I don't mean to say this was the worst film in the world, and I do appreciate that it's nearly 20 years old, but it's like what Marcellus Wallace says to Butch in Pulp Fiction about aging like vinegar instead of fine wine.
Aww, shucks, that's harsh :)
The only thing this movie suffers from is it's dated look and one or two unnecessary flashes of nudity, but the story is much better than the cheesy romance of Bloodlust.
There's a lot of depth to be found if you look beyond the animation which, I admit, will be distracting if you saw Bloodlust first. Seeing the original will come as a bit of a shock because the gorgeous visuals of Bloodlust were so absorbing. However, there's plenty of things in the original that are well done and it all has to do with the way the story is told. I think a lot of the enjoyment is spoiled if you've seen the second movie first because you already know about D's hand, that he's a dhampir and that his father is Dracula, so when these things are revealed during the course of the first movie, you don't see them as being significant.
You ask "how can you care about any these characters?". I wonder how can you not? Doris is spurned by the townfolk and is trying to protect her brother, whom she has been raising on her own. Poor girl is so lost and in need of guidance that she mistakenly looks for it in the arms of a man who can't give her what she wants. Rei faithfully serves the count, hoping to one day join the Lee family. His code of ethics could be called vengence (a hand for a hand), but does he betray the count out of vengence or does he understand honour far better than the aristocrats? Lamika is the proud daughter of Count Lee who refuses to accept a lowly human into the family, but she learns a hard lesson in the end that the Lee family is far from being noble, yet she chooses to go down with her father's disgrace instead of accepting the human side of her. And, of course, there's the mysterious D, the son of the great prince Dracula, himself. Why does D hunt vampires? Why does he deny that side of him when Doris willingly offers herself? Why does he get so defensive whenever his origins are mentioned?
I think the characters are far more complex than those in Bloodlust. Besides Leila, no one in Bloodlust has any personal conflicts or undergoes a change of heart. I prefer the whole theme about identity in the original. It brings up some thought-provoking questions about belonging, loyalty and respect. Also, there's a lot of weirdness to enjoy like Doris' horse getting eaten, D's severed hand trying to wake him up, those snake sisters sucking D's life force (LOL that was funny), Rei's space altering power, Magnus getting nailed to the wall (ouch!) and the whole castle disappearing into the abyss, etc etc.
I think we've grown accustomed to beautifully animated movies and a certain level of realism that anything older than, say 10 years, looks cartoonish, but we shouldn't confuse that cartoonish style of drawing with the storytelling, which is as much sophisticated today as it was then.
reply
share
Redwolfsw
19 years ago
Here here!! That was very eloquently said, Kr24054. You opened my eyes to the identity issues. I knew about D's obviously, but the complexity of the supporting cast for some reason never really struck me until I read your post. Very insightful.
I watched this again (I own both movies on DVD) with a friend yesterday. It's been about a year since I last watched it and it still has an affect on me. It was the first anime I ever saw, so it definitely has a high standing in my heart. I cannot wait for the book to come out. Dark Horse is supposed to be publishing it in English by May, I think.
I think the original movie is better than the sequel. The sequel was just a series of battles with little or no character development. It lacked the mood, the atmosphere, and the strangeness of the original. Also I felt they tried to "Americanize" it too much, especially with the hand (God he got annoying...). I think people just like Bloodlust more because of its animation and action, but I would put the original VHD far and above Bloodlust any day for its atmosphere, characters, music, and tone.
reply
share
19 years ago
[deleted]
Spellsword
19 years ago
Your an idiot Redwolfsw. Bloodlust is better. Bloodlust has better advanced animation techniques, better story, better plot, better characters, better voice-acting and a better soundtrack. The first D movie is like any type of story.
reply
share
TheSolarSailor
12 years ago
Your an idiot Redwolfsw. Bloodlust is better. Bloodlust has better advanced animation techniques, better story, better plot, better characters, better voice-acting and a better soundtrack. The first D movie is like any type of story. >>> I can only say that you, VampireWraith, are someone who is simply wowed by the new and can't appreciate the old. The fact that you get your panties in a bunch over a nicely expressed opinion and then start calling names says all I need to know about you and the value of your opinion.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
reply
share
SeijyuroHiko790
18 years ago
I think the original movie is better than the sequel. The sequel was just a series of battles with little or no character development. It lacked the mood, the atmosphere, and the strangeness of the original. Also I felt they tried to "Americanize" it too much, especially with the hand (God he got annoying...). I think people just like Bloodlust more because of its animation and action, but I would put the original VHD far and above Bloodlust any day for its atmosphere, characters, music, and tone.
Thanks for this, this sums up both my thoughts on why the first one is superior and why I believe a good majority of people like Bloodlust. There was no real story in Bloodlust it was as someone else said "cheesy romance". A good portion of the characters, I'd say about 7/12 of the main characters were just there to be offed. There's no "character development" that its fans speak of. The music is over the top, highly theatric, and it has too bright an atmosphere and too action/comedic a tone. I'll never say that Bloodlust doesn't have some of the most beautiful visuals I've ever seen in anime, but the art style in the first one is just so eerie and effective. I know people have their preferences but I feel that 99% of the people who prefer Bloodlust do so based solely on its impressive animation, and miss the point of the first movie entirely.
reply
share
alucardva77
18 years ago
Extremely well put kr24054. Basically what it comes down to is that each movie is good in it's own right. They are from 2 different anime generations and so are the people who like them. Some people prefer the black and white story of the first movie and some prefer the grey all the way through story of the 2nd movie. And a big part of it is that the first movie takes alot of us "old school" anime lovers back to the day when anime in the US was just gaining ground. Whatever the reason you like one or the other, both are great films that have their strengths and weaknesses.
Oh and VampireWraith, is calling Redwolf an "idiot" really necessary just for expressing their opinion? I think not, lest you be an opinion-nazi.
Heyyyyy, RE-lax guy!
reply
share
TheSolarSailor
12 years ago
very well stated, kr24054, I agree with your every word. It's sad that so many folks are taken in by great visuals yet seem not to care about the actual story being told. This happens with movies as well, where so many folks out there can't appreciate an old classic just because it has dated visuals or is in black and white. I mean, what ever happened to appreciating something based on the context of the era it was made in? I have not seen Bloodlust, so I cannot offer an opinion on that entry, but I do see what appears very much to be people preferring it simply because it is newer and has better animation.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
reply
share