Change Your Image
ptbyrdie
Reviews
Immortal Obsession: A History of Vampires (2023)
Artificial Intelligence creates bad documentaries.
So, are we creating entire documentaries with artificial intelligence now? I don't think there's anything here that isn't created by an AI, including probably much of the script. Some of the images are horrendously poor, all of it is fairly irrelevant to the discussion. Someone's got themselves a few AI subscriptions and taken it upon themselves to create a documentary about vampires. I suppose that's cheaper than actually getting rights to existing images. It was clearly cheaper to get an AI girl to narrate the documentary, too, than to actually hire someone to do the job. I suppose, as a look into what might be possible when AI inevitably improves, this documentary is of interest. As a look at what's possible now, it's a warning to probably not embark on such a project for another five years or so.
So much for the presentation. What about the content? Well, I'm not sure whether it's written by AI or just by someone who doesn't have much respect for the subject.
So, we begin where we always seem to; with a quick list of myths vaguely reminiscent of some of the themes associated with modern vampire fiction. Here, while it's heavily implied there's some kind of universality to vampire legends as usual, it's rushed through so nobody should notice that anything broadly enough defined becomes universal. We continue with a short discussion of vampire accounts, all too short and lacking in detail.
Then we get to what this 'documentary' is mostly about; popular culture depictions of vampires, starting with a short overview of literary vampires. Then we get to stage, film and TV. On film and TV, the narrative bounces all over, with little structure, briefly discussing one film or TV series, going back to it later, making mostly subtle factual errors all the way through. No human with an ounce of talent would write this, so I'm assuming it's also AI produced. Why tell us how before Twilight vampires were often portrayed as bloodthirsty monsters, after already telling us about every previous depiction of vampires as sympathetic creatures? Oh, and just about every representation of vampires on screen is described as having a significant effect on the way vampires are portrayed. That just seems a favourite bit of hyperbole this AI has. Unless it was written by a human, in which case, shame on that human.
So on to the always vague notions about what vampires represent metaphorically, and the activities of people interested in vampires.
A bit of discussion on gothic architecture. "The use of gothic architecture in vampire stories has even influenced the design of modern day buildings. Gothic elements can be seen in everything from shopping malls to office buildings, as architects seek to capture the eerie, ethereal quality of the style." I don't think much of that can be traced to vampires. So, on to music. Mephisto Waltz No. 1, Michael Jackson's Thriller, are just some of the musical pieces that have nothing to do with vampires that are claimed to. Then a discussion of vampire related art, without showing any examples discussed of course. Just more AI creations. Then fashion, with another lack of any genuine examples of gothic fashion.
Video games, another largely visual art form discussed without any actual images from the subjects of the discussion. Then sci-fi vamps.
The last discussions, themes of abusive relationships, inequality and feelings of being an outsider and so on, all belong in the metaphorical vampires section earlier in the documentary. Although the whole metaphor bit probably belongs at the end anyway.
I imagine someone with little knowledge about vampires will find something of interest here, but please, if you're really interested in vampires, go find a book. It'll probably still try to tell you vampire myths are universal, but anything is better than this mess. At least it will be sensibly structured.
Is this even a documentary? Yes. It documents the state of AI in 2023. That'll be interesting to look back on in a few years. How we'll laugh! How messed up some of the faces are, and the hands. How optimistic someone must have been to think they could create a fully AI documentary in 2023, and that it would work. Well, I watched it on Fawesome, with adverts. So I guess someone's making money from it, so it did work. And if you've read to the end of this review, IMDB has probably already made more money from any advertising on this page than anyone deserves to make from this piece of work.
1 star, and that's only because stars are free.
Arctic Hollow (2024)
Great effort with a low budget
Obviously, this movie was made on a budget. The film makers did there best to add some heart to a very simple fantastical tale. The snowy parts were great, the script perhaps needed another pass but was good enough.
The second half of the movie was subterranean, and as far as I know could have been shot in a five foot square cave. That's budget filmmaking for you! They use lack of literal vision to suggest their overall vision. They could have done more to ramp up the tension, though. I know their FX budget was small, but they could gave done more to give us a sense of the danger from the theropod monsters threatening them.
But this was a sincere attempt to make a compelling monster movie on a low budget, and I think their solution (film in a dark cave, don't see the monsters) is a good enough solution. I just think we would have been more convinced if we'd seen a little more tooth and claw, and what they could do.
Five out of ten, for sincerity and effort mainly. I think there are some good filmmakers involved in this.
Mr D's No Thing Tales (2015)
I can't believe someone made this movie
Mr D's No Thing Tales is described as a horror anthology. This is misleading This movie is a series of scenes of naked and semi-naked women being terrorised and tortured. We're it outright pornography, it would probably be banned for sexualising violence against women. And yet it clearly is meant to be titillating, otherwise why would every 'horror' story contain female nudity? Frankly, I'm stunned that anyone had the gall to make a movie containing stories such as these.
But not as stunned as I am that someone had the courage to release a movie containing such inadequate VFX as are displayed in here. Mr D himself is as egregious a piece of CGI as you'll ever see, surrounded by CGI female torture victims who are equally unconvincing. CGI blood is especially distracting. I understand that the movie was probably made on a shoestring, but how much does a few bottles of ketchup cost? This is particularly noticeable as some of the 'stories' in this anthology are purely CGI.
This is almost as bad a movie as I've watched. Yet I did watch it. I've stopped watching many more competently made, higher budget movies after twenty minutes or so. There's a fascination with what schlock and bad taste they'll try to get away with next. And, if there'd been sequels, I'd have watched those, too. Right up until they started actually not being atrocious quality, because when the cartoonist aspect of this dross is lost, the emphasis on sexual violence against women suddenly becomes extremely disturbing. I think this production gets away with what it does because it's too bad to be taken seriously.
This movie's a curiosity, and entertainingly bad. For that accidental entertainment value, I've got to give it two stars, as long as it's understood that neither of those stars are for its production values or its morality (or lack thereof), or indeed anything that was intended by the filmmakers.