I tend to be the kind of person to give grades partly on ambition and partly on the result. So a movie with good ambitions but a dreadful final product can still get a reasonable grade. I found "Frostbiten" to have the ambition although the end result didn't really live up to the hype.
Vampire movies are not my favorite genre to say the least. Whether it's the anemic gay vampires of "Interview with Tom Cruise" (or whatever it was called?) or the macho vampires with silly accents in outings like "Van Helsing" or other action-movies. Usually Vampires work so much better when there is comedy involved so in that regard i think that this movie went the right way, focusing on comedy rather than horror.
So, what works? Well the effects are very good and the production values high, which is a very good start. The actors are a mixed offering with some veterans doing pretty well, the younger actors giving a mixed set of performances. From pretty good to quite awful. In the end though the acting is not bad enough to ruin the movie, nor is it good enough to leave a lasting impression (the only exception being Måns Nathanaelson who has some of the funniest scenes in the movie).
Something that did leave a lasting impression with me though was the lousy script. Which is a real shame. Considering that they had the proper effects, decent actors and a decent setting (northern Sweden with constant arctic night). Not that Swedish movies usually have the most coherent or interesting scripts, but a Vampire-comedy doesn't really require Shakespeare, just someone who can make a simple yet effective story. This movie fails quite miserably in that. Especially the ending is unusually pathetic.
So the ambitions were good, the results were not as good. What i would like next time they make a Swedish vampire movie is to see the film-makers really go crazy. Just go completely wild. That's what this movie needed, the good old "From Dusk till Dawn"-treatment where you start sensibly and finish senseless. To paraphrase the British SAS: Who dares wins!
Vampire movies are not my favorite genre to say the least. Whether it's the anemic gay vampires of "Interview with Tom Cruise" (or whatever it was called?) or the macho vampires with silly accents in outings like "Van Helsing" or other action-movies. Usually Vampires work so much better when there is comedy involved so in that regard i think that this movie went the right way, focusing on comedy rather than horror.
So, what works? Well the effects are very good and the production values high, which is a very good start. The actors are a mixed offering with some veterans doing pretty well, the younger actors giving a mixed set of performances. From pretty good to quite awful. In the end though the acting is not bad enough to ruin the movie, nor is it good enough to leave a lasting impression (the only exception being Måns Nathanaelson who has some of the funniest scenes in the movie).
Something that did leave a lasting impression with me though was the lousy script. Which is a real shame. Considering that they had the proper effects, decent actors and a decent setting (northern Sweden with constant arctic night). Not that Swedish movies usually have the most coherent or interesting scripts, but a Vampire-comedy doesn't really require Shakespeare, just someone who can make a simple yet effective story. This movie fails quite miserably in that. Especially the ending is unusually pathetic.
So the ambitions were good, the results were not as good. What i would like next time they make a Swedish vampire movie is to see the film-makers really go crazy. Just go completely wild. That's what this movie needed, the good old "From Dusk till Dawn"-treatment where you start sensibly and finish senseless. To paraphrase the British SAS: Who dares wins!