Movie: “The Manson Family”

Plot: A collage of filmmaking techniques and styles, director Jim Van Bebber’s exploration of Charles Manson’s group of followers took more than six years to film. The end result is a nice tall glass of disturbing with a twist of perversion.

Charles Manson, the sometimes charismatic, always crazy cult leader, cast a dark shadow on the tail end of the 1960s. Leading his followers in a series of killings and mischief making, Manson believed himself to be a god. His family (consisting of  former teachers, football players and students) were his drug-loving acolytes, carrying out his word with bloody detail.

Filmed in a combination of mock interviews and dramatizations, the film never spends too much time on Manson (played by Marcelo Games), instead focusing on the sex and drug-fueled misdeeds carried out by his followers. Concentrating on the various personalities that constituted Manson’s inner circle, Van Bebber outlines their descent into murder from their innocent hippie beginnings to the eventual trials that landed most of Manson’s followers in jail.

The cast, a spattering of unknown actors, burrows deep into their roles, transforming themselves into their real-life inspirations. The film’s production values and atmosphere radiate a 1970s exploitation-vibe – a perfect match for the film’s subject matter. Van Bebber’s music video background is utilized heavily in the film’s editing. Flashes of color and abstract symbolism punctuate underwhelming acting and over-the-top production.

Unfortunately, the film’s excess sex and violence prevents audiences from taking “The Manson Family” too seriously. Instead of crafting an in-depth exploration into a genuinely interesting historical case, Van Bebber produces pure, unadulterated schlock.

Connection to Texas A&M in Six Degrees: Jim Van Bebber’s Charlie Manson was believably played by Marcelo Games in “The Manson Family.” Games made his acting debut in Van Bebber’s earlier film, “Deadbeat at Dawn” with Paul Harper, a graduate of the University of Texas. Harper also made an appearance in the television western “Ghost Rock,” which starred Gary Busey, the star of many films, including “Black Sheep,” a Chris Farley film. One of Farley’s earliest films, “Coneheads,” also featured an early appearance from comedian Eddie Griffin. Griffin would later go on to appear in “The New Guy,” which featured A&M graduate Lyle Lovett in a supporting role.

Cheese Whip: The film is framed by the present-day story of a television journalist seeking to uncover the truth behind the Manson family. Unfortunately for him, a group of modern-day Manson followers have made time in their busy schedule of trips to Hot Topic and playing Dungeons and Dragons to threaten him with bodily harm. The overtly fictionalized framing sequence seems shoehorned in and removes audiences from the flow of the film, but it is a prime example of the film’s philosophy: The truth isn’t as important as a really cool slasher scene.

How to Watch: To watch “The Manson Family” for the fullest impact, gather up your own family, heat up some popcorn and settle down for this touching story of family values and the tie that binds and gags. If you’re lucky, your parents will awkwardly try and emphasize that not everybody in the 1960s was having promiscuous sex, doing drugs and killing people. Make sure and send the little ones to bed early though, as the film will undoubtedly scar them for life, leaving them scared of experimental films and hippies.

Put down that 12-sided die! Don’t you know it could kill you?

Tom Hanks stars in “Mazes and Monsters,” a 1982 made-for-television movie about a group of college friends who are sucked into the obsessive world of fantasy role-playing games.

Based on a novel by Rona Jaffe, “Mazes and Monsters” touches on the controversy that surrounded the popular game Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) in the early 1980s.

Fuel onto a raging fire, “Mazes and Monsters” tells the story of four young students who become obsessed with their nocturnal sessions of Mazes and Monsters, a D&D inspired board game.

In one of his first roles, Hanks plays Robbie, a troubled young man coping with his brother’s mysterious disappearance. Seeking to reconcile his repressed emotions while playing the game, Robbie finds himself slipping into his make-believe character. After suffering relationship problems with his girlfriend, Robbie completely looses himself into his role as a dragon-slaying holy man.

Every second of watching a confused Hanks wandering around New York searching for the Two Towers (i.e. the Twin Towers), conversing with homeless people about dragons and stabbing muggers with his enchanted penknife is hilarious.

And the best part, being an ’80s movie, “Mazes and Monsters” has its own theme song.

Judith Lander performs “Friends in this World,” a touching pop ballad that reminds audiences that even though people can sometimes go crazy and lose touch with reality, they will always have friends to watch over them, or in the case of Robbie, have friends that will encourage increased craziness by refusing to acknowledge Robbie’s problem with separating fantasy from reality.

Don your cloaks of invisibility and cast your dice of dexterity, fans of fantasy need to watch “Mazes and Monsters,” the ultimate anti-imagination propaganda. The “Reefer Madness” of Dungeons and Dragons, “Mazes and Monsters” is a hilariously bad take on fantasy geeks gone wild.

The next time you go to the theater to watch “Saw 8: Have Audiences Really Not Noticed We Keep Releasing the Same Movie Every Year?,” take a look around at your fellow audience members.

Are you surprised to see so many children in a movie that has been rated R for sequences of grisly violence that would make Mengele blush?

Whether they’re sneaking into the crowded theater or convincing an adult to buy them a ticket, youngsters are watching some of the most gruesome, depraved horror films this side of “Beautician and the Beast.”

Most discerning adults are rightfully upset about this. Not only are kids becoming increasingly desensitized towards violence, they keep talking during the movie!

On the other hand, there’s much that can be learned from horror films; knowledge that isn’t taught in schools.

Here are some life lessons that I learned from a childhood watching horror movies:

There is nothing honorable about being killed by a zombie.

The odds are stacked against characters in a horror movie so there’s a good chance they’re going to die.

Don’t fret, though. Death scenes are often the most memorable part of a horror movie. In a way, you can bleed your way toward immortality.

There is nothing honorable, though, about a death in a zombie movie. Being killed by a shambling, near-brainless ghoul is plain embarrassing.

“Oh, no! It’s a zombie! Let me power-walk away from the danger.”

Stopping while you scream, gawk, apply logic or shoot bullets uselessly will be ill-advised.

But wait, what about the zombies that can run really fast?

Today’s zombies have been upgraded into the Undead 2.0 by filmmakers with attention deficit disorder. Nowadays, if you want to have a rave in a graveyard you have to worry about having your brains eaten by a track star.

Always take note of increasing body hair.

Even a man who is pure of heart and says his prayers by night may grow a wicked goatee if bitten by a werewolf.

Have you noticed the sudden ability to sprout a 5 o’clock shadow at 8 a.m.? Do your legs look as if you rolled around in Robin Williams’ shower drain?

Sudden-mustache syndrome could mean you are transforming into a werewolf and need to find a way to restrain yourself before the next full moon. But before you bite a silver bullet, be warned: That fine peach fuzz that has sprouted up all over your body could mean something much worse than simple lycanthropy. You may have finally entered puberty and will need to be restrained 24/7.

If life gives you a curse — make cursed lemonade.

OK, you woke up from a five-year coma with the ability to predict the future of anybody you touch. You are now cursed to a life in which any form of intimate contact can lead to prognosticating your lover’s death. Boo-hoo.

Want to know what you can do?

Buy gloves with the money you’re going to make being able to tell the future.

Life, in a desperate attempt to teach humanity a good moral, is always cursing unsuspecting humans with vicious and life-changing afflictions.

You hit a gypsy with your car and now you find yourself shedding weight uncontrollably. Can anyone say “new diet plan”?

“I can show you how to lose all the weight you want in one easy step! All you’re going to need is a car and a gypsy.”

No two ghosts are alike.

If you discover that your house is haunted, you have the two very different possible outcomes: either your youngest daughter is going to be sucked into a TV or you’re going to share a very special moment with Patrick Swayze and a pottery wheel. How, then, do you know when it’s time to call the Ghostbusters?

The trick is to turn on the radio.

If you hear either sinister organ music or screeching nü-metal, you’ve got yourself a problem that demands Dan Aykroyd’s attention.

If you hear the pleasant crooning of a Motown singer, prepare yourself for a movie montage that will leave you weeping and in the warm embrace of a poltergeist-possessed Whoopie Goldberg.

Never judge a DVD by its cover.

The No. 1 thing that you can learn from a horror movie (besides the fact that sometimes you’re going to need a bigger boat) is that you can never judge a movie by its DVD cover.

In fact, a stroll down the horror section of any movie rental outlet will teach you that the cooler looking the movie’s cover is, the more likely you’re going to sit through some of the worst lit, poorly acted, clichéd-plot that crawled its way out of the darkest recesses of mankind’s imagination.

Even though you might pick up a copy of “The Gingerdead Man” and think “Wow, not only is there a picture of an evil gingerbread man on the cover, but Gary Busey is in it,” don’t rent the movie.

Any movie with the tagline “Evil never tasted so good!” is not going to be a winner. Chances are, it’s going to make you violently ill and leave you a cynical husk of your former self.

If you’re looking at the cover of a movie that features some kind of sinister-looking scarecrow carrying a scythe and the number “666″ digitally added into a cornfield behind it, you are probably looking at what 99 percent of the film’s budget went into.

Do yourself a favor and put the movie back on the shelf and walk away.

More then likely, the only thing scarier then the fact that somebody actually greenlit the movie is going to be that there’s somebody waiting behind you who really wants to rent it.

This is not a good sign, you might guess, for Robert’s “Year of Bad Movies.”

In this presumption, you’d be most correct.

I started the project with all the best intentions. While I had previously attempted (and failed) to watch a movie a day for an entire year in the past — this time was going to be different. I had a theme, I had a real drive and, most importantly, I had a head start.

I didn’t start posting the entries for my year of bad movies until I had a couple weeks’ worth of “days” in the can.

It was this bit of subterfuge that ultimately kept me going as long as I did — a record when it comes to me attempting the particular goal of watching a movie a day for a year. In my past attempts, I had been hard pressed to even reach the first month’s end.

I was doing a real good job for a while and was even posting several times a day for a while … but then I stopped.

What happened, you may be asking.

Well, the truth of the matter is this: I got bored of watching nothing but bad movies. And watch nothing but bad movies is exactly what I did — for almost two full months. When you are watching and writing about bad movies once a day, it becomes very hard to find the time to watch movies that are actually worth checking out.

Instead of going to the theater to see the movies I was really looking forward to watching, I found myself buying tickets to films I knew were going to be bad.

In addition, I was filling up my Netflix queue with terrible movies — at the expense of the films I really wanted to watch.

Besides watching bad movies, I was starting to grow tired of writing about them. In the weeks following my first day of bad movies, I was invited to write for several other websites — mostly about bad movies. By the end of my first month, I was writing nearly a dozen articles a week about bad movies.

What started off as fun quickly became a chore.

I took the second half of October off, hoping to recharge my batteries and begin in earnest at the start of November. When November rolled around, though, I was still feeling a tad burned out so I decided to take another few weeks to rest from bad movies. By the end of November, I knew that I was never going to finish my Year.

Besides my general lack of drive when faced with the year of bad movies, I also had several new projects that presented themselves to me. I was writing more then ever — articles, columns, screenplays and scripts. I didn’t have anytime to keep updating my blog on a daily basis.

I’ve known for a few weeks now that this particular blog entry was something I needed to write. I always hate admitting defeat but I know that there is just no more interest in my soul to finish this year.

The final nail in the coffin came when I read about Showgirls, Teen Wolves And Astro Zombies, a book by Michael Adams in which he sets off on a year-long quest to find the worst movie ever made. While I started my project before learning of his book, there was no denying the fact that he had gotten there first. And I did not want to be anybody’s sloppy seconds.

For those of you who enjoyed my essays about bad movies, I will still continue to write about terrible films for Inside Pulse — Movies.

I’ll also post the occasional review on this website.

In the meantime, though, I’m going to enjoy being able to write a bit about what I’ve been up to, what’s going on in my life and, well, anything besides bad movies.

Hope you keep reading.

Metacritic Score: 46 out of 100

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 22 out of 100

IMDB Score: 5.6 out of 10

I’ll be the first to admit I wasn’t too impressed with writer/director Rob Zombie’s initial take at the “Halloween” franchise.

Am I the only one who thinks that Michael Myers is starting to look more like Rob Zombie then Michael Myers?

Too much emphasis on the back story during the first half of the movie and a relatively by-the-books representation of the original film’s story during the second half left me underwhelmed and just a little bored.

I didn’t watch the film in the theater, though. And I was a fan of Zombie’s other two films, “House of 1000 Corpses” and “The Devil’s Rejects.” These two qualifiers convinced me to take a chance on “Halloween II” in the hopes I wouldn’t have to include it in my “Year of Bad Movies” experiment.

Mr. Zombie, you let me down.

Or maybe I let myself down.

“Halloween II” is a well-shot, atmospheric movie that offers an interesting take on a classic horror film monster. It is exactly the type of film I would have loved ten years ago. Today, though, I was struck by how tedious and joyless the film played.

Now some might be shocked at my desire to find joy in a film that features a masked man (wearing a William Shatner mask no less, tying it in to yesterday’s film) killing helpless teenagers, but we’re talking a different kind of joy here.

When I was a younger kid, I loved horror movies — the more dark and twisted the better. For a while there, my favorite type of horror film was the slasher film. While I was too young to enjoy the genre’s heyday during the ‘80s, I was still able to experience the second renaissance slasher films found in the late ‘90s.

As my sister and I consumed every new cheesy, low-budget slasher film that was made available for our eager eyes’ viewing pleasure, I found myself loosing touch with reality.

Now, I’ll never make the claim that horror films corrupt the minds of the youth (provided they are watched with parental guidance), but there is no denying that a childhood spent watching horror films left me desensitized to violence.

The result of this phenomenon has left me constantly searching for a scary movie that will actually scare me. I actually get jealous when I hear friends talking about how they don’t watch horror movies because they get scared too easily.

All I can do is sit back and remember being a child cowering under the covers during “The Omen.”

Still being a fan of horror movies, I have been left with no choice but to modify my approach when judging what is and what isn’t a good scary movie. I can’t base this on scares alone so I am left looking for joy.

In horror movies, I search for a sense of fun (either from humor written into the script to counteract the scares or proof that the filmmakers had a blast making the movie as evidenced by inventive death sequences or creative twists on old clichés).

“Halloween II,” for all its cinematic impressiveness, came off as a joyless, trip down a bloody path that offered no new sights or sounds. It was the same tired kills that seemed designed only to scare teenagers and tantalize those twisted psychos who get off on violence. In other words, it just wasn’t for me anymore.

IMDB score: 4.3 out of 10

There are few things in life that can prepare a person for the sheer majesty that is watching a scene in which William Shatner and Harold Sakata (Oddjob, to those James Bond fans) compete in a battle of bad delivery.

Shatner = Dr. Evil?

From stilted pauses to bizarre emphasis choices, the two trade incompressible dialogue the way chess masters’ fingers dance across a game board.

The two of them acting against each other is truly a treat to watch and, thanks to my year of bad movies, I was treated to that treat.

“Impulse” is a 1974 film staring the incomparable Shatner as Matt Stone, a polyester suit-wearing, balloon-hating, sword-wielding con-man who just happens to have an unfortunate tendency to kill women.

When he’s not strangling ex-girlfriends and dumping their bodies into the river or running over dogs in the street with his car, Stone spends his time tricking people into investment scams. Unfortunately for Stone, his latest mark’s daughter sees right through his charming persona and suave exterior.

Kim Nicholas, one of the most annoyingly precocious child actresses I have ever seen in a movie, plays Tina Moy, the daughter of Stone’s latest girlfriend/victim. Not trusting her mom’s new boyfriend farther then her freakishly man-sized arms can throw him, Tina follows Stone home one day only to witness a reunion between Stone and his ex-partner, Karate Pete (played by the previously mentioned Sakata).

From that point in the film, audiences are taken on a free-wheeling journey through the finest in bad cinema chestnuts.

From a car-wash chase scene that features a Samoan on the run from a homicidal Shatner to Captain Kirk telling an overweight woman who accidently bumps into him that she (along with every other fat person) should be ground into dog meat, “Impulse” is, without a doubt, a bad movie.

But what did I learn from the Shatner movie?

For starters, I learned not to trust Shatner. While I may not have been able to stand young Nicholas’ acting, her character was dead on the money when it came to suspecting Shatner. While he may have rugged good looks and a winning smile, behind those grey eyes exists the heart of a man who would sooner stab you with a sword (both literally and verbally) then ask you to move your balloons.

Before watching “Impulse,” I would have jumped at the chance to listen to an investment pitch from the man who played T.J. Hooker. Now that I’ve had my eyes opened to the monster that resides in Shatner’s soul, I’m going to keep my mad money to myself, thank you very much.

In the end, I guess “Impulse” is just that — a cautionary tale about trusting strangers with good looks. I know I’m guilty of judging a person’s character based on their appearance. My hand will instinctively go to protect my wallet if a grungy looking homeless person is even a mile away from me but I’ve never feared from my safety when walking through an Abercrombie & Fitch store.

Maybe it’s the attractive people we have to fear in life? As they coasted through life on their good looks, maybe their very humanity was chipped away by that silver spoon.

Metacritic score: 29 out of 100

Rotten Tomato score: 22 out of 100

IMDB score: 5.4 out of 10

I’ve seen “Alien vs Predator” before. Several times. In fact, in the interest of full disclosure, I own “Alien vs Predator.”

The Alien and Predator species enjoy mixing it up on the dance floor nearly as much as they enjoy killing each other with teeth and claws.

I’ll be the first to admit it’s not a great film. It is a fun film, though — and that is the main reason why I decided to begin my project with Paul W.S. Anderson’s science fiction creature smackdown.

To those who have not seen “AVP,” the 2004 action movie pits the stars of two legendary science fiction franchises, “Alien” and “Predator,” against each other.

The Predators, a species of dreadlock wearing, armor plated crab monsters are hunters on the search for the ultimate prey.

Xenomorphs, those vaguely phallic influenced extraterrestrials from the “Aliens” movies,” are mindless killing machines that enjoy long walks on the beach, candlelit dinners and poking people with their toothy mouth erections.

Together, the two are the Tom and Jerry of the galaxy, constantly dueling it out with no regards to property damage or the safety of innocent bystanders.

And what kind of Paul W.S. Anderson film would it be without a crew of black body armor wearing, gun-toting special ops bystanders.

In “AVP,” the film’s red shirts are a group of research scientists, mercenaries and arctic drillers — but essentially they all have the same job title: cannon fodder.

As a film that wears is silliness on its sleeve, “AVP” is by all definitions a bad movie. Sub-par special effects, overblown performances and a script potmarked with plot holes add up to a flick that has a hard time endearing itself to audiences.

A large part of the animosity most critics had with the film had to do with the fact that, unlike the original bloody franchises, “AVP” was given a PG-13 rating, with its blood and gore left on the cutting room floor.

I was one of those initial whining fanboys, mewing about missing carnage like a little boy who lost his balloon. After having seen the sequel, “AVP: Requiem,” though, I realize that blood and guts do not make a good movie. While “AVP 2” featured its fair share of dismemberments, child deaths and popped pregnant women bellies, it lacked heart (well, besides the ripped out and exposed hearts of the film’s casualties).

Rewatching “Aliens vs Predator,” I think I’m starting to come to the realization that a movie doesn’t have to be ultra-violent and full of four-letter words to still be fun. Sure, those things help, but in the end they may not be necessary.

I watched “Predator” for the first time when I was in third grade. My parents, feeling I did a good job in school, let me watch the movie as a treat. Sitting there, seated Indian-style in front of the television, I was enraptured by the story of one lone Austrian’s battle against an alien reggae singer. At the time, I was totally tweaked by the site of skinned human bodies hanging from trees, but I think I came out okay in the end.

Maybe it’s a good thing that we have an “Aliens vs Predator” movie rated for teens. They can still watch and enjoy a dumb science fiction punch ‘em up movie without having to worry about nightmares staring Jessie Ventura.

My take: Bad but enjoyable

To distinguish what is considered a bad movie, I will be using three very useful websites: www.imdb.com, www.rottentomatoes.com, and www.metacritic.com. In order for a film to be considered a bad movie for the purpose of the project, the movie has to have scored in the lower 50^th percentile of all submitted reviews on at least one of these sites.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic use scores assigned and averaged out by a collection of professional film critics (for the most part, a group of equally snobbish movie fans with bad attitudes on par with my own).

IMDB, on the other hand, relies on user-submitted scores, offering up a somewhat reliable litmus test of public reaction.

By using the three sites, I feel fairly certain I can find movies to watch that are considered “bad” — even if I personally don’t share that particular judgment.

Now on to the first movies:

I'll be going into more detail about how I distinguish what counts as a "bad movie" as the experiment progresses. Yes, I do have rules and a process for picking "bad movies."

Truth be told, I don’t remember quite how I fell in love with movies. Since I was young, I’ve enjoyed watching movies but at some point in the impressionable years of my youth, I fell head over heels in love with cinema the way most people fall in love with their spouses

Seriously, I have the kind of puppy love for film that might one day find me snuggling up with a DVD case on a bear skin rug as I whisper sweet nothings into the circular shaped hole on its disc.

As much as I love movies, though, I’ve found myself growing more and more elitist about the subject matter. The more films I’ve watched, the more I’ve found myself casting scorn on the flicks I once loved as a kid — finding the characters childish and their plots pedantic.

The very fact that I’m using literary devices such as alliteration and words such as pedantic to talk about movies is proof enough that at some point in the past few years I’ve begun taking film way too seriously.

I’m the movie snob-equivalent of a Lifetime Channel made-for-TV abusive husband — waxing poetic about the use of Hitchcockian camera techniques as I wear a wife beater and slurp suds from a six-pack, casting threatening glares at my DVD collection all the while.

I don’t remember when I fell in love with movies, but I remember why: They taught me a deeper meaning about life.

I learned about morality and love and destiny by watching everything from Disney cartoons to ‘80s slasher films. Movies helped me find and form my faith. They gave me my childhood optimism and filled my heart with dreams of endless possibilities.

Movies made me happy and because of this, I was a happy child.

Nowadays, I’ve unconsciously conditioned myself to treat watching movies as a chore — something akin to popping open a textbook. Instead of watching a movie as a form of educational escapism, I watch a film and am too preoccupied with why a filmmaker chose a certain lighting design or which French New Wave classic is being used as an inspiration for a particular scene.

Movies, I’m sorry. We’ve lost that loving feeling. And I’m all the worse off for it.

My life has become grounded in the mundane. Escapism is harder to grasp and my imagination has become an arid dead sea full of flopping breathless fish gasping for substance from the faith that has all but dried up.

All of this is why I’m undergoing a project that will test my love for movies — hopefully breaking me of my elitist attitude about films.

For the next year, I will watch 365 movies that have been critically or commercially shunned. I will spend the next 12 months immersing myself in bad movies — forcing myself to rediscover my love for movies like discovering an exotic flower growing in a heap of elephant dung.

I’m not doing this as an experiment in masochism. I’m doing it to become a better person. I will immerse myself in bad acting, overblown plots, shallow storylines and I will force myself to learn from each and every movie. I will rediscover the childhood ideals I once clung to and will realize my potential as both a movie fan and as a man.

I am going to spend the next year watching bad movies. Here’s hoping I learn a thing or two.

A vampire movie that really sucks.

To put it lightly, Reign in Darkness, the directing debut from Australian filmmakers David W. Allen and Kel Dolen, is a stinker. And by stinker, I mean a putrid film that plays like rancid baby poo smells.

You might enjoy Reign in Darkness if you also enjoy having your nards kicked, being shoved down flights of stairs or listening to the death rattle of your only child.

Dolen stars as Michael Dorn, a scientist working on a cure for AIDS who discovers that the cure is actually a plot to spread the curse of vampirism to unsuspecting humans.

A hodge-podge of movie plagiarism, the film lifts scenes and plot devices from other movies like a weightlifter lifts, uh, weights.

Dolan garbs his character in an assortment of plastic and leather, leaving himself looking very much like a poor man’s Neo. Horrible attempts to ape the gunplay of The Boondock Saints and the sword fights of  Blade leave audiences feeling nostalgic for the days of Dolph Lundgren. But even Lundgren, an MIT scholar, is smart enough to avoid this showcase of absurd acting and zany plot holes.

To be fair, the movie packs a decent number of action scenes. Unfortunately, unbelievably bad computer effects hamper almost all of them.

For a movie called Reign in Darkness, a good portion of the film seems to take place in broad daylight. From gunfights to car chases to explosions, the sun shines bright and cheerfully above the vampires’ heads. Of course, it’s possible that the directors forgot the teeny little detail that vampires are supposed to be allergic to the sun — not to mention forgetting that their movie is called Reign in Darkness.

After all, the two filmmakers were too busy stealing from every other vampire movie imaginable to worry about little things like details.

With an absurd plot and painful displays of acting, this movie is proof that not all foreign films are insightful and/or educational.

Fortunately, any movie can be made enjoyable depending on the way it’s watched.

In order to make the most out of Reign of Darkness, gather up a group of friends. Keep the lights nice and bright to attract daylight-loving vampires and serve up a tray of assorted cheeses and corn-based food products.

For a real treat, invite friends to participate in a movie-themed game. During the course of the film, players are encouraged to steal as much as they can from their fellow audience members. Wallets, watches and precious time are all up for grabs.

The player who has stolen the most from their friends by the time the credits roll is the winner and should go on to direct Reign of Darkness II: Vampire Dundee.

Support this site and buy Reign in Darkness

Read more movie reviews