What are they (Charles and his mother)? Why are they afraid of cats? Why can they become invisible? Why can they make things become invisible? What's with the incest? What. The. *beep*.
Why do so many people think that the concept is good? It's *beep* stupid and it doesn't make any sense.
Let me see if I can't answer some of your questions. Charles and his mother are Sleepwalkers, an ancient race of nomadic, shapeshifting energy vampires who feed off the lifeforce of virgin women. Though they normally maintain a human form, they can transform (partially or fully) into human-sized bipedal werecats (presumably their natural form) at will. They are considerably more resilient than humans and have powers of both telekinesis and illusion. Their one weakness is cats, who are not only able to see through their illusions but whose claws are capable of inflicting severe to fatal wounds upon them.
In the opening credits we see various historical artifacts showing a fractured chronology of exploits of Sleepwalkers throughout the ages with the first dating them back to Ancient Egyptian times. To me, the deliberate juxaposition inferred that they are either decendents of Bast and/or Sekhmet (the Egyptian Cat Goddesses) that fell from grace or that they belong to a race that are the supernatual nemesis of Bast and/or Sekhmet.
The Sleepwalkers having intercourse (or incest as you put it) had less to do with sex and was the means by which they would feed each other. If you look, when they are involved in the act, an unmotivated light is actually forming beneath them as if they are transferring energy between the two of them. Then later in that scene, we can see that the energy they generate (even from not having eaten for a while) is great from looking at the window of the room that they are in. It actually manifests itself in an odd blue light and due to our culture, (which I'm sure is different from theirs) we interpret that as intercourse. I mean in vampire lore, Vampires do not engage in the act of sex and merely use it as a tool to lure victims for themselves to feed on.
For the most part I enjoyed the film and will proudly proclaim that I own a copy of it on DVD. I was drawn into the the mythos of the film and wished they would've delved into it more. So if that point would've been corrected I think it would've improved things. I think the concept was very original but the execution was flawed and the editing at times along with the shifts in tone hurt what could've been a very good film. If you have any other questions please let me know and I'd be happy to answer them.
[deleted]
It is about how in the early 90's anything with Steven King's name on it could get made into a movie, no matter how stupid. I'm suprised they didn't make his luggage tags into a movie.
He asked us, "Be you angels?"
and we said, "NAY, we are but men," ROCK!
I'm a fan and watched this last night via netflix and I was left with such an odd feeling about the film. I agree with the OP, it just didn't really explain anything in it and was too short for all the questions it brought up... I would read the story because my guess is that it's better but I would never rush to read it after this film... It's just, weird in a way that doesn't work.
shareThere was never a book to speak of. King wrote it for the screen.
shareAs the previous poster said, Steven King's name meant a lot more then. I believe the trailer hyped this even more.
I purchased many Horror and film magazines from this time period a few years ago. I seem to recall there being a few articles on this film in them. From what I remember, the director was trying to tell a story about a small town in addition to the sleepwalker element. I don't think the camp nature is deliberate at all either.
You're just not that smart are you?
shareit's a live-action grimm's fairy tale.
share