(es) wrote: I am unpleasantly surprised at how much I did not like this film. I heard so many good things about it, including from those who pride themselves on being a `Master Critique` of films of & from many genres, including, & perhaps in particularly, anime & Japanimation specifically...One of the things that I'd heard was that this film was better than the original! They said that the story was better, more suspenseful, more violent, blah blah blah, blah... What a crock of shit that is!Granted, it's been a few years since I've seen the original & I'd love to see again. But, this movie was hardly even half decent, even not in, reasonable, comparison to the original. At all. To put them side by side & compare them head to head would be a joke!The plot was fairly mediocre. Not terrible but, nothing to write home about, either. And by being mediocre, by definition, that does rather mean that it was, at least somewhat, lame. The animation was, undeniably, the best thing about this film...and it was good. But, if that's the best thing one can say about an animated film, then, the film sucks! Some of the action scenes were good, too. D was his ever quiet normal self; so, nothing new...but, it's not like they went & changed anything, which is good and bad, honestly. The other, all supporting, characters, while none of the characters from the previous film were carried over, were just filler. Again. Lame. But, not particularly terrible.D is offered $10 million to find the daughter of the wealthy businessman. But, turns it down...for $20 million and that's the amount he is hired for...And the trailer/video clip for this film...is not for the film at all! It's for the Playstation console game. Duh.The four or five things that I didn't like, at all, about this film were, almost entirely, near the end. Great way to end a film...1. The "Left Hand" character in the first film was sardonic and cynical. He was annoying at times, but, at least he had a sense of humor and he was funny. And when he chewed D's ear off it was usually for his own good; such as when he got his ass kicked & he needed to move it along! Not that this version wasn't funny at all. But, this version of the character was really just a whinier version of Eric Cartman from South Park... 2. Meier was dead! His face, & perhaps his entire torso, were sliced into two pieces... There is no reasonable explanation for why he was brought back to life. So, why did they do it?! Clearly, it was the romantic, cheesy, horse-shit...3. Whether Charlotte was bit by Meier or by Camilla, although it is rather obvious that she was bit by Camilla & that she was hallucinating when she imagined being bit by Meier, isn't really the point. Her blood wasn't drained. She was bit and she was supposed to become a vampire.Period. Point. Blank.She, apparently, suffered no injuries. So, why, & how, did she die?? Clearly, how does not matter at all; why they did this was...to increase the sorrow & despair of the romantic, cheesy, horse-shit...4. Correct me if I am wrong, but, the ring wasn't mentioned before that moment, the significance of it being Charlotte's ring, when D picked it. So, he uses the ring as proof, to her family, that she is dead, when presenting the ring to her family doesn't prove that she is dead, so that Meier can go off into space and become a necrophiliac vampire with her corpse! Wow. Yea, that's love...More romantic, cheesy, horse-shit...5. The character of Leila is an idiot. She should've plugged Meier through the skull with her cannon. Clearly, not doing that, & then later rooting for him to clear the crashing debris of the crumbling castle, in the spaceship...with the corpse of his dead (NOT undead; dead!!) girlfriend, is more romantic, cheesy, horse-shit!It seems, blisteringly, apparent that this Vampire Hunter D film was made for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer and Angel retards...Maybe it's just two things that I didn't like...1. Poor character development. 2. And a really shitty story!
(it) wrote: One of the very few Abel Ferrara films that has managed to elevate itself beyond a small fringe audience. This film not only captured a fairly large audience but secured solid reviews. Harvey Keitel's performance takes itself to an equivalent of a "primal scream." So realistic it often feels like Keitel has become his character. It is a brutal and tragic performance. Years of navigating the rough streets of NYC as a cop have taken more than a toll on Ferrara's Lieutenant. We never know if our protagonist was ever a good guy, but a number of things indicates that he might have been. But the story begins with an aging cop who is addicted to gambling, drugs, sex and power. Interestingly, his only real power seems to lie in his ability to sexually abuse teenagers so they can avoid a visit to jail. It is a risky film on so many levels.When The Lieutenant is handed the case of the rape of a young nun, it sends him on a downward existential spiral. Slowly this angry burned-out bully of a man is forced to face the horrors of his world and the growing awareness that he is a part of the horrors rather than someone trying to prevent them. It almost seems as if The Lieutenant takes on not only the guilt but the trauma of the rape in a more profound way than the nun herself. Unable to come to terms with faith's willingness to forgive, Keitel's Bad Lieutenant becomes impotent, muted and alone. It is a grim and unforgettable film. The low budget of the movie only seems to add to the grit and realism of what we see. It would be short-sighted to view this film's graphic depiction of sexual violence, nudity and drug use as "exploitive" -- this angry movie has something to say and it demands that we listen.