Near Dark

1987 "They can only kill you once, but they can terrify you forever."
6.9| 1h34m| R| en| More Info
Released: 02 October 1987 Released
Producted By: DEG
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A farm boy reluctantly becomes a member of the undead when a girl he meets turns out to be part of a band of vampires who roam the highways in stolen cars.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with AMC+

Director

Producted By

DEG

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!
Bereamic Awesome Movie
Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
videorama-759-859391 Near Dark is a different kind of vampire flick, if put on a more realistic scare, with an interesting run through of story. Smitten Caleb, a farm boy (Pasdar, a good and versatile actor) falls for lovely Mae (Wright at her most sexiest). As misfortune would have it, she part of a troupe of vampires, and when Caleb is bitten, he starts to undergo a real malady, where he's kidnapped by lead vampire Henrickson, and co, as being a liability. Also being subjected to daylight, after his attack, his flesh starts to sear, where most of the film, he stays this way, looking very much like someone who needs a fix. Near Dark was made by a few people responsible for the 86 cult flick, The Hitcher, but this one is definitely no Hitcher. It's written by Eric "Hitcher" Red, whose writes brilliant description, which is better than his dialogue. It is a smart film, but really doesn't grab me that much, playing off more as a B grade. The actors are good, notably Pasdar, Wright, young Joshua Miller, such a naturally talented kid actor, who brings so much to his roles, if this and River's Edge are any indication. Of course, wild actor Paxton, too, is the other notable performance, typically as another loose cannon, but a funny scene stealing one. I like Kathryn Bigelow's movies, but this falls short of her others. It has some nasty violence, as well as a lot of bloodsucking. One of the best things about is the music by Tangerine Dream. I agree this an overrated film, completely. What I can't understand, is how Wright and Pasdar were fixed up, so they were immune to getting burnt up from sunlight. What did his father, Loy (Future Cop, Thomerson) do. Definitely not without interest. You give it your 90 minutes in court. I have a feeling, you could be another one who over rates it.
Seth_Rogue_One I watched the trailer for this, saw the poster and wasn't really impressed... But then I read some reviews saying that it's better than 'The Lost Boys (1987)' I thought I'd give it a go still.Now I never expected it to be true that it was better than 'The Lost Boys' as that's one of my favourite horror movies HOWEVER I did expect it not to be a generic bore-fest with a complete lack of humour or interesting characters, at least SOMETHING that would even make it WORTHY of being compared to the classic that is 'The Lost Boys'.But no such luck, perhaps if you saw it in it's hey-day it will have a nostalgia level to it that still makes it likable (which surely is a part of why I like 'The Lost Boys' so much) but as a new watch in 2016 I felt it was frustratingly trite.
TheRedDeath30 As a lover and frequent viewer of films in general (and horror specifically), I find that my opinion of movies fall into a few general categories. There are those movies that you fall in love with from the first viewing and will always love. On the opposite end of the spectrum are those movies that you hate and no amount of retrospection will ever change that. In the middle of those two polar ends are, to be honest, the majority of movies. Now, I'll split those as well. Sometimes you find a movie that doesn't make much of an impression either way, but repeated viewings make you appreciate the nuances of the film. Sometimes, though, you find that you the more you watch a movie, the less it holds up, and your opinion of it dwindles as times goes on. This is my relationship with this movie.There are ardent defenders of this movie who will go to great lengths on the message board to insult any who dare to denounce this film. I would ask you to look at my rating. I still think this is above the average and better than a great deal of the horror films unleashed on audiences in the 80s. It's just that I've starting to see the cracks in the foundation of this as I watch it over the years.Let's start on the positives, which are what those defenders always want to praise. This movie (much like Carpenter's VAMPIRES later) does an admirable job of mixing the standard look and feel of a western film with a very horror-centric plot. You could, easily, remove the vampiric elements, give these villains black hats and still make this movie work as a western. In fact, one of the best things about the movie is the lack of generic vampire film lore. The word itself is never mentioned through the film. Though our monsters must protect themselves from sunlight, there is no garlic, no crosses, no coffins. This is certainly a much different breed of vampire.Lance Henriksen and Bill Paxton are the very best things about this movie, particularly Paxton's Severin. I find myself biding the time when he is off camera, sloughing through tedious romantic moments, in order to get to the meat of the movie and the mesmerizing presence of Paxton, who plays a vampire that is truly your worst nightmare. There is no suave sexiness and no pretty boy goth drama about him. He is a killer of man, pure and simple, and delights in his destiny. The scene that is usually mentioned is the slaughter in the bar and Paxton is the glue holding this scene together. The swift brutality that he shows to the patrons and the remorseless taking of life show a glee in killing that's hard not to appreciate in a twisted sort of way.The trouble with the movie, though, is that this band of vampires are really not the main attraction. The largest majority of his movie revolves around a farm boy, who meets one of these vampires in the opening scene. In typical Hollywood fashion, they fall in love after about 2 hours of knowing each other and begin to show the sort of deep devotion to each other that takes real time to develop in real life. She draws him into their world and it is this hero that is supposed to draw our empathy, he is the sole presence in this group who feels any sort of guilt and loss for the life he's left behind and the lives that he's required to take.I can't imagine that those scenes would have worked, in this movie, with any actors, though for immediate comparison I would look to THE LOST BOYS (it's obvious counterpoint) and the romantic relationship that develops in that movie. In THE LOST BOYS it is an integral plot point, but never feels like it draws away from the action itself. The romance in this one is painful to watch at times and draws away from any sense of tension and horror that is developed. The blame for this should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the two actors, Adrian Pasdar and Jenny Wright. It is no small wonder that neither had a very successful Hollywood career after this movie. They are not given great dialog to work with anyways and these two clunk their way through that dialog so much that we start hoping that Severin is just going to kill this kid off and end all of our misery. Perhaps in better hands these scenes could have worked, but alas we will never know. What we are left with is a movie with tons of potential, great plot, good cinematography and some great characters, that is ultimately killed by bad casting and wooden acting. It's easy to see why Bigelow became such a talented director, as she starts off with a promising debut, but in the end I'm not sure this even makes my top ten vampire movies.
Ben Larson Vampires in cowboy country? No, this is not some western, but a tale of drifters in the west that just happen to be children of the night.Kathryn Bigelow directed a winner her with familiar stars such as Adrian Pasdar from Heroes, who falls in love with a vampire played by Jenny Wright. Don't get excited. Wright keeps her shirt on unlike her previous skintastic appearances in Pink Floyd the Wall, The Wild Life and The World According to Garp.The drifters? How about Lance Henriksen, Bill Paxton, and Jenette Goldstein from Aliens. Cool, huh? One thing I have never seen in a vampire movie is the transformation back to human. This was a first. Of course, it had the usual fire and explosions after sunlight hits.An interesting twist on the usual and a fun flick.