Near Dark and The Lost Boys

 It's almost impossible not to compare Near Dark with The Lost Boys. Both vampire movies came out in 1987. They both tell the story of a young man who gets entangled with a group of vampires because of his romantic interest in a female of the "pack". The young men both come from a single parent family unit and have a younger sibling intent on saving them. One movie has Corey Feldman in a role, the other was produced by Edward S. Feldman (though apparently the two are not related). There are siblings on the two though, as Joshua John Miller who plays Homer in Near dark is brothers with Jason Patric of The Lost Boys. But there are big differences, too.

For starters, while both have achieved a kind of cult status over the years, The Lost Boys was very successful at the time of it's release while Near Dark was less well known and less celebrated. The Lost Boys is more traditional in it's portrayal of vampires, with the added twist of making them sort of a juvenile delinquent gang, while Near Dark showed them as being more of an Old West type of gang, and more violent to boot. While The Lost Boys seemed to have the full support of it's studio, Near Dark was made by a studio that was failing and could not afford to give it the media push it deserved. In addition, director Kathryn Bigelow was told she had five days to prove that she knew what she was doing or she would be fired. Incidentally there is a parallel to this in the movie, where newbie vampire Caleb is given a week to show he can be a good vampire or he will be killed.

Many have said that it was the lack of promotional budget that doomed Near Dark to not performing as well as The Lost Boys. While it certainly didn't help, I'm not sure it would have done so even with equal promotion. Near Dark was made because the makers wanted to make a western, but since those were out of style they thought this was a way to "back door" one. The word vampire is never uttered. There are no fangs. It's almost like they were afraid to embrace what they were doing. The Lost Boys went all in on the concept. It also has a sleeker, if (only slightly) less interesting look. And it focuses a lot on the two Coreys, and was the beginning of their run as 80's box office money printing. Near Dark has some issues with the story being a bit threadbare, motivations at times being murky, and (despite the fact that it was taken straight from the Dracula novel) the idea of curing vampirism with a blood transfusion is just dumb. If regular human blood cured the condition, vampires would be cured every time they fed.

But Near Dark has it's strengths too. It considers the plight of a vampire turned before reaching maturity (after the novel Interview With the Vampire but before the movie). It is more adult oriented, violent, and grim. Off hand I can only think of a couple of other vampire movies that involve a big shoot out scene. Of course they have Bill Paxton playing the loose cannon which is always a sure fire win. It doesn't have the humor of The Lost Boys, which is a big element that made that movie more palatable to general audiences, but I think it has more intriguing hints about the pasts of the vampires in the gang. Both movies have tremendous performances in them, especially by the vampire actors. But I have to admit that Near Dark had more moments that made me say "Wait, what?". If I had to choose one as being "better", I'd honestly have to side with The Lost Boys. But despite all the many similarities they are still very different movies and enjoyable for very different reasons. In fact, I'd recommend watching them in a double feature. I'd  also say that between the two Near Dark would be more ripe for an update as a series, taking it's time to explore the characters more fully. I'd feel more inclined to learn more about them than the vamps from The Lost Boys, although it would be terribly hard to find anyone who could replace Bill Paxton.