SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 65 Discussion - What We Do in the Shadows

G

Guestx

Guest
NOTE to NON-MEMBERS: Interested in joining the SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB? Shoot me a PM for more info.

Here's a quick list of all movies watched by the SMC. Or if you prefer, here's a more detailed examination.


@iThrillhouse is doing his thing this week and that means that it's time to talk about vampires!


movieposter.jpg



Our Directors


ae097cd9568f93ab5d28368aaef2657d.jpg


What We Do in the Shadows is directed by Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement.

Bios from Wiki:

Among a variety of artistic interests, Waititi began making comical short films for New Zealand's annual 48-hour film contest. In 2005 his short film Two Cars, One Night earned him an Academy Award nomination. At the awards ceremony, he famously feigned falling asleep as the nominations were being read out.

His first feature film, oddball romantic comedy Eagle vs Shark, was released in U.S. theatres for limited distribution in 2007. The film stars Waititi's then real-life partner, Loren Horsley, as Lily. The same year, Waititi wrote and directed one episode of the TV show Flight of the Conchords and was director of another.

His second feature, Boy, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2010, and was nominated for the Grand Jury Prize. Waititi also took one of the main roles, as the ex-con father who returns to his family. On its release in New Zealand, Boy received enthusiastic reviews and was successful at the local box office, eclipsing several records. After the success of Boy, Waititi hoped that the film's signature track "Poi E" would get to number one (for the second time) on the New Zealand charts. The song reached number three, but got to number one on iTunes.

In 2011, Waititi directed New Zealand TV series Super City starring Madeleine Sami, who plays five characters living in one city.

In 2013, Waititi co-wrote and co-directed vampire comedy mockumentary What We Do in the Shadows with friend and fellow comedian Jemaine Clement. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2014. Waititi and Clement played members of a group of vampires who live in modern-day Wellington.

Waititi's fourth feature, Hunt for the Wilderpeople, premiered at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival. When it was released back in New Zealand, the comedy adventure broke records for a New Zealand film in its opening weekend. Based on a book by the late Barry Crump, the film centres around a young boy and a grumpy man (played by Sam Neill) on the run in the forest.

Waititi wrote the initial screenplay for the 2016 Disney film Moana, which focused on gender and family. Those elements were passed over in favour of what would become the finalized story.

In 2017, Waititi won the award for New Zealander of the Year, but was unable to receive it in person due to work commitments.

Waititi directed his first major Hollywood film, Marvel Studios' Thor: Ragnarok, is scheduled for release on November 3, 2017.

Waititi will be collaborating with Mark Gustafson to direct the upcoming stop-motion animated film, Bubbles, which is about the life of Michael Jackson seen in the perspective of his pet chimpanzee, Bubbles.

Clement has appeared in several feature films. His debut was in the kung fu comedy Tongan Ninja, directed by New Zealander Jason Stutter. He has worked with Stutter on two more movies to date: the low budget ghost comedy Diagnosis Death and the drama Predicament, based on the book by late New Zealand novelist Ronald Hugh Morrieson. Clement also has a role in American comedy Gentlemen Broncos, directed by Napoleon Dynamite's Jared Hess. This role landed him a nomination for the Independent Spirit Award for Best Supporting Male. Though Gentlemen Broncos was almost universally panned by critics, some[7] singled out Clement's performance for praise. In 2010, he voiced Jerry in Despicable Me and appeared in the film Dinner for Schmucks. In 2011, he voiced Nigel in Rio, and in 2012 he appeared as the primary antagonist Boris the Animal in Men in Black 3. In 2012, Jemaine co-wrote, co-directed, and starred in a vampire mockumentary titled What We Do in the Shadows with Taika Waititi. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 19 January 2014. He also reprised his role as Nigel in Rio 2.

Clement has starred in television commercials internationally and provided voiceovers for many others in New Zealand. On 5 February 2006, Outback Steakhouse began running a series of television commercials starring Clement during Super Bowl XL in which Clement pretends to be Australian and feigns an Australian accent. One of the long-running gags of Flight of the Conchords is the traditional rivalry between New Zealand and Australia and the differences between their accents. The campaign ended in July 2006.

Clement has been involved in award-winning radio work. In 1999, Clement was a Radio Awards Winner as writer for Trashed, for Channel Z, Wellington. In 2000, he was given a Special Radio Awards Commendation for The Sunglass Store.

Besides his television work on Flight of the Conchords, Clement was a writer and cast member of the television shows Skitz and Tellylaughs in New Zealand. Clement, with fellow Conchord member Bret McKenzie, guest starred as a pair of camp counselors in "Elementary School Musical", the season premiere of the 22nd season of The Simpsons, which aired on 26 September 2010.

Clement also played the role of a prisoner in a Russian 'Gulag' in the 2014 film, 'The Muppets - Most Wanted', a sequel to 'The Muppets' (2011)

Clement was featured as one of 2008's "100 Sexiest People" in a special edition of the Australian magazine Who.[13] Fellow Conchord member McKenzie appeared on the same list.

In 2015, Clement voiced a horse in two DirecTV commercials.[14] In the same year, he voiced a "mind-reading fart" on an episode of the Adult Swim animated series Rick And Morty, where he performed the song "Goodbye Moonmen". Clement also starred in the independent film, People Places Things, which received positive reviews.

In 2016, Clement lent his voice to Tamatoa, a giant coconut crab, in the Disney animated film Moana. He based the character's voice on that of David Bowie.

In 2017, Clement played Oliver Bird in the FX TV series Legion.



Our Stars


All these guys:


10499965.jpg



Film Overview and YouTube Videos


Premise: A documentary team films the lives of a group of vampires for a few months. The vampires share a house in Wellington, New Zealand. Turns out vampires have their own domestic problems too.

Budget: $1.6 million
Box Office: $6.3 million (worldwide)






Trivia
(courtesy of IMDB)​


* More than 120 hours of footage was shot, most of which were improvisation from the leads.

* The hill, where the vampires have a run-in with the werewolves, is the same hill filmed in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), where Frodo and the hobbits are running and hiding from the Black Rider under the roots of a tree.

* There was talk of a spin-off movie titled 'What We Do in the Moonlight' which would have followed the werewolf pack.

* Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi wrote 150 pages of actual script but chose not to show it to a single person involved in the film (both crew and cast). The reasoning was to keep things spontaneous and actors to be surprised by the events unfolding before their eyes.

* Taika Waititi based his performance on his mother. Jemaine Clement based his on Gary Oldman in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992).

* The man who plays Stu is not a actor but actually Stu Rutherford. A part-time business analyst for a Wellington company, LanWorx. He was hired for the film under the impression that he would be working on computers, and that he would play a small part in the film.

* The directors were able to bring screenings of the film to the United States after a successful Kickstarter fund-raising campaign.

* The character of Petyr was conceived as devoid of personality, but unscripted scenes of the actor in makeup were expensive so extra footage of the actor in makeup was shot, such as the scene of him listening to music.

* Each of the main characters are similar to a vampire from a famous vampire movie: Petyr is analogous to Nosferatu, Deacon reflects Bela Lugosi's Dracula, Vladislav is comparable to Gary Oldman's Dracula, Nick is reminiscent of Edward from Twilight (2008), and Viago is like Louis de Pointe du Lac from Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994).

* They lost a charred, polystyrene skeleton/body during the shoot, after throwing it in the harbor for a funeral scene (the scene didn't end up in the film), and not realizing it was drifting away. Taika Waititi commented on the situation saying, "It was quite realistic looking, so we had to put a press release out saying that if anyone finds this charred body washed up on a beach, don't be alarmed, it's just a prop".



7wGeEM5.jpg


Members: @shadow_priest_x @europe1 @iThrillhouse @chickenluver @jeicex @MusterX @Coolthulu @TheRuthlessOne @Scott Parker 27 @the muntjac @Caveat @FierceRedBelt @RabidJesus @RhinoRush
 
This was one of my favorite movies that year. Wonderful comedy.
 
So yeah this movie was rather hilarious in parts. As a movie it's pretty one-note in it's overall structure, in that it's a satire that presents vampires and their mythos as real but simultaniously they're as mundane and socially awkward as the rest of us.

One effect of this is that vampyrism almost comes of as it's own subculture rather than some scourge of civilization. They have meetings. Their own vampire-owned clubs. Annual gatherings. Their own termonology and social rules. They recognize each other on the street. In that way the way they're presented feels analogous to other subcultures -- like that there could be a documentary about gay subculture from the 70's that feels very similar to this, really.:D

As said, the premise and style was very simple and straight-forward. So it was more the implementation that made me laugh. Like when they found the dead Vampire Hunter having killed Petyr and start wondering how he was sharpened his stakes. <45>

However, after having watched the movie... nothing really stood out for me that much. It's not really a movie that resonated. It's fun but breezy. Perhaps this is due to how "subculture-esque" it feels or how very one-note it is. So I very much enjoyed watching it but it didn't seem to give much of a lasting impression.
 
Echoing Europe1's sentiments...I think this movie was hilairous in parts, but overall I dont think there was ENOUGH humor to carry it for its length.

I think the movie completely lost steam once Nick becomes a vampire. Like the movie is dead in the water at that point. There are great jokes afterwards but I just doesn't pack the same punch... the highlights post-nick's turn are when they encounter werewolves.

Deacon throwing a stick and the one werewolf goes to fetch it but is told to stop is just so fucking funny...that entire sequence is just comedic gold.

I thought the entire idea that three vampires find this incredibly dull guy in Stu, awesome, very funny...like Stu is just such an average guy, but to these supernatural beings with insane powers, SOMEHOW, Stu of all people is just the bee's knee's!

I think if this movie was like a 50 minute short, it would've been much more effective. The entire masquerade/the beast reveal felt kind of lazy/predictable.

Complaining about the movie's pace/losing steam aside, there is great stuff in this movie.

-The flatmates debating killing the cops, only to decide against it in order to hear more safety suggestions/concerns from them. too good.
-Viago in general as a character had me laughing so hard, my wife thought he was adorable just cuase of how quirky/geeky he was
-The shame circle was so funny "I tried to warn them not to do it." "no he didn't you were for it..."

Some good office style glances to the camera,

overall I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, it may not be "on" for its entire runtime, but when its "on" its incredibly funny and witty.

7/10
 
Although not laugh out loud funny for me, I still found it funny enough and clever enough to hold my attention throughout.

Petyr was 8000 years old, shouldn't he be attending the flat meetings as the boss of the house? Also, he was killed by that dumb ass vampire hunter. Seriously? No way Petyr goes down like that. I loved the art work from the various time periods showing each vampire during past times to illustrate their ages. Stu was an awesome character. Everyone likes Stu. For a while I thought it was going to be revealed that Stu was actually a vampire and he was just trolling them or something. Still though, its funny to me how Stu was brought in as as the friend of Nick but the group liked the friend more than they like Nick.

Vladislav's battles with the Beast became epic in my mind. When I found out the Beast was what he called his ex it was one of the funniest parts of the movie for me because I used to have a friend that called his girlfriend the Beast way back in the 1980's. We might be talking about something he didn't want her to hear and he would say, "Shhh, here comes the Beast." When Vladislav had his epic confrontation with the Beast, how is it that Stu was the only one brave enough to help Vladislav? This is why everyone likes Stu.

Viago was the stand out performance but he needs to learn how to not hit the main artery. He's a bit of a dandy and it makes a helluva mess.

7.75 out of 10
 
Just started watching it.

I'll be back later this evening or in the morning.
 
Just popping on to show I'm alive. I'll give a more fleshed out review tomorrow. Just got home from work, so I'm a tad bit tired.

For now, I liked it and found it to be pretty funny.

"I don't want to eat a sandwich that somebody has fucked."
 
All right, so I enjoyed this. I never watched Flight of the Concords, but I've known people who were really into it, and after watching What We Do In The Shadows, I'm very intrigued to check out FOTC.

Apart from the funny characters and funny scenes, there were actually some neat effects and cleverly shot scenes. I liked when Nick was trying to escape the house while the three vampires kept popping up all over the place, and the thrill they were getting from the chase. The camera stays with Nick as he's running through this maze of a house, and it feels like we're going through a amusement park's scare house. This scene goes for the look of the one long continuous shot, even though there were clearly cuts happening during it, but I thought it still worked. What made this scene even more funny is that if we hadn't just spent time with the vampires and seeing how dopey they all are, this could have been a scary scene. I imagine what somebody would think if they walked in the room while this scene was on and had no context of the film, they'd think it was a straight up horror film.

I also liked when Deacon and Nick were fighting as bats, and when Deacon throws the Nick bat, when he impacts on the wall, he goes back into "human" form. Cool effect.

The Stu element was probably my favorite thing about the movie. I liked how he taught them to use outdated technology, and just the thought of vampires from centuries ago not knowing how to use cell phones, cameras, computers, etc. is funny to me because it kinda makes sense. Them drawing pictures for each other to show how their outfits looked was also a hysterical touch. Stu is probably a loner in the human world and seemingly a virgin, but to the vampires he's the coolest guy they ever met. That's funny.

My biggest laughs were when Viago preps to kill that lady and botches it by hitting an artery and blood flies everywhere, when the vampire throws the imaginary stick and the werewolf chases after it, and when they ask if they should kill the cops, but decide not to so they can learn more safety practices.

So yeah, this is a movie crammed with vampire jokes, and on the surface that can seem lame, but these were pretty good jokes, and the idea to make it a mockumentary rather than a traditional film worked. This idea could have been bad if made by the wrong people, which could be said about any movie, so I'm just glad this movie made by these people were able to take a simple idea of vampires living together filled with jokes tailored to vampire lore, were actually able to produce something entertaining and something that stands out.

If I had to say something negative, just exactly why were the vampires letting themselves be filmed by a movie crew? They chastise Nick for telling everyone he's a vampire, and that ends with a vampire hunter killing their flatmate, but obviously this movie will bring even more unwanted attention, possibly Christians. I know Nick even mentions that point, and I guess you're just supposed to let it slide because they are kinda dumb after all. I forgive it because I thought the format was fun.

Good movie. Would watch again.
 
This is one of those films that will make me laugh any time I watch it. I first heard about this a few years ago, usually if it's a low-key movie I'll wait to hear from more than one buddy, but no one else had even heard of it. It's so simple, and yet so well done.

The key to a good mockumentary is the formula: 1) Introduce the characters one by one and let us know in very short order what they're all about, 2) Make those characters interact, 3) Take those characters somewhere, and 4) Take those characters to a place that only they would go and we the audience normally wouldn't. I'm a sucker for a good mockumentary, and thinking back to some of my favorite shows and films, I am surprised. The Office, Parks and Recreation, Trailer Park Boys just to name a few shows, and the Christopher Guest mocku series of Best in Show/This is Spinal Tap/Waiting for Guffman, Zelig, the Sacha Baron Cohen series/shows and the horror movie we almost watched in Behind the Mask. I guess the downside for mockumentaries is that if they're not great, they're forgotten. But, if you do it right, there's gold in them there hills.

I too need to watch Flight of the Conchords, I've been told several times that it was a great show while it lasted, and that it's my kind of comedy, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I will soon.

Something that tends to stand out in a great mockumentary is the way in which it is put together. The actors know their parts and backstories well enough to be able to just stay in character and be. That's really important, because it's then that we really can see what makes a character tick. In most of those examples I listed above, they're largely improvised, which I find is crucial to it being organic and funnier. When I was watching it this time, I made sure to pay attention to the little things. After all, what really makes this film great is the little things. The short scenes that stand on one small joke and let it grow, like Viago and the silver locket. The vampire jokes were simple and not even original, and yet they paid off because of their execution.

The little things stood out above and beyond the core of this movie, which is what made it appeal to me more than anything else. Whether it's the scene where europe1 mentioned that they're checking out the vampire hunter's stakes, or the throwing of the invisible stick to mess with the werewolf, or "We're werewolves not swearwolves", or the "cover up the crucifix" hissing, or BAT FIGHT, it all added up big for me. They were able to slip in those lame jokes/stereotypes we hear time and time again about vampires like that they have to be invited indoors, and still find a way to make them funny, like when they wanted to go to clubs and weren't invited in so they couldn't step foot inside. It's the kind of thing that you can picture the writers sitting around the table and one of them suddenly goes "vampires can't go inside a building unless they're invited in, how can we turn that into something?"

I feel I could echo some of the comments above, like Stu. He was just a boring software guy doing GIS and analysis work, nothing sexy, and yet the vampires admire him because he's so different. To them, he's the coolest of cool, even if they have no idea what he does. The scene at the ball where they had Stu explain what his job was, the guys in the background were clearly trying to process what the hell he was talking about and their reactions were just perfect. They admired him, and Stu felt accepted possibly for the first time in his life. Stu introduced them to the world of the 21st century, and their reactions yet again were marvelous to behold. The acting was simple, sometimes way over the top in a stereotypically funny way, but they rarely felt out of character. They were vampires based on all of the old vampire models (Petyr is Nosferatu, Vladislav is Vlad the "poker", and so on), and they surprisingly answered a question of "what would it be like if you put all the vampire archetypes together in a house?"

Since I'm reviewing earlier than a week late, I think I'll cut this off here and continue in the conversation as it develops, if it develops. Great fun, we don't seem to watch enough comedies in this club and that's too bad. When my week comes up, spoiler alert, there's bound to be some more comedy.

8.5/10. Always funny to me, and the little things really made this film shine. The attention to detail was exceptional, and I didn't even mention the surprisingly good special effects like the transformation into bats given their budget of less than $2 million.
 
I watched this one when it was first released, and having now revisited it I'd say my thoughts are in line with the general sentiment of the thread: It's a cute movie, but also ultimately lightweight and slight.

The concept is a fun one and the filmmakers obviously have talent, both on the writing side as well as in terms of directing. Even though there were perhaps only one or two laugh out loud moments for me, there were enough solid jokes to keep me amused throughout.

@iThrillhouse said he felt like the movie would be better as a 50 minute short. That might be right. As with many movies of this kind, eventually you do reach the point of being like, "Okay, okay, I get it." The practical problem with short films though is that, simply, nobody watches them and you can't make any money with them.

Ultimately, while I do enjoy the film, I can't shake the feeling that it's lesser than the sum of its parts. When I look at the individual elements--the writing, the acting, the production design, the costuming--I can't really find fault with any of them. It's all very nicely conceived and executed. It's just that when it's all said and done, and the credits roll, my reaction is one of only mild enthusiasm. "Okay, yeah, that was fun," but nothing more than that.

It's a clever movie, but having now seen it twice, I think that might be enough.

7.5/10
 
Ultimately, while I do enjoy the film, I can't shake the feeling that it's lesser than the sum of its parts. When I look at the individual elements--the writing, the acting, the production design, the costuming--I can't really find fault with any of them. It's all very nicely conceived and executed. It's just that when it's all said and done, and the credits roll, my reaction is one of only mild enthusiasm. "Okay, yeah, that was fun," but nothing more than that.

The reason why I'm able to really sink my teeth into this one is because I pictured it in several independent acts. We have the introduction with a title card of "The House. Then, we have Nick becoming a vampire with the title card of "A New Friend." Then, we have the party, which is a third title card of "The Ball". Finally, we have the epilogue, which can be just "Epilogue". Those "X months later" slides were useful for breaking things up and letting me reset. Otherwise, I think you're right that it would have felt like it had gone on for too long for me. I thought at 80 minutes, it was short and sweet and did just the right amount of developing to get something out of it.
 
The reason why I'm able to really sink my teeth into this one is because I pictured it in several independent acts. We have the introduction with a title card of "The House. Then, we have Nick becoming a vampire with the title card of "A New Friend." Then, we have the party, which is a third title card of "The Ball". Finally, we have the epilogue, which can be just "Epilogue". Those "X months later" slides were useful for breaking things up and letting me reset. Otherwise, I think you're right that it would have felt like it had gone on for too long for me. I thought at 80 minutes, it was short and sweet and did just the right amount of developing to get something out of it.

It sounds then almost like you viewed it as a series of short films or skits than a single movie.
 
Exactly, I viewed it as several episodes of a miniseries.

How do you think it stacks up against something like This is Spinal Tap or Best in Show? Not in terms of the story obviously, but in terms of overall entertainment.
 
The actors know their parts and backstories well enough to be able to just stay in character and be. That's really important, because it's then that we really can see what makes a character tick.

This is Spinal Tap

Did you know that the actors in Spinal Tap did the audio commentary in-character?

Someone should mail the Concord guys about this...
 
Did you know that the actors in Spinal Tap did the audio commentary in-character?

Someone should mail the Concord guys about this...

Robert Downey Jr. does Tropic Thunder commentary entirely in character also, its great
 
I can't believe you guys are so lukewarm on this movie. I love it. It's silly and absurd but it's charming and hilarious too. None of the main characters feel like a one note joke to me, except maybe Petyr, which is really hard to pull off. Viago liking an old lady and Vlad being an insecure has been badass inform everything about their characters and it's why I think the film works so well. If it weren't for little things like that then this would have just been a SNL sketch that went on way too long imo.
 
I can't believe you guys are so lukewarm on this movie. I love it. It's silly and absurd but it's charming and hilarious too. None of the main characters feel like a one note joke to me, except maybe Petyr, which is really hard to pull off. Viago liking an old lady and Vlad being an insecure has been badass inform everything about their characters and it's why I think the film works so well. If it weren't for little things like that then this would have just been a SNL sketch that went on way too long imo.
Anyone who doesn't like this movie should suffer the Procession of Shame.

 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,086
Messages
55,466,658
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby
Back
Top