Skip to main content

Vampires don't do dishes!

What We Do in the Shadows
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The persistent problem of the mockumentary is sustaining its premise. There’s a reason This is Spinal Tap is the unassailable high water mark, because the subgenre lends itself too readily unfocussed improvisation and narrative. How many respected but forgettable Christopher Guest ensemble vehicles are there? A random collection of scenes stuffed together, even if they are mostly funny, can quickly become tiresome or listless. What We Do in the Shadows, a New Zealand fly-on-the-wall about centenarian flat-sharing vampires, is wisely short, snappy and well-versed in the genre it is riffing on, but it comes at a point where the spoof doc has all but run its course. It’s difficult to do anything interesting with the form, and What We Do in the Shadows doesn’t; it’s content to wit-quicked but is only occasionally inspired.


Shadows is the long-gestating (getting on for a decade) brainchild of Jemaine Clement and Taiki Waititi. Post-Flight of the Conchords (in which Waititi made a solitary appearance) the former has etched himself out a reliable career as a supporting player (and voice) in a series of Hollywood pictures. Most identifiably in Men in Black III, but his vocals have been rightly recognised as something to be celebrated, hence cherishably evil Nigel in the Rio pictures.


Clement also starred in Eagle vs Shark, Waititi’s first feature, an oddball romance that was much acclaimed but I found merely so-so. Waititi’s the weak link here performance-wise; he’s not a disgrace or anything (his continued inability to avoid hitting a main artery of his victims, so ruining mealtime, gets several bloody laughs), and no one here has the sheer presence of Clement (Vlad, 862 years old). But nor is Waititi’s dandy Viago (379) as memorable as Jonathan Brugh’s Deacon (183) or Ben Fransham’s Nosferatu-like Petyr (8,000). He’s not even as notable as the humans, Nick (Cori Gonzalez-Macuer, who becomes a vampire and can’t stop blabbing about it; “I’m the main guy in Twilight”)) and Stu (Stu Rutherford, whom the other vampires like much more than Nick once he has been turned, and who eventually becomes a werewolf).


Yes, the werewolves (not swearwolves). They are led by Conchords regular Rhys Darby as Anton. Anton’s an amusingly unlikely werewolf pack leader, since Darby is trotting out his accustomed turn. Aton is wholly anal, and more akin to a line manager than someone apt to tear one limb from limb. The vampires vs werewolves sequences are a rich source of comedy (“We’re just about to walk past some werewolves, so some shit might go down”; “Please don’t lick anything or pee on anything” they are asked on entering the vampire home). The biggest laugh has police blame a poor dog for a werewolf dismemberment spree (“Look at what you did”).


As expected, the vampire gags mostly come down to contrasting the mundanity of everyday existence with the quirks of blood sucking. Deacon never does the washing up, like an unruly student. Petyr leaves a mess on the basement floor (including a spinal column). There is a general reluctance to put down newspaper or towels before feeding, and Vlad “tended to torture when I was in a bad place”.


Vlad was turned at 16, accounting for his appearance (“of course, in those days life was rough for a 16 year old”). Deacon “was a Nazi vampire” (surely a reference toi recent Nazi zombie movies). There’s a delight in self-delusion (“When you are a vampire, you become very sexy”) and the damp squib limits of their extraordinary powers (they can make spaghetti appear like live worms – “we stole that from The Lost Boys” – , but not chips, as it “only works with things that already look like worms”), and Spinal Tap-esque clueless logic (“We’re the bait, but we’re also the trap”). On a night on the town, they have to ask bouncers to invite them into bars. Child vampires are asked “You going to kill some perverts?


The main sequence, The Unholy Masquerade, is a ball attended by vampires, witches and zombies (“Are you predeceased?” Stu is asked). It isn’t as creative as the previous vignettes, although the twist that the Beast (“She prefers ‘Pauline’”) is an ex-girlfriend of Vlad’s is amusing.


Effects are mostly effective, and funny (which is more important). The flying sequences are used to highlight the more uncontrollable aspects of flying harnesses, while the transformations into bats are nippy. Vlad’s half-change into a cat (with his own face) is suitably silly/creepy, but the werewolves are wholly on-a-budget glimpses. Elsewhere, Nick vomiting torrents of blood after eating a solitary chip is more in your Apatow vein of bodily function humour.


The picture is rarely more than thirty seconds from a laugh, but it’s nevertheless unable to escape from the fact that it is structured in piecemeal fashion; it’s always very evident how scenes have been conceived, constructed and edited, so What We Do in the Shadows, despite being consistently chucklesome, ends up wearing its conception on its sleeve in a manner This is Spinal Tap avoids.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.