Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
The Lost Boys review
240 Views
0
vote

A weak vampire flick...

"Now you know what we are, now you know what you are. You'll never grow old, Michael, and you'll never die. But you must feed!"


The Lost Boys is a peculiar 1980s crossbreed featuring equal quantities of comedy and horror. The film was popular with audiences upon initial release in 1987, and years later it still wins the hearts of loyal fans and has amassed an extraordinary cult following. Looking at The Lost Boys now, though, there is little I can say in the film's favour. It's excruciatingly outdated, campy, B-grade, tacky, and the directing is occasionally quite botched. There are also inconsistencies and a failure to bestow a clear interpretation of vampire lore. To me, the film appears to alienate those with a scrupulous infatuation with vampires.

The lofty expectations promised an original film that hybridised comedy and horror. By 1987, slasher movies had certainly outstayed their welcome and there was very little "fresh blood" in the horror genre, so to speak. The early buzz of The Lost Boys pegged it as the proper antidote to inject life into the dormant horror genre. Moreover, the film also promised to reinvent the vampire flick for the MTV generation. But it failed. It may have been a moderate box office success and it did indeed get its fans, however the film was unable to crossover to the masses. It also falls into the dustbin of camp - it's too ludicrous to take seriously as a true vampire horror flick, but not funny enough to be a comedy. Certainly, The Lost Boys has its charms. It's stylish, enjoyable, atmospheric, has a rollicking soundtrack and the vampire image was influential for its subsequent imitators. Films such as Interview with a Vampire and TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer draw palpable influence from this flick. It's inane beyond belief and fell short of its expectations, but it's at least somewhat creative and fun. Nevertheless as a vampire flick it lacks bite.

The plot needs little recap, as the words "MTV vampires" pretty much sums everything up. In a few more words, the film basically tracks two teenagers who move to Santa Clara with their mother. Michael (Patric) and Sam (Haim) are unhappy with the prospect of moving to California and living with their daffy grandfather (Hughes). Little do the brothers realise that Santa Clara is infested with vampires.
The primary horde of vampires is led by David (Sutherland). Michael is quickly seduced by the irresistible charms of vampire babe Star (Gertz). Michael is lured to the main vampire lair, and David appears keen for him to join them. As Michael begins exhibiting vampiric behaviour, his brother Sam befriends two juvenile vampire hunters known as the Frog Brothers (Feldman and Newlander). This establishes a few character destined to clash together in a violent final showdown: the supernatural vs. the teenage species.

Unfortunately, The Lost Boys is less interesting than it sounds. The feeble frequent attempts at comedy fail quite spectacularly, while the presence of vampires never sends a chill down one's spine. Granted the film has a magnificently glossy and opulent visual look. Like I said before the film also provides some decent effortless entertainment, but not much more can be said in its favour.
The story of a teenager drawn to the dark side of vampirism possessed the potential to delve into adolescent issues seldom touched upon by mainstream horror cinema. Yet these facets are largely jettisoned by the obvious and ultimately formulaic script that plays things safe. Any subversive possibilities are typically tossed aside, instead replaced with standard genre thrills and overt humour. While this makes the film entertaining, it also ultimately renders it vapid. The Lost Boys flaunts a killer concept, but a more complex and intricate narrative should have permeated the proceedings.

Also the film suffers from MTV syndrome. This marks the early days of annoying shaky cam with fast cutting. Schumacher's reliance on style over substance proves lethal (and not just for this film: he also went on to destroy the Batman movie franchise, leaving it dead for 8 years). The final showdown is perplexing beyond words. Characters disappear for periods of time without explanation, and the vampiric deaths are on the mystifying line between serious and comic.

In essence, the film tries far too much in a compacted running time of about 95 minutes. There are too many characters that are inadequately fleshed out. The actors portraying the vampires try so hard to be hip and cool that they easily win our heart. But these are the villains of the picture, so there's something morally iniquitous if the actors allow us to like them. The script rarely gives the vampire villains a time to shine. If there are victims being killed, it's usually an irritating aerial shot. Ergo we don't find these vamps particularly scary or menacing. Go watch Max Schreck in Nosferatu for an effective vampire villain.
Then there are the good guys. They, too, are easy to like. So there are two likeable factions and we have no idea who to cheer for.

The unsatisfactory back-stories allotted to the characters offer yet another quandary. For example, why do the vampires choose this particular city out of the millions of others? There's also a problem of overcrowding with the presence of a small child vampire who has no reason to be there. Furthermore, why is the female love interest so intent on protecting the child? Those making the film probably figured that their target audience would never scrutinise the film that closely. Judging by the dedicated fans, their decision was probably spot-on. You'll find it difficult to thoroughly love The Lost Boys unless you're a teen of the 80s and cinematic nostalgia is your thing.

At the time, the cast was made up of relative unknowns. The actors do their job of delivering lines and creating their characters. Worth mentioning more than anyone else is Kiefer Sutherland, in his breakthrough performance, with his cool 80s attire and haircut fashionable for the period. Sutherland was the only actor who went on to capitalise on his success in this flick. Others didn't do so well. Corey Feldman, for example, is so desperate for work these days that he starred in the direct-to-DVD sequel.

Add me to the list of people who didn't find much value in The Lost Boys. After my ears were exposed to hyperbolic appraisal, I had expected something far superior to this. It's an anaemic attempt at a vampire flick that shifts tone so frequently that it becomes both jarring and disjointed. Had the film focused on being a dark vampiric fare and cut out the annoying young teens, The Lost Boys could have been something very special. But the failed humour simply deflates any atmosphere of dread, allowing it to become embarrassingly campy. It's a moderately enjoyable movie with a few clever ideas, but it lacks the pivotal elements required to create an effective genre film. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Flaws aside though, it's slick fun and a pleasant time portal leading back to the 80s.

Followed in 2008 by a direct-to-DVD sequel: Lost Boys: The Tribe.

5.9/10

Avatar
Added by PvtCaboose91
15 years ago on 18 September 2008 08:58