Shadowland
Shadowland
| 30 November 2010 (USA)
Shadowland Trailers

A taut reinvention of vampire lore, Shadowland opens in modern day North America, where construction workers uncover an old stone cross and what appears to be a wooden stake. They remove the stake from the ground, allowing Laura (Caitlin McIntosh), a slumbering vampire, to revive and rise from the earth. Beaten and weak, Laura is unable to speak, remember who she is, or even the fact that she is a vampire! As Laura attempts to make sense of the strange new world around her, she begins to remember not only an idyllic human life in 1897 but the handsome Lazarus (Carlos Antonio León), a mysterious lover who may not have had her best interests in mind. Soon Julian (Jason Contini), a world-weary vampire hunter employed by the church, begins tracking Laura, but as he closes in for the kill he learns that things are not what they seem.

Reviews
Other View

*****Note: No Significant Spoilers. Safe to Read. "Spoilers" Claimed for CYA reasons*****I just wrote a nice, detailed review. However one of IMDb's MANY algorithms decided to dump it in its entirety as I used a repeated word to denote the end of a paragraph or maybe it just timed out. In any case I'm tired but I'll give it another shot.I won't waste words on the thick folks who, lacking sex, non-stop violence and gore in this movie, didn't "get" it and rated it poorly. There were also POSSIBLE shill reviews I found a bit too praise-heavy and dropping names like the gut remains of food poisoning. Generally, I will slam a film that contains shill reviews as they are insultingly stupid and obvious attempts to generate revenue by lying about a film so people will buy it, carrying home a real stinker to their unsuspecting family. It's FRAUD!!!! But in this ONE case, said shill BS will be ignored. Without a doubt this film had a low, low, budget. But what they accomplished with those pennies was impressive. Apparently, a good director/producer/editor can do a lot with very little! Though I have to say this film could have been a first class indie with a few more bucks. It is still very a worthwhile.This movie was unique, interesting and refreshing. The characterization was, overall, quite good. I like the lead character and cared about what happened to her. She was a convincing actress and played her character well. I didn't care for the lead male but that was obviously intended as his acting was mostly good. The lead male vampire did little acting and what he did do didn't appear up to snuff. That noted, I may have been excessively distracted by his ill-fitting suit, awful, fake and bizarrely waxed mustache and precariously perched, a too large for his smallish head, immense top-hat which looked about to flop or drop to his narrow shoulders! The poor fellow never had a chance. Hardly the tall, dark and handsome, rakish playboy he was purported to be!The actors/actresses with small roles varied from believable and good to unbelievable and bad. The owner of the diner with a largish minor role was quite good, likable and believable. The prime wino gets an honorable mention. Overall, the actors playing the police were pretty bad. They were stiff and sounded as though they were reading their lines from cue cards.The story was engrossing. The plot, while not brand new, has not been done excessively and this film gave it an unexpected twist. The female lead vampire was strangely convincing despite the odd (by then vampire standards) and notably different than expected, quirky parallel of the film's distinctiveness. Overall, the movie had quite decent production values for such a tiny budget. Photography was professional with well-framed action, close-ups and environs. Sound was clear and consistent with no background music covering the actor's dialogue. Which I admit infuriates me and will cause me to slam a picture. With today's technology, there is NO excuse for blaring background music, sound levels precariously dropping then shooting up, hurting ears and damaging speakers! Audio should be heard and not seen. Seeing my wife constantly adjusting the sound controls is a death knell for a movie! Happily, not the case here!This will not be the "movie of the year". Nonetheless, it drew me in and kept me interested and entertained. It had nice visuals like the contrast between the pastoral green and wooded rolling hills surrounding the restored red brick and painted wood old town. An unusual setting for a vampire movie which again added to the distinctive story. Watch this keeping in mind: it's extremely modest budget, the newness of the cast and production team, an apparent first or at least very early film for the director: and you will be pleasantly surprised. Other View

... View More
a_baron

This off-beat vampire film is a superior presentation. In 1897, our blonde, ill-fated damsel is put to death as a vampire. A century and more later she is accidentally resurrected by a workman, part of a crew who are doing some work for the local church. She crawls out of her grave not only covered in mud and bloodied from her execution but struck dumb (initially) and with no memory of her misfortune, nor it appears of her previous life, and of course no idea how long she has been interred. Although a vampire, she walks in the sunlight, and is, as you would be if you hadn't eaten for 111 years, ravenously hungry. As slowly she adapts to traffic, aircraft, and not least, biros, things aren't looking at all bad for her. She scavenges some clothes aided by an ability to move only slightly less quickly than the Flash, and seeks out her former residence. She might have adapted to the 21st Century perhaps even without reverting to type, but unfortunately there is a vampire hunter in close pursuit who wants to save her soul in classical fashion. That is as much as you need to know apart from the film having a decent soundtrack; suffice it to say that even allowing for the development of the film-makers' craft, Bela Lugosi comes a poor second to the feisty Caitlin McIntosh.

... View More
Paul Magne Haakonsen

Well I found "Shadowland" to be a rather enjoyable movie on one hand, but on the other hand there was just something crucial missing from it to make it great.The storyline was good enough, although you don't really get any chance or any real deep insight as to whom the characters are, and they come off as rather soulless, shallow characters, which is a shame. The story does, however, delve a bit into the background of Laura (played by Caitlin McIntosh), but it is nowhere near any point as being where it really establishes any real depth to her character. And as for the mysterious hunter Julian (played by Jason Contini), then we are given even less insight to his story and background.So for some odd reason, the movie is basically about an hour and forty minutes of watching a vampire lady trying to track back to her familiar places in the time where she was from, while a hunter is trying to track her down. This is basically the essential core of the movie and the entire feature concept. Sort of lacking depth and levels in which the audience can get immersed.The acting was actually good enough for a movie of this budget. And I personally do think that the people hired for the various roles were doing quite alright, and was at no point amateurish and pathetic at acting as you tend to experience in movies of this kind. So thumbs up on that aspect at least."Shadowland" doesn't make use of a lot of special effects, nor does it make a lot of use of CGI. The little that was used was used in moderation and worked out well enough to illustrate the points trying to be achieved. However, there was one thing that was really sort of anti-climatic; it was when Laura was screaming in the church and the windows had to be blown out. It looked like a small rock was just randomly tossed through the windows, taking out a small fragment of the glass only. It was hilarious, and it didn't work out on any level at all.Oddly enough, there is just something about "Shadowland" that makes you keep watching right up to the very end. There is some kind of strange lure to the movie, despite it not really having much aspect or depth. So the director did do something right after all.For a vampire movie, then "Shadowland" was somewhat of a rather tame experience. And personally, I didn't fully grasp the idea of having an extra set of fangs, and especially not have them placed where they were. It made the vampire look sort of retarded in a way. Kind of hard to take it serious when the mouth was widened by an extra set of fangs, and it would cause them to speak with an impediment."Shadowland" is a movie that doesn't offer much on most levels, but strangely enough manages to keep you lured in for the entire length of the feature. And because of this, I have to settle on giving "Shadowland" a 5/10 rating.

... View More
kevin-cr

Although this movie kept me entertained to a level in which i wanted to see how far they would take it, it's not something i would consider watching again.The acting was weak at best but not so much that you couldn't watch it or turn away in disgust since it did have its moments, this will never win any awards but it is entertaining.The portrayal of vampires was indeed its weakest part considering what fiction dictates to be a correct form for vampires, you shall see what i mean if you decide to watch it, and although my rating is low, the story is sound and is defiantly worth a one time watch.

... View More