Frost: Portrait of a Vampire (2001)
Review by Dindrane
Film:
DVD:

Written & Directed by Kevin Van Hook, based on his comic book
Starring Jeff Manzanares, C.R. Lister, Gary Busey, Zoe Paul, Karen Bailey

Features:

• Trailer
  
• Running audio commentary by writer/director Kevin Van Hook, cinematographer Matt Steinauer, visual FX supervisor Chadd B. Cole and visual FX artist Vince Di Meglio
  
• Storyboard gallery
  
• Deleted scene with optional commentary
  
• Special effects gallery
  

Released by: Artisan
Region: 1
Rating: R
Anamorphic: No

My Advice: Oh, HELL no.

Ostensibly based upon VAn Hook's own graphic novel Jack Frost, the movie Frost relates the tale of a mercenary named Nat McKenzie (Lister), who, while in Afghanistan with the titular Frost (Manzanares) and his mercenary band, is bitten by an evil creature believed by the locals to be a vampire. Time passes, and Nat and the mercenaries, sans Frost who has quit the business, are all slaughtered in South America working to install a new local dictator. Nat, however, survives and grows into full vampire powers. You would think of course, based on the title, that Frost is the vampire, but nope...it’s Nat. I guess “Nat” didn’t sound as scary as “Frost,” though, so they named the film after the painter/writer/burglar/mercenary/hero (?!) instead.

The plot holes are many and respectably varied. For example, why does shooting the Afghani vampire kill him, but later we need wood to kill a vampire? Can’t Frost just shoot Nat in the head with a regular old pistol bullet the way Nat shot that first vampire? Why does Nat want a showdown with Frost? Why have none of Nat’s other victims become vampires except his wife? And what do the problems with Frost’s eyes have to do with anything? Just writing about this thing depresses me.

Some things that work well in the comic milieu just don’t fly in a film, such as Nat’s plunge off the cliff, survival, and subsequent climb to the top. Another serious problem is that in comics, you can bypass several months or years with little discontinuity in the story; in film, this is harder to do, and there needs to be more flow to the story. The film jumps around in time and space, but instead of mirroring Nat’s disorientation in finding himself undead, it’s just bad and irritating.

What really gets me is that this film got a pretty decent DVD release. It has a nice, lengthy filmmaker’s commentary (where they don’t apologize once, but whatever), a letterbox (though not anamorphic) presentation, a storyboard gallery that is truly interesting, even to non-film school geeks, and also the trailer. This is really a solid bunch of extras and more than many (much better) films get. If only such worthy films as Kurosawa’s Dreams or the newest An Ideal Husband had been granted such attention by their producers.

The acting is uniformly awful. Gary Busey is just flat and uninteresting as the cop friend/art museum guy--oh, wait, he’s an arms dealer now, too. The leads of Frost and Nat are so bad that they’re hard to watch, even though the only glimmers of skill in this whole film come from Lister as Nat, as he makes a slightly (only slightly mind you) more convincing vampire than he does mercenary or normal guy. Go figure. From Nat’s wife to the other mercenaries, the acting is so egregious on every front that you’re left feeling that the producers could have found better actors during your last high school reunion. At least it’s consistent, I guess I'll give them that.

Overall, if you ever rent, much less buy, this film, you have to be out of your mind. It’s not even enough fun to MST3K it, but I guess you could try. Just don’t say I didn’t warn you.