Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust

Director
Yoshiaki Kawajiri
Production
Filmlink International, Madhouse
Country of origin
Japan
Format
Film
Year
2000

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust

By Taiso
23rd May 04

For years the original Vampire Hunter D has endured as a favored offering amongst many fans in the anime community. Personally, I didn't think much of it when I saw it. A little too long, a little too crudely executed and a dull main character without a real stake in the events playing out are a bad combination when trying to produce a quality piece of entertainment. So when word that the highly anticipated sequel, Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust was going to screen in US theaters near the end of the summer, I had to ask myself: why should I go see it? I didn't care much for the first one…what could the sequel possibly offer? After mulling it over, I decided that any anime released theatrically that didn't involve tentacle porn was worth checking out; how often does an American get such an opportunity? So I went with my girlfriend and a number of my friends and decided to cast a very scrutinizing eye on the big screen as the drama unfolded. Here's what I thought.

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is a pretty engaging film overall. I wasn't even aware that an hour and forty minutes had passed by once the end credits started crawling up the screen. Any movie where you aren't checking your watch has to be a good one. The animation was awesome, the character designs were very crisp and reminiscent of Ninja Scroll (a good thing) and the soundtrack is powerful and sounds highly produced; this is very epic stuff. The story itself is compelling, but at the same times makes you wish it were a little longer, or at the very least spent more time focusing on the principle characters. It still astonishes me that a character introduced in the last twenty minutes of the film is the true culprit behind everything. That is sloppy storytelling in my opinion. So, even though the film was entertaining, I don't think the events that play out were crafted into a seamless whole as well as they could have been. Bearing in mind that everything else is right with this film, here are the parts I felt needed a little work.

D is a pretty dull character, to be honest. I sympathize with the plight of the writers in trying to handle him to the fans' satisfaction: he's someone whose identity is indelibly marked in the minds of his fans, and because of that he can never change. If they change him, he'd no longer be D. But if they don't change him, he can never be anything MORE than D. D's a ‘Danpeal' (that's how it's spelled in the film), a half vampire hunting down and killing other vampires for money. Something tells me D wouldn't charge a fee for his services if he didn't dislike humans so much. He never comes out and says ‘I hate humans, so give me money', but there are strong hints that he was abused by humans long ago and for that reason doesn't feel he needs to do them any favors, by and large. I also get the feeling that he would kill most vampires because he sees it as his duty to rid the world of such a scourge. He frowns upon the notion that people are nothing more than cattle to be eaten and discarded, and he realizes that the time of vampires is coming to an end. He's just speeding that process along, you see. So why do I call him ‘dull'? Because his speech pattern and his mannerisms make me feel like a narcoleptic. That's part of the static nature of D's appeal, and I prefer more emotional characters. The producers of Bloodlust can't change him and still expect to maintain his appeal with the fan base. As a result of this, his purpose will never end and he will never have anything to realistically look forward to. You almost get the impression that he doesn't want to even live but can't end it all because of the self imposed responsibility he has. He is handled well enough as a static character entering the lives and destinies of others, much in the same way Kenshiro affects the lives of others in Hokuto No Ken/Fist Of The Northstar. The difference, obviously, is that Kenshiro has a romantic reunion with Yuria/Julia (however you like it) to look forward to, and revenge against Shin to motivate his sense of justice. D, on the other hand, is like the Terminator: one purpose that can not be diverted and no microchip setting you can switch so that he doesn't ‘talk like such a dork all the time', to quote Ed Furlong. If you like the idea of the Terminator as a lead character, D is along those same lines. He still has the talking hand to add moments of levity: "You're not a bad person, D...you just dress bad." it tells him at one point. Hyoh hyoh hyoh. Now that's funny.

The other characters are there mostly to die, which is a shame because I hate when interesting concepts are used solely as fodder to make the perils seem all the more deadly-do the writers even realize it when they've created supporting cast members more compelling than the principles? I call this the "Piccolo" syndrome in anime; want to show how tough a Dragonball Z bad guy is? Have him beat up Piccolo. That'll learn the Z warriors, but it'll also learn people with good taste with the ability to recognize well told stories to change the channel. The same thing happens in D to the team of bounty hunters racing to beat him to the punch in killing the vampire and rescuing the girl. They're well portrayed characters worthy of better treatment but they get wiped out in hackneyed fashion (especially their leader, who bites it in VERY lame fashion) as a way to convey the sense that not just ANYONE can rescue the girl from the vampire. Only problem is…we know D is a badass already.

Killing these characters doesn't bring us to any new realizations about D's strength. That being said, I don't really know what other purpose the cast served, except for maybe carrying the plot so D could wander in at will and be all quiet and ominous as he dispenses justice. If these characters are carrying the plot…shouldn't the movie be about them?

The vampire character (don't remember his name, sorry) is the best of the new characters. His quest is one very much in the romanticized vein that vampires in modern stories are handled; they are not villains or monsters, but tormented souls that seek to escape their cruel existence by finding solace in worthwhile crucibles that they can pour their entire beings into.

As for the true villain of the story, let's just say she doesn't have nearly enough screen time to establish herself as anything more than another person for D to have to kill. Kind of disappointing, actually...I would have liked for Carmilla to be a more obvious presence in the story so that her actions would have proper impact. Instead, you have all of this other…stuff going on, and right before the movie ends we get an ‘oh, by the way'. Like I said…sloppy. But check her out…she bears a slight resemblance to Gary Oldman's Transylvanian stylings in Bram Stoker's Dracula.

But again, with all of this said, I stress that the movie was very satisfying…I just have a way of elaborating more expertly on what could have been done to tighten things up a bit more.

Somebody at www.neo-geo.com asked what the comparison was between Bloodlust and the recent Blood. Here it is.

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust is pure post-apocalyptic gothic fantasy (huh?). Blood: The Last Vampire is contemporary dark fiction. People that like the simple action and storytelling of Ninja Scroll will choose Bloodlust. People that prefer more intuitively told stories will recognize Blood as the better offering, even though it's barely half as long as Bloodlust.

I'll make one more comparison. In Bloodlust, D comes off as boring because his task is so monumental that he has a greater sense of patience about things. Blood's Saya seems more desperate and intense by comparison: there is a rage of emotion beneath those angry eyes and that full lipped pout. Saya is struggling to right some terrible wrong that has happened and seems to be a very touchy and explosive person. I'm afraid of Saya, and I fear for her safety at the same time; I want Saya to win, to protect me from the evil, to save us all from the Chiropterans, regardless of how mean spirited she may be. Even if she's doing it for her own reasons, she understands the danger that is posed by allowing her enemy to exist. Conversely, D is just roaming about racking up kills and biding his time in between slayings. For D, his quest is part of evolution's mandate: the time of vampires is coming to a close. D's patience in this matter removes any sense of urgency (has he gotten so old that this is now some kind of self conditioned programming?). That kind of attitude may be good for D, but if I'm going to relate to the character I need for him to be a little more human, especially if I only get him in feature length doses every twelve years or so. And no, freaking out and becoming a vampire once per movie doesn't really do it for me; D isn't giving in to passion as much as he's transforming into a different being entirely. Call it the philosophical difference between Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader with bloodsucking. And snarling and drooling.

My opinion? Bloodlust is a great adventure and I'll get the DVD when it comes out, but Blood's dark atmosphere, greater sense of storytelling immersion and moody execution is more my speed. If a gun was put to my head and I was told to pick one, Blood would still make it into the DVD player first.

8/10

-- Taiso 23rd May 04

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust Images