I think the production design is solid, and in its fundamental craft the movie is well made. The costume design, and hair and makeup work, are genuinely terrific. The blood and gore are swell, as well as other contributions of all those behind the scenes. I like the cast, and I think the joint direction of filmmakers Maclain Nelson and Matt Jespersen is swell - especially not least since, for both, this marked their first full-length feature as writers or directors.
The writing is where things get a lot more murky.
At its best: I'll say this, it's not every comedy (let alone horror comedy) that can actually make me laugh, and if nothing else is true about 'Vamp U,' it manages just that. The humor is definitely uneven, though. Where the writing focuses on absent-minded vampire Wayne Gretzky, slightly oblivious Chris, or the good doctor Arthur Levine, the jokes and gags are consistently enjoyable. Elsewhere it's more mixed and sometimes juvenile, including scenes with Chris' sorority; up until the climax, scenes with Fred's fraternity brothers could mostly be cut outright without losing anything. It's not just the humor, though, for the narrative at large is a mixed bag; I feel like if the screenplay were tightened and dispensed with at least one of the story threads, the picture as a whole would have benefited. This is especially true as the horror element doesn't particularly show up until around halfway through; after it does, likeable characters side with unlikable characters, and the fun suffers in another way. There are a lot of good ideas here - only, there are perhaps too many, so as the length progresses the movie seems overfull and spread thin. I enjoyed 'Vamp U,' but it simply didn't need to be So Much, and for that overindulgence, the climax also feels weirdly underwhelming.
At its worst: I looked at the other credits that the filmmakers can claim. They are few and undiscoverable for Jespersen, and many and noteworthy (as producer) for Nelson. I don't think they by any means intended the latent undercurrent of 'Vamp U' that totally alters the viewing experience. I'm inclined to think it manifested organically, by happenstance, like how 'Live and let die' was meant to be "James Bond does blaxploitation" but turned into "James Bond versus the black people." In the same way, 'Vamp U' - the story of a college coed who involuntarily becomes an extra vicious vampire and must be stopped - accidentally becomes apologist for sexual assault. Consider: Gretzky is both entirely obsessed with Chris, and "didn't mean to" turn her into a vampire, and "couldn't help himself." Once Chris turns that corner, she embraces what happened to her as a means of self-empowerment, which is dangerous to Gretzky, to the frat boys who chiefly saw her only as a sexual object, and to others who ignored or underestimated her. Making more vampires (spreading awareness, empowerment, outspoken defiance) - noticeably, that we see in the film's narrative, all women - is more dangerous still to the perpetrators and would-be perpetrators, and so Gretzky turns for aid to his former paramour and past victim, who out of some misplaced or twisted motivation, and/or impaired judgment, enables and joins with her one-time abuser against her own daughter. As the "good guys" put the newly christened vampires to violent ends, they mock them, laugh, and have sport.
Again: I don't think this extra level was intended. I fail to believe the cast would have signed on for the feature if it was. But the incidences are very notable. And even though not every last iota of 'Vamp U' falls in line with that sordid second layer - well, nor does every last iota of the intended farce meet with success. The same uneven writing the dampens the fun of the horror comedy puts holes in the ugly tapestry of what it might dubiously represent.
I passed out from exhaustion partway through watching this (but had sense enough to pause before I did). When I awoke to resume, that's when I had the above realization, and when my overall opinion soured. Was the first half, that I initially thought was funny, actually not that great as my brain scrutinized it? Did the first half lose my favor only after the unsavory notions entered my mind? Was my viewing experience for the remainder likewise colored by the thoughts that came to me? I'm not sure any more, and I'm not sure it makes a significant difference. If the writing were stronger, the entertainment value would speak for itself, and the underhanded, unintentional messaging may well have evaporated into nothing. If the comedy were more consistently worthy, if the horror and its blending with the comedy were more mindfully approached, all those thoughts bent toward critical analysis would have been diminished.
'Vamp U,' as it exists, is fun, but flawed. It's fun, but flawed, even though it arguably bears an asterisk beside its name that warrants earnest assessment - not necessarily from a standpoint of castigation, but simply as meaningful discussion as to how such perspectives arise in storytelling and what it says about our culture. With all this said, however - how much does it deserve one's attention over the many other pictures one could watch instead, that one way or another are more roundly and assuredly excellent? For my part, I don't regret watching this, but it turns out that I have extremely mixed feelings about it. Take that as you will.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
