of the vampire-hunters' ship, looks like it was cribbed from Firefly.

Second, the plotting was weak. Instead of making the revelation of the human-vampire relationship a point of tension, our hunters figure it out, then we cut point of view to Ironside hamming it up with the bad humans. It's one of several scenes which serve little or no discernible purpose.

Which leads to the third issue, acting. Several of the no-name actors, including the guy playing the rookie officer, did credible jobs. Ironside did a nice job, as did a very under-utilized Michael DeLuise - the two of them must have been hard up for cash or doing somebody a favor - but several folks, such as the hot blond (who was the leader of the human-vampire alliance!) couldn't act their way out of a paper bag.

Yeah, I know - it's just a B movie. That's my point - the difference between a good movie and a bad movie, even an under-budgeted movie, is in the details.

Comments

[pyropyga.livejournal.com]

I have also seen this movie, though not recently enough to engage in the precise details of the crticism. I will point out, however, that Natassia Malthe is no poor reason for a queuing something in Netflix, and that DOA: Dead or Alive is actually a surprisingly entertaining entry in the sub-genre of films that are Malthe-enhanced. Surprisingly entertaining at least by the standards of say... Elektra.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Natassia did a good job, and was certainly easy on the eyes.

[jetfx.livejournal.com]

From your review, I'm not even sure if this film even sounded like a good idea.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Well, it had the makings of a decent space opera. Just didn't do much with them.