While Twilight is clearly not horror, this is just too damned funny to not share. While most are content to bash its sparkly vampires, I’m a huge proponent of bitching about just how fucking terrible Stephenie Meyer’s writing is. Unfortunately, while I feel I can adequately convey my frustration via the written word, I am not too eloquent with the spoken word. Thankfully, there are cheeky British fellows who will do that for me.

This is Alex. As he goes through each chapter of the book, this 20-year old Brit adds a humorous mix of commentary and statements of utter shock over how this dreck could be published. it is, in short, fucking hysterical, due in no small part to his accent.

Because come on, British people are always funnier.

A few months back my friends Dan of Castle Vardulon and Rachel of Zombots!!! decided to hold a little drinking game set to Twilight. In the end I learned I have a horrible speaking voice, Rachel laughs at everything I say, and Dan is probably ashamed to know me.

Ignore the holiday and timely references, for I have been incredibly lazy and only slightly afraid of having people hear my shrill voice quickly degrade into incoherent and offensive ramblings, which I blame on the alcohol. Really, I’m only funny in print. The real stars of this show are Dan, Rachel, and the awkward feelings my inappropriate and poorly timed comments elicit throughout. The first few minutes are introduction, as well as timing cues, a rundown of the rules, and other unnecessary jibber jabber, but some of it is pretty funny and worth a listen.

The rules are as follows:

Take a sip…

-Whenever Edward or Bella attempts to express an emotion
-Whenever they use slo-mo
-Whenever a scary musical sting tries to shock us
-Whenever you see a male vampire shirtless
-Whenever Bella does something clumsy
-Whenever someone says the word “vampire”
-Whenever someone compliments Bella or the vampire family, take a sip
-Whenever vampires have a reflection

Finish your drink…

-Whenever a vampire sparkles in the sunlight

Go easy. My bottle of wine was gone by the halfway point, and I Love Horror, Castle Vardulon, and Zombots!!! accept no responsibility for your inability to handle your liquor, you fucking newbs. Now crack open the booze and enjoy the festivities. Thanks to Comixed.com for the image.

“Zombies don’t run.”

Well, why the fuck not?

With Zack Snyder’s plot-hole ridden and downright hilarious re-imagining of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, convention was turned upside down and the commonly accepted notion of the slow zombie was thrown to the wind. Fast zombies, heretofore relegated to more comedy-themed horror films such as Return of the Living Dead and Dead Alive, became a brute force within the horror genre. Zombies were now coked-up speed demons after a bender on Red Bull, and the only thing that could stop them was a bullet to the brain. Or a door, I suppose.

As the decade progressed, factions were born. Some accepted fast zombies with open arms, while others remained steadfast in their devotion to Romero’s creation. There’s even a blog devoted to the supposed “classic” zombie called Zombies Don’t Run. The heart of the argument lies in the notion that Romero created the modern conception of the zombie, and to deviate from the mythology that made zombies one of the most beloved creatures in film is a sin akin to blasphemy. But Romero didn’t create the zombie, and for us to consider the shiftless flesh eaters sacred is to laugh at progression and to spit in the face of evolution.

Nothing is sacred in film.

Whether zombies run, walk, or do the fucking Charleston as they seek their next meal, it’s simply the natural order of things. In film, zombies started out as a Vodou creation, making their first appearances in films such as White Zombie and I Walked With A Zombie. Then in 1968 the tides changed and we were introduced to the zombie everyone knows and loves. His interpretation and restructuring of their mythology, advanced over 40 plus years and six films culminated with zombies learning the ability to use firearms (Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead are essentially prequels) for Christ’s sake. To make a fuss over zombies running is a God damned waste of time.

We could get into an argument over Romero’s zombies not being the first zombies in film, but even I can concede to the notion that he is responsible for zombies as we know it. Throwing upon him the same claims supporters of slow zombies foist upon Snyder’s creation is a foolish endeavor. In the end, fast zombies haven’t done anything to sully the good name of slow zombies, they just opened new avenues to explore in horror movies.

Embrace change. Nothing is sacred, nor should it be. Without change, we would not have Romero’s zombies, and none of these stupid arguments would even be taking place.

Within the span of approximately five hours, I watched both Twilight and New Moon.

In this I reveal my confession, one I am aware is nigh unforgivable to some: I had never seen Twilight prior to this viewing. I had made an attempt a couple of months back, but roughly thirty minutes in I became so bored and angry with the film I turned it off. This, of course, does not excuse my transgressions, found in the numerous posts in which I heaped a healthy dose of vitriolic scorn upon Stephenie Meyer, her pathetic excuse for literature and the vile movies they spawned.

So I decided to watch both of them, the most recent installment whilst in the company of a pretty young lady. Twilight is, as was expected, a chore to get through. A half hour of the film could have easily been cut out, and I spent most of my time coming up with clever drinking game rules to make the torture more bearable (take a shot every time Kristen Stewart shows anything that resembles emotion). To spare you another negative review, it is, in short, a HORRIBLE movie in every sense of the word. This brings us to New Moon.

First, a minor digression-cum-segue. Do you remember the acting of the children in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone? It was, to be blunt, awful. This is due primarily to the fact that the main child actors were inexperienced, yet we were lucky enough to have this offset by the exceptionally talented acting of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, et al. With each subsequent movie, their skills improved, with said improvement being visible in the second film.

The same cannot be said for New Moon. Kristen Stewart is a block of wood. She is incapable of showing anything other than mild bewilderment to every situation, be it running into an old friend or being confronted with four werewolves ready to eat your face. Robert Pattinson is no better and manages to bring his special brand of brooding angst to the table. Taylor Lautner was decent, and certainly a better actor than Stewart or Pattinson, though that really isn’t saying much. The best actress was Ashley Greene, who played Edward’s sister Alice, but I may have been blind to her horrible acting because she’s just too fucking adorable. Beyond this, the plot was the mirror image of the first film, with werewolves taking the place of vampires and only a minor shift and an increase in action toward the end. Like the first film, it was entirely too long, plagued by ridiculous voice overs, horribly placed music and so much brooding angst I felt like I was back in high school. The whole thing was an embarrassment of film-making, and it should be wiped off the face of the earth.

But. Yes, but.

I can see why it’s so popular. In between chattering teeth due to the extreme cold front that fell upon Denver and copious amounts of laughter, my movie-going compatriot expressed to me how much she loved the film, despite her admittance that it was indeed a bad movie. When I asked her why, she responded with:

“What girl doesn’t want to be fought over by a sexy werewolf and vampire?”

To this I said,

“So it simply satisfies the 14-year old girl living inside every adult female?”

She thus confirmed my suspicions: the Twilight saga is nothing more than a 14-year old girls wet dream. With this realization (which is clearly not a new concept, but one I feel is overlooked by detractors), most problems that are often associated with the Twilight films can be summarily dismissed as the pompous bloviation of horror fans who fail to realize that the series is simply not made for them. Taking this into account, is it really that big of a deal that Meyer raped vampire lore by making her vampires sparkle in the daylight instead of dying?

If you’re a horror fan and you want to rip apart Twilight, do so because it’s just a bad movie, not because of anything you might perceive as an affront to vampires. It’s become a big deal within the horror community precisely because of this.

This is the problem with Twilight. In the end, all it does it feeds the flames, preventing it from fading into relative obscurity. If you’re going to hate Twilight, do so because it’s just a bad movie, and leave it at that.

As for the books, well, that’s a different story entirely. I’m also aware this might come off as slightly hypocritical, but opinions can change. For example, I used to hate all remakes. Now I hate all but one (Last House on the Left).

Wait, what?

Several days ago a debate raged on for approximately fifteen minutes on the Twitters over the destruction of vampire mythology in the Twilight series. This seemingly grievous sin, which seemed to be focused heavily on vampires that can traipse freely under the warm glow of the sun and, well, sparkle, is apparently worthy of the creation of a tenth circle of Hell. Much of this has been at the forefront of the anti-Twilight sentiment that has proliferated the interblags since a good Mormon woman threw caution into the wind and mashed the keys on her computer until something resembling literature – much like grunting resembles speech – appeared on her screen, and in a way I can get behind it all.

“A vampire without fangs that walks in the sunlight is just another kid at Hot Topic with a HIM album.” -BJ-C

The beauty of the horror genre is its ability to transcend convention. While common vampiric traits are found in all films featuring these creatures of the night, the decision to warp them to fit your own agenda is well within your right as an author or filmmaker. The fact that Twilight is not horror notwithstanding, Stephenie Meyer has done nothing wrong because its HER vision of vampirism and, in a startling revelation that seems to have slipped through the minds of most railing upon the film:

Twilight was not written for us. It was written for tweens and bored women with deluded notions of romanticism and chivalry, so our endless bitching over Meyer’s treatment of vampires is relatively pointless. My distaste for the novels lies in its affront to literature as a whole, and for the films in their utter mediocrity. I turned off Twilight twenty minutes in due to its inability to provoke a reaction that didn’t result in vomiting, and then there’s this post, which brought defenders of the phenomenon affectionately dubbed Twatlight by a baton-twirling beauty queen (irony is cute) out of the woodwork and criticizing me for criticizing Meyer and her work. Fun was had by all. But I digress.

I could really give a shit if vampire lore is toyed with. It certainly isn’t why Twilight sucks, and it certainly wouldn’t make an otherwise good film a bad one, especially if it was explained. If it can work with zombies (Les Revenants, Dawn of the Dead 2K4, etc), why can’t it work with vampires?

In regards to I Love Horror, “This blog is at the forefront of the battle to end the pussification of vampires, with its biting commentary on Twilight and Stephanie Meyer.” Those kind, albeit slightly misguided words, are courtesy of the fine femme fatale fronting the fantastic blog Monster Land. I am incredibly flattered yet feel my distaste for Twilight and all things sparkly vampires has been misconstrued as the being one of my principle goals. It isn’t, though it certainly isn’t exempt from discussion when considered within the context of horror and its impact upon the industry.

It seems as of late that much criticism has been lobbied at those who have taken it upon themselves to spit hellfire in the face of Twilight and Stephanie Meyer. Apparently being a critic doesn’t give you the right to criticize things. Who knew? In the midst of my obsessive checking of my stats, I noticed a link to a screenwriting forum wherein I found the following remark regarding my recent post on Twilight and the Mormon Maniac:

I’m not a Twilight fan…
…so I found this extremely, pant-peeingly, funny!

I didn’t realize there were so many of us!!!!!

Warning. This blog is probably NC-17

Formatting retained for the fuck of it.

Three comments down there was a reply by a woman named Paula who felt that my vitriolic critique was attributed to….wait for it…

….

Jealousy.

Of course I’m jealous of the fact that she’s a millionaire, just as I’m jealous of anyone who has more than two months worth of rent in their saving account. MNy hatred for Twilight stems from the fact that it’s the lowest of the low when it comes to literature and film. Failing to realize that most of mankind, or in this case womankind, are brainless sacks of walking skin who will consume anything forced down their throats (see: anything by Dan Brown), she equates sales to talent, something a screenwriter (which I presume she is) should know is absolute bullshit.

She then goes on to reason away the shitty writing by placing it within the context of the teen genre, as if that is an excuse to write utter trash. Enjoying the story for “what it is” is difficult with prose like this:

He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn’t sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal.

And then for some reason she thinks I’m James Wan, the director of the first Saw film:

Maybe James Wanker…. oops I mean James Wan – is particularly slow on the uptake and needs his choice of literature to have more pictures and less words?? Perhaps I could suggest ‘Cat in the Hat’?

The hilarity concludes with the complete dismissal of all ComicCon attendees – the same ComicCon where Twilight was a feature attraction – as “not living in the real world.” I don’t really know why she included that.

The point of being a movie critic is to objectively judge that in which most of us will never have an active, participating role. I hate Twilight and Stephanie Meyer for not only infecting the horror industry with mind-numbing pablum that does nothing but take up space, but for the fact that it’s encouraging people to read absolute tripe. Paula’s insinuation that my distaste for Twilight stems from the fact that I can’t read makes her nothing more than a hypocrite.

“Renfield, you asshole.”

Everyone seems to be up in arms over Entertainment Weekly’s recent list of the Top 20 Vampires in film, the cover of which featured sparkly vampire Edward Cullen of Twilight. Here is the complete list:

1. Lestat, Interview with the Vampire
2. Christopher Lee’s Dracula
3. Bela Lugosi’s Dracula
4. Edward Cullen, Twilight
   
5. Bill and Eric, True Blood
   
6. Asa Vajda, 1960’s Black Sunday
7. Angel
8. Mr. Barlow, Salem’s Lot
9. Schuyler Van Alen, Melissa de la Cruz’s Blue Blood’s series
10. Gary Oldman’s Dracula
11. Klaus Kinski’s Dracula
12. Zoey Redbird, P.C. and Kristen Cast’s House of Night series
13. Jean-Claude, Laurel K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter series
14. David, 1987’s Lost Boys
15. Miriam Blaylock and Sarah Robert’s, 1983’s The Hunger
16. Blade, the Blade trilogy
17. Eli, 2008’s Let the Right One In
18. Countess Bathory, 1971’s Daughter’s of Darkness
19. Selene, the Underworld trilogy
20. Caleb and Mae, 1987’s Near Dark

OK, now let’s dissect this. The list was obviously compiled based on a variety of factors, none of which took into account the contentious nature of the horror fan. Getting all up in arms over a list from a non-horror magazine that still manages to include some incredibly obscure vampires (some of which I’ve never even heard of) is counter-productive. I’ll start by countering a point made by a fellow blogger:

Where in God’s name is it acceptable to put Tom Cruise’s vampire above anything on this list?! – BJ-C

Given the tendency of the list to distinguish actor’s and their role (Gary Oldman, Christopher Lee, etc), the inclusion of Lestat refers to the character and not the actor who played him. Remember, it was a book before it was a movie. While I agree that he should not be at the top of the list, the relative popularity of the character in the mid-nineties is enough to secure him a spot somewhere on the list.

The inclusion of Edward Cullen was necessary, as the overwhelming success of the Twilight series is the impetus for the list. Does he deserve to be on there? Well, yes and no. No because he’s a fucking sparkly vampire whose sole appeal is aimed at pre-pubescent girls who have yet to experience the joy of masturbation, and yes because this renewed interested in vampires can, in part, be credited to Pattison’s sparkly vampire character. This extends to the popularity of the True Blood series, and even the once-popular Angel.

The biggest grievance that should be filed by EVERYONE is the conspicuous lack of Graf Orlock from F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. ALong with Lee’s and Lugosi’s Dracula, it deserve to be included in the top three for its sheer lasting popularity and the impact the character has had on the vampire genre.

I for one feel the list is about fifty percent on the money and fifty percent excuse to retain credibility among EW readers. However, in the spirit of giving, here is MY list of the top twenty vampires in film:

1. Graf Orlock, Nosferatu
2. Christopher Lee, Dracula
   
3. Bela Lugosi, Dracula
4. Leslie Nielsen, Dracula from Dracula: Dead and Loving It
5. The red-headed bride of Dracula from 2004’s Van Helsing
6. The Vampire Lanois, The Afghan Whig’s 1998 album 1965
7. Whichever vampire Corey Feldman played in The Lost Boys
8. Gary Oldman’s Dracula
9. Jan Valek from John Carpenter’s Vampires
10. Dracula from The Monster Squad
11. Amilyn, played by Paul Reubens in Buffy the Vampire Slayer
12. Blacula, Blacula
13. Viktor, the Underworld trilogy
14. Jeremy Capello, My Best Friend is a Vampire
15. Eli, Let the Right One In
16. Severen, played by Bill Paxton in Near Dark
17. Blade, the Blade trilogy
18. Any female vampire in any film that shows her boobs
19. Max Schrek, played by Willem Dafoe, because he’s ugly enough to need only minimal make-up
20. Edward Cullen’s mutilated corpse

Everyone hates Twilight. I hate Twilight, you hate Twilight, every single self-respecting human being who went to ComicCon hates Twilight.  The only ones who don’t hate Twilight are the vacuous tweens who needed something mind-numbingly retarded to devour after finishing the latest Harry Potter book, the leftover-from-the-nineties goths who find the idea of being the object of a handsome Brit’s disturbing vampiric affection the ideal romantic situation, and female college students majoring in studio art. The success of Twilight, affectionately dubbed “Twatlight” by the LoTT D’s own BJ-C, is only one of many signs of the downfall of respectable literature, and proof positive that any moron with a basic command of the English language can write a best-selling novel.

This is the opening paragraph of the first book:

“My mother drove me to the airport with the window rolled down. It was seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt – sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry on item was a parka.”

Literary vomit. All of it.  But one, tiny paragraph is clearly not representative of an entire book, so let’s fast-forward a few pages.

“Eventually we made it to Charlie’s. He still lived in the small, two-bedroom house that he’d bought with my mother in the early days of their marriage. Those were the only kind of days their marriage had – the early ones.”

What the fuck does that even mean? Had I been one of the few suckered by Stephanie Meyer’s Mormon spell, it would have been at this point that I set fire to the book and punched a baby in the face. Clearly I’m not taking into account the overall story or the characters or anything that goes into making a book a book, but that’s neither here nor there. I’m not a literary critic, and feel that every time I make an attempt to be one I end up sounding like, well, like Ms. Meyer. Like a moron. So I don’t. But the style of one’s prose can make or break a novel. The Road, Cormac McCarthy’s best-selling novel-cum-post-apocalyptic film starring Viggo Mortensen, possessed a phenomenal story, yet one I was unable to complete because of his minimalistic writing style. After flipping through a few more pages, these brief excerpts are indeed representative of the banality and amateurism that pervades the book.

Not content with ruining literature, Twilight is poised to poison film. While most dedicated horror fans realize that Twilight is clearly NOT a horror film, the obligation of horror news sites to report on everything even remotely related to the subject means we are consistently subjected to the latest news and reports of the newest installment of the cinematical equivalent of my diarrhea.This takes up space, and, while seemingly innocuous, does in fact make baby Jesus cry.

So what are we to do? Hunting Stephanie Meyer down and forcing her to watch Near Dark doesn’t seem feasible, and the systematic killing of everyone who has in any way supported the success of the novel and the film would just take too long.

Oh, I know. Funny pictures.

A suitable replacement would be Jack Crow from John Carpenter’s Vampires.

And my personal favorite…

It’s also the smell of teenage angst.

Fuck Twilight.