Nadja

I cannot believe how lame this movie is. The acting is terrible, and seeing as all these performers have a decent repertoire, one can only blame the writing. Cliches abound: a pet tarantula named Bela (oooh--you're soooooo Goth), ridiculous Romanian accents with forced ESL dialogue (e.g., "Why you show me this?", pathetic Philosphy 101 ruminations ("We've lost touch with God...I don't mean the man with the beard, the father, the punisher, but the Source"---oooh, deep), etc. My personal favorite laugh comes at the title character's large black hooded cape. Her description of her birthplace (I won't ruin the one true comic gem of this film) is similarly laughable..I had to rewind twice...

Was this project the brainchild of high school Goths, creatively malnourished and trapped in their under-stylized 80s haze? It truly looks like the directorial efforts of a novice who desperately wanted to update "The Hunger" for a new generation of bat-cavers. Too bad, cuz it doesn't hold a candle.

The video box describes two vampires hiding in the NY afterhours scene, but all we see of that potentially exciting "scene" is a quick montage of some fake club and a tiny bar with one other customer. Perhaps the most annoying attempt at hipness is the use of a highly-pixelated camera to show "vampire vision." DORKY!!!! The lack of consistent perspective makes this tool useless--whose vision is this? Nadja's? Her vampire brother's? God the Punisher's? LAAAAAAME...

I love the blood that spews forth from one actor--thicker than hershey's syrup and about as convincing. Things pick up a bit in the ending, but good luck making it that far. I can't stress enough how bad the writing is. It almost has to be seen to be believed, but why waste your 90 minutes?

A striking departure from the Wes Craven/Tarantino vampire treatment of vampirism of late, Almereyda's artful black and white piece gives us intimate psychological portraits of the count's wayward son and daughter, and their sexual exploits - specifically as they involve a married couple whose terminal ennui is exploded by the entrance of Nadja - dracula's twin daughter, who falls in love with Galaxy Craze's (am I the only one who finds this name a little disturbing, and slightly reminiscent of porn-names)character and abducts her to Transylvania.

Peter Fonda does a brilliantly and comically paranoid Van Helsing and Dracula himself. David Lynch, whose wife Mary Sweeney produced the film, has a cameo and much of the film's heady cutting and profusion of cigarette-smoke seems to echo Lynch's work - definitely qualifies for an amazon.com-style "Customers who bought "Blue Velvet" also bought "Nadja".

Criticisms would include a slight over-reliance on fairly blatant visual puns (Martin Donovan's character is asked "can you picture that" and responds "yes, I can picture that" to visual accompaniment, and this device is repeated), and perhaps gratuitous use of smoke machine technology, but on the whole a fresh, artful evocation of one of the more encrusted thematic territories in film.

A strange, disarming feeling sits over this film, as if everyone is in a semi-comatic haze. That's a good thing. While a bizarre mix of humor, horror flick, and psychodrama, it also draws from (and pokes fun at) the vampire flick tradition. Full of highlights, not the least of which is a ratty haired Peter Fonda.

I liked this very odd, surreal and somewhat camp vampire film much better on 2nd viewing, when I was prepared for its David Lynch like lack of naturalism, strange rhythms and odd blend of silly humor and almost melodramatic drama. (It's not surprising that Lynch executive produced this, and appears briefly in the film).

The black and white, stylized photography, the music, and parts of the dialogue are terrific; original and compelling. And setting a modern vampire tale in the nightlife of young hip 90s Manhattan yields some very interesting results. But at other times it can't seem to make up it's mind about what ratio of camp to reality it wants to be.

In the end, it's not as strong as its recent spiritual offspring: "A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night", but it's still worth seeing -- as is any work from the always inventive, ahead of the curve Michael Almereyda.

In New York City Nadja, her brother and their slave come to terms with the murder of their father by Van Helsing. Meanwhile the girlfriend of Helsing's nephew, Jim, is taken as a drone by Nadja. Jim and Van Helsing set out to stop the reign of the Dracula family and stop their blood lust.

I didn't even know this was about the Dracula legend when I sat to watch it, just the title drew me and the cast sounded quite promising. The black and white, shaky shots, post modern slant and grainy camera work were both a draw and a turn off for me. On one hand it was very arty, deliberately sticking a finger up to the mainstream. I dislike this feeling - one that the multiplex crowd are unworthy of any film and that the director wouldn't care to have their film be successful and hence uses such things with abandon. However it also made the film much more imaginative and interesting if it had all been full Technicolor with steadicam and nicely framed shots, it was pretty hip and I enjoyed it even if I felt like it was aimed at the art crowd rather than just being a film for anyone or everyone.

The story is quite good, albeit just a twist on the old story of Dracula. The script is where the main difference lies. It is quite talky a film but it is better for it. The dialogue is a little pretentious at times but it is interesting and involving. In terms of characters I'm afraid it falls down quite badly - the grainy images and dialogue that is far from `down to earth' stop the characters from ever being real people or even characters that I felt deeply involved in - but happily it wasn't to the point that I was completely disinterested in them. That's not to say it was great - but it was different enough to keep me interested, even if I wasn't gripped by it at any point. Likewise with the direction, I felt there was imagination but that it went too far to the point of just being experimental and arty for the sake of it. If you are making a film with as good a cast as this had then why on earth would you use a child's camera unless you were trying to be arty? This mindset did feel through the whole film and it was, as I've already said, a pretty big turn off for me.

The cast is great on paper but they struggle with the pretentious dialogue and the fact that the film loses them in a grainy black & white world. I will always watch Donovan but that doesn't mean he's any good. Here he is alright but has precious little to actually do! Fonda is better and plays his character with a sense of humour that the wider film could well have benefited from - I wonder if the director got annoyed by Fonda not playing it straight when he clearly had arty aspirations. Lowensohn is not only beautiful but acts well in the title role but the astonishingly named Galaxy Craze was pretty much cardboard as Lucy.

Overall this is an interesting movie but it struggles under the weight of it's own pretensions. I found it to be different enough visually and script-wise to be interesting and even I found the apparent concerted effort to alienate the mainstream to be slightly off putting. An interesting effort but one that will irritate far more viewers than it will please.