Priest (2011)

[akiratubo]

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

A select few warriors are the only thing that can stop a horrible scourge on mankind, in this case vampires.  These few elite warriors drive back the vampire plague, allowing humanity to rebuild itself.  Years later, those warriors are shunned by the very society they once saved, and the church they serve has become totalitarian and corrupt.  Then, one day, these warriors must be called up again to face an old threat, although this time the stakes are personal ...

Yep, Priest is the same old "retired bad ass(es) comes back for one last mission" movie we've all seen a million times.  There is even a "former ally who betrays them and has become overwhelmingly powerful" character.  However, Priest has a saving grace: it takes itself seriously.  It may not have anything new to offer but at least it isn't one of those damned "bad on purpose" movies.  The people who made it also don't treat the material as if it's something that no one has ever seen before.  No, they realize they're going over well-tread ground and merely aim for adequacy.  In my humble opinion, they achieved it.  Nothing here is supposed to blow your mind, it's just supposed to entertain you until the end credits roll.  Such earnestness is sorely lacking in many genre films made within the past 10 (or even 20) years.

Priest also gets to the point.  There is no dicking around in this movie.  The rules are briefly sketched out, the plot is set in motion, and the movie gets down to business.  Expository scenes are minimal, mostly limited to a pretty neat animated sequence at the beginning of the movie.  The filmmakers assume the audience has enough familiarity with similar material (and maybe even *gasp* intelligence) to fill in the rest of the details for themselves.

You don't need to rush out and see Priest right away but, next time you're on Netflix or at the Redbox, you might consider giving it a try.

[WingedSerpent]

I saw this in theaters on a Tuesday because the power had gone out in my neighborhood the previous night and hadn't been restored yet. It gets a special note from me because it is now the thrid movie I've seen in theaters where I was the only person in attendance.  It gets points for that.

Calling the monsters in the movie "vampires" is really misleading.  They aren't vampires.  They look and act more like the lickers from the Resident Evil games. They should have been called mutants or monsters or just something else.  There comes a point when you change something so much that it becomes something new on its own.

This movie also has one of the most blantant violations of physics I've ever seen in a movie. (and that's saying something).  One of the characters throws small rocks into the air, and another one uses them as steping stones.  It's like something out of an old video game.

It was a decent movie, and something to watch as a matinee or DVD rental.  Had circumstances been different for me at the time, I wouldn't have paid full price for it in the cinema.

[InformationGeek]

Calling the monsters in the movie "vampires" is really misleading.  They aren't vampires.  They look and act more like the lickers from the Resident Evil games. They should have been called mutants or monsters or just something else.  There comes a point when you change something so much that it becomes something new on its own.

So basically, this is the other extreme interpretation of the vampires.  To the far left, we have glittery emos and if you go to the far right and past 30 Days of Night, you get these guys.

[FatFreddysCat]

I RedBoxed "Priest" a week or two ago. I agree, the vampires weren't very vampire-ish. They behaved more like the creatures from the Alien films (i.e. living in hives, sleeping in egg-like sacs).

It wasn't a bad butt kicker though. Kinda like a Catholic "Blade."

[akiratubo]

Calling the monsters in the movie "vampires" is really misleading.  They aren't vampires.

The sun kills them.  They drink blood from the living.  People they bite turn into Renfields and at least one turned into a human/vampire hybrid.  That seems vampiric enough to me.

[WingedSerpent]

Calling the monsters in the movie "vampires" is really misleading.  They aren't vampires.

The sun kills them.  They drink blood from the living.  People they bite turn into Renfields and at least one turned into a human/vampire hybrid.  That seems vampiric enough to me.

Using Information Geeks' extreme of Vampires anaolgy, lets assign animals to represent the Vampire levels.

Let's call the Twilgiht Vampires-Trout (the one Vampire extreme)


The 30 Days of Night Exteme is more like a tiger shark


The "vampires" from Preist are Saltwater Crocodiles


Now you can say their all vampires in the same way you can link these three animals together.  All are ectothermic vertebrates with scales whose main hunting grounds is the water.  But when you really start grouping them together, what you have is two types of fish and a reptile.  Clearly, one is not in the same group as the others.

[Pilgermann]

Oh boy, I hated this move.  I haven't seen too many 2011 releases but this one ties with The Change-Up for the worst.

EDIT: Nevermind, Creature is the absolute worst film of the year.

[Hammock Rider]

I wanted to check it out. Sounds cool. Thanks.

[BoyScoutKevin]

If you can't see the film, then read the book, or in this case, the graphic series by Minn-Woo Hyung. And what a mess that was.

The story wasn't helped by a heroine that was one of the least interesting and most boring characters I've seen in some time.

The story was also an odd mixture of both unrealism and realism. The unrealism was setting the monsters in the Old West, but there were moments in the unrealism, where if such monsters did exist in the Old West, things would happen just like in the story. That's the realism.

The author seems to have a firmer grasp of the story, when he moves it out of the past of the Old West and into the present.

That was the 1st volume in the series. We''ll see if the story gets better with the 2nd volume.