Shocktober Revisited: Thirst

 Original review written in 2009.

It's nice to know that just because American vampires are becoming garbage and the domain of teenage girls, that somewhere overseas people are getting it right. First came Let the Right One In, an especially potent blend of vampirism and adolescence from Sweden, and now Thirst (Bakjwi), the newest film from Chan-Wook Park (Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance).

When I first heard about Thirst, the synopsis of the film was mentioned centered around Catholic Father Sang-hyeon (Kang-Ho Song) who becomes a vampire through a blood transfusion. The transfusion occurs because he willingly contracts the (fictional) EV virus in a laboratory as an act of martyrdom. At the time, I imagined that in some way shape or form that Park was using this hook to set up a serious moral quandary about being a man of faith and a vampire. Not quite.

 Thirst does deal, in minor ways, with Sang-hyeon's morality after turning, but that's hardly the only concern of the film. Sang-hyeon becomes something of a messianic figure after his "miraculous" cure, which remains a faint thread through the film, although not quite to the degree I expected. In Thirst, vampirism is still a source of super strength, leaping, and healing, but any disease you turn with will begin manifesting again without persistent feeding. I was happy that Park adheres to most of the vampire "rules" (the exception being reflections, but because he breaks it for shot composition purposes, I'll let it slide). And yet, the strange ways Sang-hyeon rationalizes finding blood is also not the primary objective.

Much of Thirst is a black comedy, with traces of film noir and ghost stories. Sang-hyeon falls in love with Tae-ju (Ok-bin Kim), the wife of a childhood friend, and at her suggestion, he helps murder the husband and eventually turns her. And Tae-ju is the last femme fatale you want to give super strength and bloodlust to.

Despite how dark much of this sounds, Thirst is actually very funny. IMDB lists the film as a Horror / Drama, but to ignore the comedy robs Thirst of its greatest weapon. Park treats the vampires with a disturbingly comic edge, in addition to a number of twisted developments in the second half of the film. At times I was reminded faintly of Double Indemnity crossed with the last scene in Very Bad Things, which is a marriage that could only work in Thirst. The tone of the film never gets bogged down in moral wrestling, even when Sang-hyeon's ethics clash with Tae-ju's. Lady Ra (Hae-sook Kim), the mother of deceased Kang-woo (Ha-kyun Shin), does a lot of work with very little, since she spends the second half of the film paralyzed.

Oh, and there are Tae-ju's hallucinations, or nightmares. That's when the movie gets verrrrry weird for a spell. That, and what I cannot prove but would suggest is a nod to Let the Right One In - while Sang-hyeon is receiving absolution, he begins pouring blood from his skull, eye sockets, and ears, not unlike what happens when Eli enters uninvited.

The ending (which I will not spoil here), is horrifying, hilarious, and sadly sweet. For a vampire movie that blends black comedy with film noir, there's really only one way Thirst could end, and despite the reminiscence to Blade II and 30 Days of Night, I found the closing of the film to be utterly appropriate.

For fans of Park's other films, expect to see something a little different. The drowning scene, at times, reminded me tonally of early Peter Jackson, and that is perhaps the best thing to keep in mind when watching Thirst. If you aren't laughing during sections of this film, Thirst may not be for you. For anyone who enjoyed Let the Right One In, or other non-conventional vampire films, I highly recommend Thirst. Now you'll have two recent movies to counter the masses with.

Cap'n Howdy's Best of 2013: Stoker

 For a long time this year, Stoker was the strongest contender for my favorite movie of 2013. It's a testament to the movies to come that anything could unseat it, and while I don't think you'd argue with what's to come, that shouldn't in any way diminish what Chan-wook Park (Park Chan-wook?) accomplished in his first English language feature. I still marvel at his ability to misdirect repeatedly, to such a degree that I was never quite certain where Stoker was going. The Cap'n watches a lot of movies, and I have a bad habit of figuring out where things are going well before they get there, so when not one but two movies this year had me guessing right up to the very end (Upstream Color was the other film - it's no coincidence I mentioned Park in yesterday's review), it was a very good year indeed.

 India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska) is a bit reserved, to put it mildly; she prefers solitude, to be outside, and doesn't have much tolerance for her peers or her mother, Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). The only person she really liked was her father, Richard (Dermot Mulroney), but he died very recently in a car accident, just before her eighteenth birthday. And yet, as was his tradition, Richard hid a present for her outside, but instead of a pair of shoes (as is normally the tradition), India finds a key inside. That's not the only surprise - after the funeral, she discovers Richard has a brother, Charlie (Matthew Goode), who is quite insistent on moving in and even more intent on befriending his niece. India doesn't trust Charlie, but is strangely drawn to him, and Evelyn takes to his presence immediately. But Richard's estranged brother comes with his own baggage, and somehow anyone who wants to talk to them about Charlie disappears mysteriously. What is he really after?


  From the set up (and most of that is on the back of the box), I wouldn't blame you for feeling pretty confident knowing where Stoker is headed, but as is the case with almost all of Park's films, the synopsis is just a springboard to dive further into the psyches of the characters. Remember that Park's previous film, Thirst, can be boiled down to "a Catholic Priest struggles with his faith when he becomes a vampire," which in no way prepares you for the wickedly funny and often dark places he takes you. And then there's the Vengeance Trilogy - Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Oldboy, and Lady Vengeance - all of which are more than the moniker would suggest. Fixed genres are not something that Park feels beholden to, much to all of our benefit(s). And yet, there's an inherent fear when a foreign director of such cult acclaim decides to transition to an English language film. The lingering memory of a Hard Target or a Mimic sticks with us. Maybe it's the language barrier, or maybe interference from the studio, but the shift almost always seems to be a bumpy one.

 So to my pleasant surprise, Stoker suffers from none of that. The screenplay, but Wentworth Miller (yeah, the guy from Prison Break) is well developed and takes left turns when you least expect them (let's just say that India figures out very quickly what Uncle Charlie's "secret" is, or one of them at least) and fits well into Park's propensity for the tragic. It's tricky to categorize Stoker: it's not exactly a thriller, nor is it really a drama. There are elements of horror, but Stoker is not a horror movie, much in the way that Thirst isn't really a horror movie either. Somehow, Park strikes a perfect tonal balance that keeps you off-guard, uncertain of what's going to happen next, and why.

 In some ways, Stoker reminds me of a Henri-Georges Clouzot film, although for the life of me I couldn't point out specifically why. Perhaps it's the tone, or the precision with which Park controls the camera (which always seems to be moving) to shift what you think you're seeing. While on the surface, Stoker appears to be a thriller that falls into the "mysterious relative who murders" trope, the film is really more of an exploration of India's budding sexuality, sometimes subtlety but at times rather bluntly (there are a few visual metaphors that couldn't possibly be taken to mean anything else). How the theme and narrative intertwine, and more importantly, how they play out, is the key to Stoker's success.

 Park also makes the most out his three leads, all of whom I hadn't thought much about in a while. After Watchmen, I'd mostly forgotten about Matthew Goode, and didn't realize that the limitations of playing Ozymandias didn't give me a fair representation of what he could do as an actor. Mia Wasikowska was a nice supporting part of Lawless, but I guess I still mostly associate her with Tim Burton's forgettable Alice in Wonderland. I'm not certain I can remember a Nicole Kidman movie I wanted to watch since Birth (to be fair, I haven't seen Rabbit Hole), and so I was coming in with (unfairly) middling impressions of the cast. Not to worry, as it turned out.

 Stoker is, without a doubt, Mia Wasikowska's film, from the first moment to the last, and India Stoker is a study in layers. There's so much we don't know about her that is slowly, deliberately revealed, that explains why she is at the beginning of the film. Some of it comes through flashbacks, but most of it Park reveals through dialogue and, later, action. The boys at high school are more than a little fixated on India, but like Mandy Lane in another genre twister, there's more than they bargained for behind the surface. The question is how does she react to what Charlie already seems to know? In what may be the first major turning point of Stoker, Park deliberately misleads you into thinking you're watching one sort of scene, only to reveal that it's nearly the opposite (I know it seems coy to keep dancing around spoilers, but you really should find out for yourself).

 There's more to Charlie than meets the eye, even if you think you have him figured out. That it takes nearly three quarters into the movie to find out what the key opens, where Charlie's been, and the deeply unsettling reason why is a testament to the deliberate nature of Miller's script and Park's direction. The final flashback that follows is haunting and quite unexpected, but informs what's to come for India and Evelyn, and the choices they'll have to make with respect to their visitor. The ending is satisfying, and inevitable, but still manages to catch you off guard, despite the fact that you've already seen part of it at the beginning of the film, a testament to how refreshingly off-guard Park can catch you.

 I'm still mightily impressed with Stoker and feel that from here on out any of the films mentioned are interchangeable as "favorite" of 2013. It really depends on what day it is, what I'm thinking about, and what mood I'm in. If you're in the mood for a slightly off-kilter film that doesn't need to fit into on particular category, or you're a Chan-wook Park fan that was on the fence, don't even hesitate to pick up Stoker. Go in not knowing much, and hopefully you'll have as much fun as I did watching the layers peel away.

 (interesting tidbit: Harmony Korine has a very small role as India's art teacher in the film, which is what led me to watch Spring Breakers shortly after I finished Stoker).

The End of One Era, the Beginning of Another...

Greetings, gang-a-rinos! How's everybody doing? New Year treating you all right so far? The Cap'n is making with the generic intros because I'm still mulling over what to chat up you good people about today. I saw Up in the Air last night, which was excellent, but I don't quite want to review it yet. I want to let the movie simmer for another day, I think. At this moment, it easily fits in my "Favorites" of 2009, just a few days removed. But we'll get to that soon, methinks.

Let's talk a bit about Blockbuster shutting down stores, shall we?

In the last month or so, I've been in two different cities where at least one Blockbuster video was shutting down, in that "we're even selling the shelves and fixtures" way that Circuit City did last year. While I don't mourn the massive liquidation of a video store behemoth, there are two points of interest that arise when considering the demise of a major chain: 1) what's to become of the "mom and pop" independent video stores, and 2) how much should one comfortably benefit from their creed that "everything must go"?

The first comes up in the wake of a series of articles I wrote over the last three years about the slow death of the independent video store and even, to some degree, the "baby" chains like North American Video. Netflix and Redbox are just hurting the Hollywood Videos and the Blockbusters; their convenience and ease of use are leaving the indie stores struggling to keep up with the demand for everything right now.

I don't necessarily weep for Blockbuster because they were directly responsible for killing Carbonated Video, my favorite local rental hub growing up. Carbonated Video had a great selection of well known and obscure titles, they stocked multiple copies, and had deals where you could rent twenty movies for twenty dollars (plus get a free copy of The Video Movie Guide). I frequented that cinematic watering hole and through years of combing through titles, saw movies I never would have experienced at the bigger stores.

They even rented Laserdiscs and Laserdisc players, which to younger readers might sound like a foreign concept, but once upon a time movies in a digital format were the size of records and had to be flipped over. Back in the old days, before dual layer DVDs or Blu-Rays, the Laserdisc was a cineaste's treat: commentary tracks, alternate versions, bonus material... a joy.

But Carbonated Video doesn't exist any more. Blockbuster opened up and killed it. North American Video (formerly Video Bar) is hanging on, but just barely. Like Video Review here, it survives due to a loyal fanbase, but that can't last forever. It's getting too easy to have movies delivered to you, without late fees, and with a selection I've yet to see any video store (even the big ones) top. And if the big boys are being choked out, the little stores don't have much hope either.

To wit: I am a Netflix user. I've had the service for almost five years now, and I use the rental and "watch it now" streaming frequently. Their selection of Blu Ray films is better, their foreign films span deeper and wider, and it saves me considerably more money than hunting down titles or driving around. In one month I pay less for any three movies than I would buying them, and I see things I wouldn't otherwise. So I realize I'm part of the problem here, but I'm not trying to bemoan the loss of our beloved "independent stores"; this is more of an acknowledgment of the passing of one era to another.

The second point is a weirder one to raise, I know. Clearly, if Blockbuster is selling their movies, and a high quantity of films that might otherwise be unavailable are suddenly for purchase, why on earth would I think twice about cleaning them out? After all, when I go to the closing stores, I tend to pick up movies their normal customers wouldn't think twice about, and movies I don't typically come across, like Timecrimes, The Five Obstructions, and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.

My answer goes something like this: while it is taking advantage of a great deal (we're talking $2-4 per movie here), the money is still going to Blockbuster. It's still helping them out, and might I not consider that this money could be spent just as well at a local bookstore like Edward McKay's, which also stocks a varied selection of films. For example, I just picked up Roman Polanski's Knife in the Water today, and considered buying Francis Ford Coppola's One From the Heart. I've seen The Five Obstructions at Ed McKay's, and for a few dollars more could have supported that business instead of a video store I've actively avoided for the last few years.

It's not that I have some blanket condemnation of Blockbuster on some moral high ground; it's just that I don't really feel the need to go to Blockbuster and they don't seem to want my business. It's mutually beneficial that way. Suddenly I'm jumping in like a jackal to feast on their remains because, well, I can. Did I really need a copy of Surveillance on Blu-Ray, or did I just buy it because I'd never seen it anywhere else? Why am I not just renting this stuff?

That sounds a bit ridiculous and self serving, but I do wonder what the value in piling on with the other vultures is. Sometimes I wonder if I really need any of it, or if it's just such a good deal that not picking it up would seem foolish at the moment. I passed over a copy of Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, a Clint Eastwood heist flick featuring a young Jeff Bridges that I happen to enjoy, the last time I was over there. If I go back, and it's much cheaper, will I buy it just because it's there? Because most people would walk right past? I'm not sure.

What I will say is that if I see more copies of Blood Car, I'll pick them up as a way to entice you good people to "Guest Blog" for me. Consider it a "win/win": I get to read your writing and you get a copy of Blood Car. I can't see a loser in this scenario, except the video stores.

Aw crap.

2009 Recap: The Cap'n Presents His Favorite Films of the Year!

And here we are, finally to it! I'll keep the intro short, cut to the chase, and so on. As with before, if there's a review, I'll link to it so you can read that.

Before I begin, I forgot to mention two movies which I neither hated nor considered to be "Honorable Mentions": The Invention of Lying and Watchmen. Neither of them really did anything for me, but to be honest I didn't care enough about them to knock them down a peg two days ago. So there you have it.

Without exception, you should see all 14 of these movies as soon as possible.

In no particular order, and absolutely not numbered, My Favorite Films of 2009:

Moon - I've been counting down the days until I can watch Moon again on Blu-Ray. Only a few weeks left, and it can't come soon enough. Duncan Jones, Sam Rockwell, and Kevin Spacey did something very special with this film, one that ought to owe heavily from Silent Running and 2001, but manages to live and breathe all its own. The theatre we saw Moon in had horrible sound, and frequently cut out during important conversations, but I still think the world of this movie, the first of two great science fiction films on this list.

Inglourious Basterds - Somebody's going to have to explain to me why you didn't like this movie. There's so much animosity out there for Inglourious Basterds, and if it's just because Quentin Tarantino promised a "men on a mission" movie and then gave you a film with greater scope and considerably more depth, then boo hoo. If Christoph Waltz isn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor come Oscar time, I'll be shocked. Mélanie Laurent should also be considered, although I fear she won't in favor of better known Americans.

No part of this film was boring to me. No beat went too long, no flourish was unnecessary. Quentin Tarantino took all of his favorite film fetishes and put them to service a narrative that sweeps over you and I, for one, was enthralled from the opening moments. Each game of "cat and mouse", where it's clear that nothing good can come from what's happening on screen, had my rapt attention. There's no way this movie is two and-a-half hours. I don't believe it.

On a total side note: if there's nothing else you watch Inglourious Basterds for, see it for Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt)'s stunningly awful Italian accent. It's hilarious.

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - I completely and totally understand why critics are crazy for this movie. The trailers sell you a film that doesn't exist; a complete trainwreck from beginning to end, capped off by Nicolas Cage's batshit Mega Acting. And yes, those are all scenes in The Bad Lieutenant: Unfortunately Long Subtitle That's Totally Appropriate, but Werner Herzog's mad genius constructs a bafflingly wonderful film out of such disparate elements. What you see SHOULD NOT work, but I'll be damned, it does.

Because it's not easy to see, I'll have to recommend you buy or rent it when it arrives on dvd. You'll hear no derision from the Cap'n for doing so.

The Men Who Stare at Goats - Not at all what I was expecting. That's the long and the short of my reaction to Grant Heslov's The Men Who Stare at Goats. You go in expecting something goofy that maybe goes nowhere, but come out on the other side quite pleased at the film. Ewan McGregor is a wonderful comic foil for George Clooney, who in turn gets to pal around with Jeff Bridges' "The Dude" and Kevin Spacey. The secret to this movie, one I continually forget to mention, is that Jedi powers are attainable only with a mustache. Watch The Men Who Stare at Goats and disagree.

Up - If the first fifteen minutes, which set up the story of Carl and Ellie Fredrickson, doesn't tug at your heartstrings, I can't help you. You might even be more of a heartless robot than the Cap'n is, because Up had me from minute one. To its credit, the film quickly turns from tearjerker to adventure and whisks you along for the ride. I have the distinct impression that Coraline will probably take the Best Animated Film award from Up because it's not Pixar, but I cannot agree with that decision. Between Up, Wall-E, and Ratatouille, Pixar is on such a roll that I just don't think that Coraline, as good as it is, is the better film.

Drag Me to Hell - Sam Raimi made me eat crow, and I've never been happier to do it. I hate, HATE Ghost House movies like The Grudge and Boogeyman, and I loathe PG13 horror films that rely on cheap shocks in lieu of good, lasting chills. It turns out that so does Sam Raimi, because he took Ghost House and PG13 horror back to school to show us how it's done. Drag Me to Hell is funny, it's scary, it's cleverly manipulative in scares, and Alison Lohman brings a sense of sympathy that Bruce Campbell could not have (no slight on Bruce, but at this point we revel in Raimi torturing him). The running gags involving horrible liquids going into Lohman's mouth, or the gypsy woman ripping her hair out, to the twisted seance or the anvil!

Folks, you just don't know what you missed by skipping this. I nearly skipped it, and the Cap'n is sure glad he didn't. This is the kind of horror that gets an audience behind it, one that doles out the guffaws and the screams in equal measure.

Thirst - It wasn't until I watched Lady Vengeance several weeks later that Chan-wook Park's Thirst really made sense. I thought the jump from Oldboy to Thirst was a bit odd, even if I really enjoyed Thirst, but all of the black comedy that Park's vampire film carries is evident in Lady Vengeance: the music choices, the bizarre dream sequences, the nochalant approach to violence. I realize that people are pretty "vampired" out right now, but just as seriously as I advocated Let the Right One In, so too must I insist you watch Thirst. It's funnier, for what that's worth.

Anvil: The Story of Anvil - Both hilarious and pathetic. Hilarious, because Anvil has the worst luck in the history of metal bands: This is Spinal Tap couldn't make up half of the shitty things that Anvil have to put up with while on tour. Pathetic, because Lipps and Robb Reiner really want the band to work out. They never got there, when so many others did, and the sense of hope tainted by disappointment really moves Anvil: The Story of Anvil from Behind the Music to something greater.

District 9 - I'm still in awe of how well put together the Johannesburg of District 9 is. Of how the film is not afraid to let characters behave selfishly and betray others for their own benefit. I'm intrigued at the ways the story can continue, and how well Neill Blomkamp toys with your expectations about the "found footage", or the documentary that frames the entire narrative. Like Moon, District 9 is science fiction that's willing to be more than silly "kid's" stuff, one where the violence is disturbing rather than merely gratuitous, and that invites you to go back and follow the details from opening to closing. Bravo.

The Hangover - The sense of impending doom from Bradley Cooper's "we fucked up." at the opening promises you a dangerous experience, and with the three man squad of Cooper, Helms, and Galifianakis, I'm ready to travel down that road again with them any time. There's no real redeeming message about film here, just a ride of pure fun with some true howlers of plot twists.

Observe and Report - After my review, which I feel people took as negative, I stepped back to think about Observe and Report. Normally, something I feel so conflicted about would make it to the "Honorable Mentions" category, but for Observe and Report to affect me the way it did, there's something greater at work in the mind of Jody Hill. I'll be revisiting this film again soon...

Tyson - Mike Tyson, in this documentary, is more than simply the beating machine or the washed up tabloid punchline; he is, at times, an awkward philosopher of his own life. There are very few things he won't talk about, and the portrait he paints is seldom flattering or self serving. Nevertheless, Tyson is the kind of documentary you put on and can't pull your eyes away for one moment, even if you know the "greatest hits".

Zombieland - Like The Hangover, Zombieland makes no pretenses about being "high art". It is a film of pure, unadulterated fun, a zombie film that realizes the survivors of any apocalypse are likely to be just as bent and out of shape as their undead counterparts. Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg are a team that could carry another Zombieland or a dozen other kinds of movies. I love the way Zombieland's opening credits spoof Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead titles, while all the time reminding you that this is a horror-comedy. Sure, it may lack much in the way of deep social commentary, but dammit: Zombieland is fun!

and a special "Finally!" exception for Trick R Treat, my new favorite Halloween movie! - I realize that Trick R Treat was made in 2007, and that it's been traveling around as a "Roadshow" attraction since then, but when the Blu Ray finally arrived in time for Halloween, I understood what the hoopla was about. It is a criminal shame to withhold this film from audiences, when Michael Dougherty so clearly gets and loves what's scary about Halloween and horror films. Plus, it's a great anthology film, something we get so few of any more. I really hope that the success of the dvd and Blu Ray sales (which sold out widely on the day of release) push Warner Brothers to green light another Trick R Treat anthology, but at the very least I now have one movie that's guaranteed for every Horror Fest from here on out.


I wish I'd seen's for 2009: Big Fan, The Road, Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, Where the Wild Things Are, Antichrist, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, Best Worst Movie, and The Informant!

Blogorium Review: Thirst

It's nice to know that just because American vampires are becoming garbage and the domain of teenage girls, that somewhere overseas people are getting it right. First came Let the Right One In, an especially potent blend of vampirism and adolescence from Sweden, and now Thirst (Bakjwi), the newest film from Chan-Wook Park (Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance).

When I was describing Thirst a few weeks back, I mentioned that the film was about Catholic Father Sang-hyeon (Kang-Ho Song) who becomes a vampire through a blood transfusion. The transfusion occurs because he willingly contracts the (fictional) EV virus in a laboratory as an act of martyrdom. At the time, I imagined that in some way shape or form that Park was using this hook to set up a serious moral quandry about being a man of faith and a vampire. Not quite.

Thirst does deal, in minor ways, with Sang-hyeon's morality after turning, but that's hardly the only concern of the film. Sang-hyeon becomes something of a messianic figure after his "miraculous" cure, which remains a faint thread through the film, although not quite to the degree I expected. In Thirst, vampirism is still a source of super strength, leaping, and healing, but any disease you turn with will begin manifesting again without persistent feeding. I was happy that Park adheres to most of the vampire "rules" (the exception being reflections, but because he breaks it for shot composition purposes, I'll let it slide). And yet, the strange ways Sang-hyeon rationalizes finding blood is also not the primary objective.

Much of Thirst is a black comedy, with traces of film noir and ghost stories. Sang-hyeon falls in love with Tae-ju (Ok-bin Kim), the wife of a childhood friend, and at her suggestion, he helps murder the husband and eventually turns her. And Tae-ju is the last femme fatale you want to give super strength and bloodlust to.

Despite how dark much of this sounds, Thirst is actually very funny. IMDB lists the film as a Horror / Drama, but to ignore the comedy robs Thirst of its greatest weapon. Park treats the vampires with a disturbingly comic edge, in addition to a number of twisted developments in the second half of the film. At times I was reminded faintly of Double Indemnity crossed with the last scene in Very Bad Things, which is a marriage that could only work in Thirst. The tone of the film never gets bogged down in moral wrestling, even when Sang-hyeon's ethics clash with Tae-ju's. Lady Ra (Hae-sook Kim), the mother of deceased Kang-woo (Ha-kyun Shin), does a lot of work with very little, since she spends the second half of the film paralyzed.

Oh, and there are Tae-ju's hallucinations, or nightmares. That's when the movie gets verrrrry weird for a spell. That, and what I cannot prove but would suggest is a nod to Let the Right One In - while Sang-hyeon is receiving absolution, he begins pouring blood from his skull, eye sockets, and ears, not unlike what happens when Eli enters uninvited.

The ending (which I will not spoil here), is horrifying, hilarious, and sadly sweet. For a vampire movie that blends black comedy with film noir, there's really only one way Thirst could end, and despite the reminiscence to Blade II and 30 Days of Night, I found the closing of the film to be utterly appropriate.

For fans of Park's other films, expect to see something a little different. The drowning scene, at times, reminded me tonally of early Peter Jackson, and that is perhaps the best thing to keep in mind when watching Thirst. If you aren't laughing during sections of this film, Thirst may not be for you. For anyone who enjoyed Let the Right One In, or other non-conventional vampire films, I highly recommend Thirst. Now you'll have two recent movies to counter the masses with.