Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
09.08.2008 9:47 am

‘True Blood’: Did you bite?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

HBO’s new vampire dramedy, “True Blood,” debuted Sunday night; I’ve seen the first two episodes, and I wanted to like it way more than I do. It’s from Alan Ball (”Six Feet Under”), based on a series of Southern Gothic vampire novels by Charlaine Harris, and the premise is intriguing: Thanks to synthetic blood developed by the Japanese, vampires can now live among us, but not everybody wants them to live next door.

Anna Pacquin (unrecognizable as the little girl from “The Piano”) is Sookie, a vampire-friendly waitress whose own talent/curse is to read people’s thoughts. Stephen Moyer is Bill, a vampire; they meet cute when she can’t read him. There’s a lot of dark humor and plenty of potentially interesting characters (way too many characters to sort out in the early going). I’m open to getting to know these quirky people in this odd world.

But “True Blood” is all over the place in tone. That’s a trademark of Ball’s, but here he really takes it to extremes — light to dark to very, very dark. There is sex so graphic that it seems gratuitous even for HBO. There is violence so extreme and prolonged that, watching it for the first time in a LA hotel room, late at night, I actually pulled the blanket over my head.

So, I remain both intrigued and repulsed by “True Blood,” and I’d love to hear from others who watched to get your reaction. 

       

10 comments

Comments are closed.

I thought it was little too sexy myself. I dont mind the hinting of sex like most show but to have almost have pornographic substance in it… Little too much in my opion. I could have done without,could have done without hearing the “C” word too.

— Eloeth
10:14 am September 8th, 2008

As a fan of the novels, I enjoyed True Blood. It follows the books almost exactly. At times it was a little bit ridiculous…like how Sookie constantly sticks her face about 2 inches away from who ever she is talking to at the time. Does anyone really do that? (Small gripe, sorry1) Also the sex was WAY TOO MUCH! I don’t have a problem with sexual content, but that was completely unexpected and pointless to the plot. Friends who have read the books also were a little bit taken aback by it. Please keep in mind that these are all “Vampire Smut” reading people, who know there is graphic sex in the books, but still were amazed.

The violence on the other hand, I thought was fitting. Yes, it was pretty extreme, but it doesn’t seem gratuitous like the sex does. It seems real and it is central to the plot. If they continue to follow the books as closely as the pilot did, expect much more of this. The books have extremely violent portions and the descriptions are very graphic.

All in all… I can’t wait to see the second episode! I am very pleased with the interpretation of the books, and I hope that it continues.

— Christie
10:44 am September 8th, 2008

People often talk about winning the “expectations game” in a political context, but I think it applies to things like movies and TV shows as well. When you expect something to be really good, it has to be brilliant to meet your expectations. Conversely, shows that you don’t expect much out of are often enjoyable despite having lower quality than others shows that you expected more of.

As a fan of Charlaine Harris’s novels, I had high expectations for “True Blood,” and I must say that it delivered. It wasn’t perfect (I found myself regretting my decision to have all the windows in my apartment open last night while some of the sex scenes were on and I now wonder what my neighbors think of me), but it lived up to my expectations and I’m looking forward to next week.

— david
12:54 pm September 8th, 2008

I enjoyed myself, but this is a show that could go either way. A lot of HBO shows start off a little too edgy and tone things down to a more reasonable level a few episodes in. Deadwood comes to mind. This feels like the kind of show that is going to take an entire season to decide if it is good or not. It will take that long, at least, to get to know even half the characters introduced last night.

We shall see. Entourage on the other hand needs to regain its form. Last night was fun, but nothing all that special. The vibe already feels too much like last season.

— MattK
12:58 pm September 8th, 2008

My girlfriend accused me of watching “vampire porn” but I loved the show!

— Nick
1:14 pm September 8th, 2008

Sorry, vampires just aren’t my ‘thing’.

— unpaidbill
2:03 pm September 8th, 2008

The first show was able to set up the main characters really well, demonstrating their quirkiness without becoming annoying. This series shows as lot of promise as long as it continues to poke fun at southern culture as well as re-defining vampire culture.

— Spencer Keimon
2:54 pm September 8th, 2008

First episode………….pretty good, I’m looking forward to the 2nd episode.

— RSC
3:38 pm September 8th, 2008

“True Blood” had all of the appropriate warnings at the beginning - Violence, Strong Sexual Content, Nudity and Adult Content/Language. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone especially someone who’s read the books.

Good grief, “Schindler’s List” had nudity! It was obvious what each sexual act entailed but there was no frontal nudity. All in all, not too different from what you see in other movies.

I was surprised to see William Sanderson playing the Sheriff. Recognized the voice before I payed attention to the face. I liked him in “Deadwood” and loved his character on “Newheart”.

I liked the show and I’ll hang in there to see what happens.

— Russ Weiss
5:29 pm September 8th, 2008

Yikes, I like this show BUT…. it is WAY too graphic as far as the meaningless sex scenes, that have no purpose. Its WAY over the top with the uncomfortable sex scenes.

— Keston
4:05 pm September 22nd, 2008