B.g. Thomas
How did I not know about this movie?? Thank goodness for a list of "The 24 Best Halloween Films on Netflix!"Lush and gorgeous, this is one of those rare films that makes you believe. Makes you say, what if vampires were real?The acting was wonderful from major actor to walk-on. The direction was amazing, but it was Neil Jordan, who directed "Interview with the Vampire." So of course it was good. The music was enthralling. The cinematography stunning. The characters real. The story held together, with just enough wrapped up and just enough left to mystery to have left me very satisfied.Oh what a film! I will watch it over and over! I loved it and don't regret staying up until 2:30 in the morning to watch it.Simply brilliant!If you like truly different vampire movies, and a movie that isn't just silly blood and gore, then this is for you. Simply a Do Not Miss!
fedor8
Ts ts ts. You just can't trust women with a secret, can you. No wonder the vampire brotherhood allows no women in their precious little club. Moira Buffini, the woman who came up with this story, injects a predictable slab of tiresome feminism, but she does it in a clumsy way, actually shooting herself (and her "cause") in the foot. During the course of "Byzantium", Gemma and Saoirse actually PROVE that the Brotherhood was right not to want women anywhere near this vampiric power: both gals are reckless and undisciplined in how they lead their lives – which surely could not have been what Buffoni was trying to convey. Pretty hilarious, if you ask me.Already the first 10 minutes or so show strong indications of oncoming buffoonery from Buffooni. Saoirse randomly throws away pages from her biography (how poetic!), and one just happens to land in the hands of an old man who just happens to want to die, not to mention just happens to be demented enough to believe her fanciful story. So the old geezer believes a crazy story scribbled on a flying piece of paper rather than call the shrink squad to lock her up? How convenient. Hence the page-throwing is a form of fishing, in a sense, for benevolent vampires: "Yoohooo, anyone interested in dying so I can suck their blood without remorse?! Anyone???"More nonsense follows suit after a blond vampire captures Gemma after a spectacular chase. Despite having had his head smashed with a bottle by Gemma just minutes earlier, and despite having had spent TWO CENTURIES hunting for her, this male vampire is daft enough to actually trust Gemma's blatant and obvious lie that she just wants to "clean his wound"; so the blond guy sits down like a bloody fool, turning his back to her - after which she very predictably hurts him. Well, kills him. That sure seemed easy!!! Makes one wonder how come Gemma didn't kill those incompetent Brotherhood goons much earlier! It sure seemed easy to dupe the blond one, plus she had already had 200 years by then to do it. So basically she's dumb, and they're dumb. Great start to the movie! A bunch of dim-witted vampires.We are expected to root for the blood-sucking female pair; they're supposed to be goody-two-shoes vampires, and yet Gemma behaves like a parasitic egotist from the get-go. The pair simply torches their flat, endangering many innocent lives, rather than just cleaning up the mess they'd made – which a fire anyway didn't hide. We're supposed to root for these murderous jackasses? Either Neil Jordan's moral compass is skewered (as happens so often with film folk), or he'd been sniffing excessive amounts of Bolivian mushrooms during pre-production. Or he'd been shagging Buffoni.Already the movie's intro fails, because it actually defines Gemma as lecherous, vicious, greedy and vile (which wasn't Buffooni's intention). Great role-model, huh?Proof that Buffoni and Jordan wanted us to root for Gemma and her spawn comes at the end of the movie. Sam Riley, the token non-evil male vampire, commends Gemma on her moral sense: "Your instinct is to protect the weak", he says stupidly. He puts Gemma on a pedestal despite the fact that we've seen her kill several innocent people, leaving a bloodbath; on top of that we must logically assume that's just a small part of the 200-year slaughter-orgy, considering the film only focuses on the first few days and the last few days of her 200-year-strong blood-suckery. That woman Buffooni is in a serious war with logic. One should never battle against logic. Unless of course one has an army of brainwashed movie fans to fall back on (which one usually does).It's pretty bizarre, but goody-two-shoes Riley actually asks for Gemma's pardon (?!) after he saves her ass yet again. He was the one who actually warned her against going along with Johnny Miller 200 years earlier: when he picked her up on his horse and proceeded to ruin her life. If anything, Gemma should have said: "I was such an idiot not to heed your advice. But I was young and dumb and horny and Johnny Miller just seemed so dashing." Plus, Riley actually saved HER by lopping off the bald vampire's head; it wasn't Gemma who saved him. So instead of Gemma falling on her knees, thanking this guardian angel for continually looking out for her, she puts up an arrogant front in that last scene, and roles are reversed – much as logic is viciously raped: more evidence of confused writing from a feminist who thought she knew what she was doing. Don't they all though? Delusion comes right after denial. Feminism is one of the more cretinous isms of our age: it is steeped in nonsense, illogic and wishful thinking (as all left-wing beliefs are).There are other peanut-brained moments. During one of her moments of tiresome "poetic" narration, Saoirse says how much she likes solitude, yet just moments later starts playing a piano in a crowded lobby of a nursing home. Seems kinda attention-seeking, or? Perhaps Debussy was intended to be yet another fish-trap, baity-hook, to find more old people to con out of their blood. The movie's premise is pretty comical, when you think about it. Are we to actually believe that Saoirse survived 200 years by feeding only off volunteers? Saoirse as a vampiric Kavorkian?Ever hear of a male fantasy? Movies are full of them. Here we have a female fantasy: a prostitute customer, Mays, who "just wants human contact" rather than the in-out. That'll happen.Regardless of all the logic holes, a far-fetched premise and an incredibly bold attempt to ask us to sympathize with a vicious vampire, the movie isn't bad, because there is an actual story and it moves along; more than can be said for most horror flicks.
jimthor-13847
Overall excellent Vampire movie!This movie has everything a Vampire movie lover wants. The acting is great, the story is original with a good ending, and the characters are very believable. Couldn't ask for a better movie. I rated it 10 out of 10 for just that reason. I don't see any reason to give it a lower rating. I rate my movies by if I would watch it a second or third time. This one I would for sure.The story is about a mother and daughter and their lives as Vampires. It takes several turns, as most movies do, and comes out in the end with you wanting more. Hopeful, someday, there will be a part 2. Jim W
