6. Near Dark (1987)

Have you ever procrastinated on watching a movie and then realized that you have no idea why you were putting it off? That was my experience with Near Dark. I had heard that the film was "pretty great" for ages, but the concept of roaming white-trash vampires (which is the way someone had pitched it to me) made me bristle at watching it. I think I imagined this:

From Pop-Periscope
And now you can't unsee Honey Boo Boo as Claudia. You're welcome. 

But the film turned out to be fun, clever, and a whole lot more.

Near Dark is actually the only film on this list which was directed by an Academy Award winning director (*Del Toro was never even nominated for directing, just writing, just as a note) and it shows.

While the movie has hints of 80's cheese and melodrama, Kathryn Bigelow captures beautiful shots and quiet moments at every turn (in between the gore and sleaze of the vampires' murders). The film is a balance of haunting peace and frenzied sadism. It's like we, the audience, are experiencing the same aesthetic and emotion as the protagonist being drawn into the horrifying vampire world.

The film follows a small town young man named Caleb who, when we first meet him, I was sure couldn't be the protagonist. He seemed scummy and sleazy and just generally unlikable. But, oddly, it works within the film's context as a whole. The catalyst for the film's plot is Caleb finally hitting on the "wrong" girl, a blond-pixie-cut-sporting traveler named Mae, who bites him and turns him into a vampire.

Now, the world 'vampire' is actually never said in this film, which is impressive for how traditionally the vampires themselves are, as well as the "turn" follows vampiric lore (sensitivity to sun, normal human food not slating hunger, etc) and film formula.

Soon, Caleb finally makes his way back to Mae and her traveler-vampire family... and that's when the film's real fun begins.

Shown here: FUN!

In many ways, Bigelow's movie reminds me of The Lost Boys, which was surprisingly released in the same year. The plot has all the same beats: the newcomer bitten by a vampire girl, the new vampire introduced to the clan, the vampires killing coolly and indiscriminately, which makes the new vampire-boyfriend nervous, vampires needs to be defeated by the protagonist's family etc. Plot-wise, there is very little new here. But like The Lost Boys, Near Dark is far less about plot than it is about style. If The Lost Boys was all 1980's leather, motorcycles, and shiny jewelry, Near Dark is 1980's flannel, dirt, and denim.

Given the camp of Keifer Sutherland and the odd 80's popularity of Corey Feldman, and the fact that it made it to theaters first, I can see why The Lost Boys would end up more popular and overshadow Near Dark. It's kind of like eXistenZ and The Matrix coming out in the same year (or Armageddon and Deep Impact, or any other number of similarly plotted movies released back to back); both are pretty great films with similar themes, but one connects with a mass-mainstream audience more than the other.

So, yes, Near Dark wins points not so much for original plot but instead for original characters. Bill Paxton is fantastically memorable as the psychotic Severen, but the character who really takes the 'creepy' cake is Homer, a manipulative and sadistic killer trapped in a child's body for all eternity.

Out of all the vampires, Homer also has the most pathos for his anger; as an eternal child with an older man's mind, his pain and his desire for companionship are understandable, despite the fact that the travelers are the "villains" of the movie.

This is definitely one worth seeing, so I won't spoil too much. Although, ultimately, the plot is fairly predictable. The main reason to watch this film isn't for the Lost-Boys-esque plot, but instead for the fantastic vampire characters and the shabby-western aesthetic which permeates the film. Definitely a well thought out and fun vampire movie for a desert evening!

Rating: 4 out of 5 bites