My Top 35 Halloween Favorites: Vampires

  To be quite honest, this movie may not really be good enough to recommend to anyone or even to include on this list.
But I do have it on this list simply because I think it's a great way to start off a list, whether it be about favorite horror films or just about any other subject matter.
Plus, any film that can take a tried-and-true horror genre like vampirism and imbue it with the sexual allure of girl-on-girl action, particularly during the cinematically stiff period of the early 70's, deserves some kind of credit.
So, strap-on a wooden stake or a massive black donkey-sized dong, and let's get going on a blood-soaked journey through many of my preferred choices when it comes to fright filled escapism.
  Or, if the mention of Vampyros Lesbos makes you feel the inclination, go watch some internet porn. Either way is a good way to "kill off" some time.



  BTW, if you think that putting this movie in the 30th spot is kind of cheating and not true to the nature of a list that's supposed to be about my " 30 favorite vampire movies " then just pretend that VL is not on this list and replace it with Dracula's Daughter. It's a 1936 sequel to the original B&W Dracula film starring Bela Lugosi. It focuses a countess who, as the title states, is the daughter of Dracula and who is depicted in the story with very strong overtones of lesbianism. Which means she probably would not mind at al that Vampy Lez is on this list.

  So, right off the “bat”, let me just say that Universal and Hammer Studios are two names that we can expect to see several times here in a list like this one. The fact that whenever Dracula Is lumped in with Frankenstein’s Monster, the Wolf Man, and the Mummy, the group, as a whole, are collectively known as the Universal Monsters, is an indication of just how popular and iconic this fearsome foursome had become under the banner of Universal Studios. During the late 1930’s and throughout the most of the 40’s, the films of these respective creatures made the studio lots of money. Not just from ticket sales but also from merchandise. However, as it is widely known by now, this was a popularity that had pretty much burned itself out by 50’s. 

  Luckily for Drac & Co., a small indie film production company from across the pond, Hammer, decided to take a stab at these guys, and established a series of reboots that made these terror titans major stars again. However, in the manner that motion picture trends tend to be cyclical, after going through a decade (the 60’s) of being popular again, by the time the 1970’s rolled in, once again, gruesome Gothic films were shambling around with one foot in the grave. With the horrormeisters at Hammer struggling with the genre, fans were treated only on occasion with a screen scare fare that featured the fright-infested faces of longstanding standbys such as Christopher Lee donning the cape of Count. And even though it was still cool to catch a momentary glimpse or two of the visceral visage of the vampire during this period of dread-filled draught, by this point in time, the scars were beginning to show.

 Here is a fear fantasy franchise, we learn that vampires and werewolves have been in a war against each other for centuries. An almost eternal battle that may soon coming to end with the introduction of Selene, a long-lived Death Dealer, an elite group of vampires who are assassins with lycans being their primary target.

 

  To be quite honest, I was never really a big fan of the Underground franchise in general. However, I do find this first chapter into the series pretty watchable.
A big part of the reason is because the monster-slaying she-protagonist of these stories, Selene. Clad from top to bottom in that tight body-forming leather outfit, she is a claret (if you don't know what that means, this is a golden opportunity for you to make good use of an online thesaurus) warrior woman who looks sexier that all hell. One of the few times that the most human of the characters makes me not notice the CGI effects that are supposed to be the major attraction of these films.
 Maybe not the most convincing reason to sway any other hardcore horror fan with a refined taste for sanguine cinema to go underground with this series, but it does make the blood flow (for the sake of saving what little respectability this entry contains, I will refrain from making a snide sophomoric quip of what part of the body that blood-rush would be concentrated in).

   I Am Legend sounded like a good movie in concept form. But then again, so do most movies. As in the case of most disappointments, it is usually the follow through that ends up screwing everything up.

  Will Smith as the lead wasn’t the worst pick to be the center of a last man on Earth type of plot, but IMO, slightly overrated during his time as one of the biggest stars of the business. As far of CGI, which had been reaching fever pitch in the industry due to spearheading companies like DreamWorks and Pixar, the special effects here were a bit off considering that this was stationed to be one of the most prominent blockbusters of the year.

But for me, the biggest problem came in the portrayal of its principal creature on which this particular Armageddon is supposed to be based on.

  My favorite era of the Universal Monsters will always be when they were at, well... Universal Studios, in the early 1940's. But coming in at a close second will always be their time under the blood splattered banner of Hammer Studios during the 60's.

  Both eras were fun and also the time when the creatures still had their lores intact, as opposed to today, when modern movie makers continually chip away those bits that gave each monster their most distinguishable traits and features.   That's one of the main reasons why Hammers' handling of the Universals, particularly of the trio at the top (the Wolfman, the Frankenstein Monster, and of course, the ol' Count here), holds such a high ranking for me. They tried their best to keep as much of the original lore to these creature characters as possible (particularly under the copyright infringement laws), and the only real change was the amount of the scarlet color of red that represented blood. And to those of us who were just kids back then, it seemed like Hammer was going through buckets and buckets of blood. Which is what made 'em so cool in our eyes. Because now, the studio was updating those Universal Monsters that we were so used to seeing in black and white, and adding the kind of color that made our favorite cool creature characters look even cooler. And in the process, reveal to a whole new generation of movie audiences that the Horror of Dracula was still very much alive.

 Even though the Frankenstein Monster gets first billing on this flick, the truth is, this was the first time Universal Studios did the Mash. They did the Monster Mash. That was the name that these movies that featured a gathering of iconic creatures such as Drac, Frank and Wolf Man. That is, before the song of the same name came along and completely stole the phrase. Now, because of the success of that graveyard smash, movies featuring the combination of Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankie M are now more often referred to as Monster Rallies instead.



  As far as this movie itself is concerned,
while I'm a big fan of Universal's original monster franchise, this is the first of the sequels where the decline in quality really begins to show (a big sign of Hollywood's slacking off on the series can be seen on the make-up job of the head and face of the Frankenstein Monster.)
  Now, of course, the fact that this particular creature feature was not named after his house, The Count's screen time hear is much shorter than Stitch-Head's or Fuzz-Face's, but still, this being the first time that the Big Three make an appearance all "under the same roof", in my opinion, makes it well worth mentioning in this list of blood-thirsty faves.
Plus, if you consider yourself in any way to be a true fan of the genre of the vampire, ya gotta check out the House of Frank just to see the King of Darkness sporting a top hat and tux. Never has Drak looked so debonair or so dashing.

  Count Dracula is looking to become king of the world. And not in that Titanic sort of way, either. The Baron of Bloodsuckers wants to plunge the planet into eternal darkness, but in order to do so, he seeks to round up a "universal" band of fellow creature colleagues to make his dream come true.


   

  Aliens come down from Outer space with a scheme that involves raising the earths dead as a warning for humans not to create a doomsday device that could wipe out the entire universe. 

   When "they" first started adapting the works of horror-meister Stephen King onto the big screen, it was a venture that was continually going up and down. And from what I recall, it tended to go down much more often than it went up. One of the main reasons for this was because, since Mr. King's novels were often so extensive, chock full of detailed multiple events happening at once, simplifying the stories down in order to fit within the confines a movie's short running time was a very tricky objective. Which proved to be the case when Salem's Lot, SK's second novel, was slated for a full feature film treatment. Eventually, after several rejected scripts of the movie adaptation, producers decided to instead try and make it into a television mini-series, which were all the rage during the 70's.
And it worked. At least, for the time-period in which it was made. The series was a big success, both in its ratings and in its critical reviews. And this was all done without sacrificing as much of the book's blood-filled innards as it would've required had it gone the more cinematic route.
 So, while this entry is really a mini-series instead of a movie, I hope that it's a fact that can be forgiven just this one time for the simple reason of its intention of being an adaption of a very good vampire novel and one that is "pure" of blood.

  In a couple of earlier entries, I explained what a "monster mash" movie is. I did this because even though most hardcore fans of horror are aware of what this kind of movie is, I'm sure that there are a few who don't because they're are of the younger generation, and therefore have had little exposure to this type of scare-fare.  For me, my first exposure came when I was a kid and to used watch a local TV creature features show that was literally called "Creature Features". Now again, most horror fans know what a ceature features is, but for those youngers cinephiles, it's basically a frighfest type of local television program that was focused on showing old horror movies and to gain the attention of younger viewers, they often were hosted by a horror style satirist in the vein of Svengoolie or Elvira. For many of us old skool dedicated watchers, these were a popular staple of weekend television and made up a big part of our childhood memories.  

And speaking of childhood memories, my earliest memory of watching a "monster mash" on a "creature feature", was this particular film. More specifically, I remember my older brother telling me right before the program started that just because this is called "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" the truth was that all three of the Universal Monsters Top Trio of Terror, Frankenstein, Dracula and the original Wolfman, would be making an appearance throughout this film.
To which I couldn't help but get all excited and ask "All three of 'em? Cool! Who's on first?"

  Now, that last sentence that I just typed down in the form of a question isn’t really a question. It’s a joke. And if you don’t get the joke, then that’s most likely because you are one of those younger fans that I've been mentioning throughout this entry. And if that’s the case, rather than explaining the joke (because the instant a joke has to be explained, it is automatically rendered as unfunny), I suggest that you just move on to the next entry on this list since it’s a horror comedy that you, as a young movie viewer, will most likely be more familiar with. 
   Besides, I'm getting tired, not to mention, a little depressed, at how old all these explanations are making me feel.

 Located just north of the island of Manhattan, is the area known as the Bronx, just one of the five major boroughs that makes up the metropolis that is New York City. And just a few decades ago, the black and Hispanic communities of the region struggled to make their neighborhoods a place where people could be proud to be a part of. And while it still has some problems, these days of the residents of the Bronx do tend to walk through the streets with their heads held high (or at the very least, walk with their heads held up higher than they used to).
  But when a small group of vampires descend into their midst and even begin buying up property, the locals can't help but think to themselves "There goes the neighborhood!".
  Vampires vs. the Bronx is a comedy horror in the vein of The Lost Boys but splattered with a bit of civic flavor. 

  With the release of House of Frankenstein from the year before, the good Count probably figured that if his ol' patchwork pal could have a place to call his home, why couldn't the Master of all Vampires? So, obviously, in 1945, we have House of Dracula, a direct sequel to HoF. And just like at Frankie‘s address we have the whole gang of Universal's macabre membership present and accounted for, all under one roof.



  In this particular mash up 'o' monsters, both Drac and the Wolfman are looking for cures to their respective fang-filled abnormalities. And the only elixir that they both believe that can accomplish this ghoulish goal is...science! But blinded as they be by that perspective, they're willing to give the good ol' college try. And the person who they seek to pull it off is a one Dr. Endelmann. Now why he's the right man for the job is never made clear, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that he has an Igor type of hunched back assistant who breaks all typical conventions of scientific sidekick stereotypes by being a girl. On top of it all (or maybe I should say "at the bottom of it all), Frankenstein's Monster is lying is suspended animation in a cave underneath the good doctor's laboratory filled castle. How all this ties together is about as foggy as the Doc's rep as a healer of horrors, but let's be honest, we're all here for the gathering of glorious ghouls than we are anything that might make sense. 
 However, with the novelty of these morbid meetings of the original motley crew beginning to wear thin movie audiences at the time, this will be one of the last times we get to see these major playing monsters mashing it up in one film for a quite a while. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be until decades later that we finally get to see the gang all together again. And by then, as a previous entry will show, Dracky's heirs will have moved on up from residing in a just the house and into a high-end hotel in craggy rocky spires of Transylvania.
  But for the purposes of this list, House of Dracula is a nice little curtain call for Dracula, as we get to see John Carradine finally indulge in the roguish role of the most infamous of nefarious neck-biters, after only getting to show a glimpse of his spiffy top hat, coat and tails in the previous House installment.

   From Dust Till Dawn is a movie that took quite a while for me to warm up to. And the reason for that is because of the really high expectations I had for this film. Back in 1996, I was looking forward to this movie more than any other movie that had come out that year. It was written by Quentin Tarantino, right after his masterpiece pulp fiction had come out and redefined what a crime thriller could be. And it was directed by Robert Rodriguez, coming off of Desperado, a brilliant retelling of his indie debut, El Mariachi. For me and many other fans of alternate viewing cinema, these were two of the most exciting names that were in the business of making movies at that time. So, to see the two of them collaborating together to make a movie about vampires really excited me for seeing what kind of ground they would break in the genre of bloodthirsting neck-biters.

  Well, would you look at that … the first Hotel Transylvania was successful enough that it's looks like we may have a whole new franchise to check in to every year on the Halloween season.
   Here in HT2, the bloodline of bloodsuckers of the Drac Clan looks to be invigorated with the announcement of a baby bat in the oven.
But will it be vampire, or will it be human?
  With the crazy concoctions they cook up for these computer-conceived creature cartoons, it could go in any side of the coffin.

  As anyone who has read this list up to this point will know, I’m a big fan of the monster mash type of storylines. And this animated franchise is basically an animated feature version of the monster mash but done, of course, in that family friendly tone that we expect from this type of cinema. Because of this, I probably like these movies better than most people. Overall, each chapter has gotten so so reviews, but for my money, I think they’re just a little bit better than that. I like the premise that this series twists the vampire lore into in order to fit within the "for all ages" bracket and, so far, I've really enjoyed watching every installment of HT. So, alongside other animated classics, such as ParaNorman, Monster House, and, of course, Nightmare Before Christmas, this Transylvanian hotel will, from now on, be a part of my stay come every year at Halloween, in between passing out Almond Joys and Butterfingers to trick or treaters as they come a'knockin',

  Cronos is the directorial debut of Guillermo de Toro, and right away it sets down the foundation of his particularly unique brand of filmmaking. Although he is often known for working in the horror genre, his style tends to lean more into the dramatic than to the pursuit of fright. That is clearly evident here in this movie’s premise in which the subject of vampirism is not used as a tool of terror, but instead, as a fitting method to depict the quest for eternal youth and the underlying consequences that are spawned from such a “never ending” journey.

 A centuries old contraption resurfaces in the present restoring an aging, antiques dealer to his younger and healthier self. But as is in the case of all things that are too good to be true, he quickly discovers that there is a price to be paid. And of course, in keeping with the theme of this list, that price is a thirst for human blood.

  Now for me, this is a great looking movie, it’s beautifully shot, the themes covered here are presented in an interesting, thoughtful manner, all of which highlight the talents that Mr. Del Toro always brings to the table. On any other list that would not be themed along the lines of horror or more specifically, vampires, Cronos would definitely Rank on a much higher spot than it does here. As is with many of Guillermo’s other work, he sets up good ideas for genres specific type of movies. However, his focus on the dramatic and human dynamics of all of his stories tend to, I find, dilute the genre in which the movie is placed. I know that generally it’s not his aim, but I would love to someday see him make a horror movie which is intended to be more frightening than it is to try and tell a lesson about the human condition. Del Toro does such a great job of filling up his films with wall-to-wall spectacular visuals that I would love to see in a movie that is meant to instill fear into the viewer. I know that makes me sound like I’m kind of missing the point to what he is, usually trying to say, but still, his style of storytelling has such a strong distinctive visual flare that I think would turn up the fear factor in a horror movie up to 11. And I guess that the fact that the potential is there, even if it was never, his intention is what always has me walking away from one of his movies, not as enthusiastic as one of his true fans would be.

     OK, so let me start off this entry by saying that my favorite movie of all time is the Godfather, famously directed by Francis Ford Coppola. That said, the truth is, I wasn’t all that "stoked" about seeing this movie. Coppola, despite the number of masterpieces that he directed during the 70s (the first two Godfathers, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, etc.) throughout the 80s, the quality of his films was incrementally going down. By the time the 90s started, he pretty much had garnered a reputation as a genius director who had focused so much of his superpowers in the first half of his career that his pool of talent had become pretty much drained, dry.

  So, when his version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula premiered in theaters, I really expected it to be a critical and commercial bomb.

   Needless to say, that’s not the way it turned out. Financially, the movie did well, but in the context of the theme of this list, It doesn’t contribute anything to this discussion. So, while it did well at the box office, at the same time, it didn’t do anything to bring the director’s career anywhere near to the pinnacle that it started out as. Frances' take on the Lord of the Bloodthirsty Undead didn’t contribute in any way to the Count's adaptability to the big screen, negatively or positively. Other than the addition of the vampire's pre-neck-biting days and his origin, this was a movie that tried its best to translate Stoker's novel to film as literally as had ever been attempted before. And all it succeeded in doing was to demonstrate how bland the material is outside of its book form. What saved this movie for me and thus has allotted this spot in my list, is the cast, and even more importantly, the art direction.

  With names like Gary Oldman, Winona Rider, Anthony Hopkins, and Tom Waits, even though the script didn’t really allow them to exercise their chops to the level that they usually do, they were a group of talented actors, who had fun with their roles, and as a result, brought an energy that was able to overcome such a nondescript script. (The exception to all of these guys was obviously Keanu Reeves. But, in the same way that FFC miscast his own daughter in the third Godfather movie, he did the same to Reeves here in this one.) That charismatic energy is doubled by the look of the whole production. The background sets and the costumes are so beautifully designed, detailed, and vibrant, that this movie exudes a Gothic atmosphere that shimmers and jumps off the screen. This version of the Dracula tale had the potential to be by far the greatest adaptation of Bram Stoker’s most infamous corpuscle consuming character. But while it failed to achieve such a high level, it’s still quite an intriguing look into the fictional lore of that one vampire that is considered the Godfather to all other bloodsuckers.

  After decades of the vampire on celluloid leaning mostly between the gothic, camp or as lightweight fright, the 90's was a decade that seem to take a much somber and even experimental look at the lore. There was a much more serious attempt to capture the creature as something more senescent or distinctive than we had ever seen before. Movies like Cronos, Interview with a Vampire or even Frances Ford Coppola's Dracula looked into them as ancient beings with 3-dimensional personas that were carved from such a long existence. 1998's Blade took the vampire into the comic book reality of superpowered anti-hero. Even a hip hipster like Quentin Tarantino tackled the subject by merging over-the-top camp into a serial killer thriller with From Dusk Till Dawn in 1996.
 And in the middle of it all was this black & white indie, The Addiction. In it, art meets horror, philosophy meets fear in this mind digging approach to the genre. As the title suggests, the concept of consuming blood is presented as a metaphor for addiction. Before I go any further, I should mention that I usually try to keep an open mind about any kind of film, including those that take a much more vague artsy approach into a longstanding horror genre like the vampire. However, I do find myself losing patience, more often than not with these types of movies, particularly when they get too vague or ambiguous. Luckily, Addiction is one of the better ones. I almost typed that it is one of the ones that gets it right, but this film does have some of the flaws that often comes with interpreting vampires at a much higher and deeper level. For instance, there are times when the pacing of the plot can get pretty slow. And I don’t mean slow in the impatient way that many of today’s short attention span movie goers mean. The story here can sometimes drag slower than even one with a pretty good amount of patience might find frustrating. Fortunately, this is countered by the way that the ideas and themes that this movie sets out to portray work at symbolic level. That is often the goal of the director, Abel Ferrara, who has the reputation of making the types of movies for those who with eyes set for an alternative form of scare fair cinema. The metaphors he utilizes in this story translate quite fittingly into the themes that he’s trying to convey, but without getting either overly obscure or too obvious. Not to mention that he uses the black-and-white visuals to very good effect as a form of creating an overall creepy atmosphere to remind us that this is a horror movie. The Addiction requires more of an open mind than it does a big bucket of popcorn, and when approached in that light, it will come off provoking and entertaining enough to satiate anyone with may harbor a thirst for blood of a different color. 

 

 If there were such a thing as an unpopular opinion back in the 90s, I think that the closest that I came to that was that I was not as big a fan of Anne Rice's depiction of vampires as most people were. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with her actual writing, just on what her concept is of the classic features of folklore that help to maintain a vampire's "dead" immortality via the sustenance of human blood.
  Since it would take several paragraphs to explain the specifics of what those elements are that I take issue with, I won't go into it here. That’s not to say that I think her ideas do not translate into pretty decent films. Interview With a Vampire definitely isn't one of my top movies about long-lived bloodsuckers, but with it's depiction of the emotions and mindsets of those who are forever trapped within the dark, supernatural, and according to Rice, decadent lifestyles of vampirism, it does contain an interesting and entertaining view into a lore of horror that most other films tend to get kinda lazy with and/or subjectively sloppy about. 

    As any true fan of the vampire concept knows, since the very beginning of their inception as mythological creatures, they that were always meant to be unliving instruments of terror. The same is true for the bloodsuckers when they started making appearances the silver screen at the onset of the industry of cinema. However, as time went on, particularly through the 60's and 70's, the idea of a fanged undead who fed on the life fluid of the nondead became aligned more on the campiness of B-level creature feature as audiences’ tastes had, over time, evolved and changed more towards horrors that were closer to modern reality than they were to the folklores that spawned such insatiable humanoid monsters from centuries old legends. 

 When hijackers take over a transatlantic flight, soon after they discover that they are not the only ones onboard who are out for blood. So is one of the passengers. However, her reason isn't because she's seeking political asylum or is looking for some kind of ransom. She's just looking out for her kid.

  As a fan of Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror, an iconic silent film classic from 1922, and of Nosferatu the Vampyre from 1979, 2024's Nosferatu is a modern remake that I've been waiting for for a long time now. Mostly because I wanted to see who Hollywood would get to direct considering that the first two earlier versions were made by two very distinctive and original directors; the '22 version was directed by the famous (infamous to some hardcore fans) German filmmaker, F.W. Murnau, and the '79 version was helmed by the equally German and equally distinctive and original Werner Herzog. Therefore, in order to keep the tradition of the stylistic uniqueness that comes with Nos, a modern take needed a talent whose abilities were not associated with the typical mainstream formula. Which a very important element required to tell a story that's just a different interpretation of Bram Stoker's novel edition of Dracula, and which very susceptible to be a rather boring tale of terror if not handled with the kind of production that separates it from the norm. 
  For anyone who is familiar with the work of Robert Eggers, they know that there probably isn't a better fit for the story of Count Orlok and his quest for a home for which he can lay his coffin down in. Eggers is the kind of director whose style is so much his own, that he's the kind of moviemaker who cinema fans either love or hate, with no in-between. And from the reviews that I've seen all over social media, those are the type of reactions that theater goers have been having to this new Nosferatu. Which, of course, is a good thing. 
  Or a bad thing, depending on which end of the Eggers spectrum one sucks from.

   Half the cast from James Cameron’s sci-fi action thriller Aliens reunite here in Near Dark, a horror neo-Western directed and co-written by his future ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow (Cameron even makes a small cameo in this film). Whereas in Aliens, the actors played a squad of cocky soldiers venturing into space hunting xenomorphs, here they are a gang of vagabonding vampires meandering through the southwest, on the hunt for fresh victims.
This biker band of bloodsuckers (BTW, count how many times I’ve used the term “bloodsuckers” on this list so far) (get it...? ......"count"?....) are pretty hardcore, even by vampire standards. Unlike many of the wimpy vamps of today, these guys lived up to the descriptions "bloodthirsty", "throat-ripping", "stonecold" and whatever other adjectives were originally attached to their kind since the time of their folkloric ancestors.

 Because of its status has an underrated classic, there’s a good chance that anyone out there reading this hasn’t seen this film. And if you are one of them, while I cannot guarantee that you will share my opinion, or of those who make up the cult following of Dark, I do think that it is worth taking the time out to watch it since the chances are pretty good that it would result in converting you into one of those who have a stake driven deep into their heart for this quality level blood bathing fang fest.

   So according to the plot of Hotel Transylvania, in total contradiction to his legendary legend, Count Dracula is, in reel life, a nice guy. Not only is he someone who gets along with all his fellow classic creatures and runs a hotel specifically created to cater to them and their specific "nightmarish" needs, but also, he's shown to be quite a loving and protective father to his only daughter, the adoring and paternally sheltered, Mavis.
  To be quite honest, with the rate that the motion picture industry has been cranking out three dimensional, animated, family friendly films each year, I am kind of surprised that it took this long for them to get around and finally using The Universal Monsters as a central theme for fronting an animation franchise. Truth be told, the story in HT isn't exactly up to highest level of wit and whimsicality that we've become spoiled to with many of today's CGI animated flicks, but for me, it all works well enough that the final result is a fun and very entertaining tale that spins around the empty nest syndrome into a spook tale for all ages. There is no compromising in the story for any adults who accompanied their kids when Hotel first hit theaters. And for those grown ups who are not parents but are fans of the Universal Monsters, I'm sure that they will agree with me when I say that it's just nice to see any kind of high quality depiction of these eternally iconic creatures with the kind of cool, crisp computer technology of that make so many of these animated features come alive today.

   At the risk of coming off as redundant, I’m going to mention one of the logistical problems that comes with the mythos of the vampire, one that I have mentioned a couple of the other entries here so far. And that is the problem of vampirism. The idea that after biting his or her target, the victim of the vampire also transforms into a vampire. The challenge with that is a pretty obvious one, which is that, as the "attacks" compound against each other, it would eventually (and pretty quickly) have the whole globe overrunning with bloodsuckers. There would swiftly be more fanged fiends occupying the surface of this planet than there would be humans with more regular dental features.

  The title of this movie, Stakeland, is a hint that this aspect of the vampire lore is the focus of this particular modern take of the creature feature. In this story, we have a worldwide pandemic of the corpuscle, consuming creatures which results in the humans doing their best to survive by fleeing the now devastated metropolitan areas of the living world into small pockets of rural communities located in the more open outskirts of society. One of the survivors is a young man named Martin, whose parents are but two of the thousands (maybe even millions), who have been slain.  He is then taken under the wing of a mysterious vampire slayer known simply as mister (to whom I assume, under a honorific, would be known as “Mr. Mister”). And, as would be expected in a movie about multitudes of vampires, swarming all over the Earth, the duo must deal with the kind of bloodstain dangers that would occupy such a scenario, while they embark on a journey towards a safe haven that supposedly exists somewhere up north.

  Now, I really enjoyed this movie (as is evidence by the fact that it holds the spot that it does on the list), but it does fall prey to the biggest weakness that often comes in horror stories that rely on the idea of vampires that come in hordes. And that weakness is that the vampires are presented in a much more diminished form than they are in films that center on just one or two of the monsters. It always seems like stories involving vampires in multitudes treat the creatures in a very similar fashion like a that of zombies. Vampires are supposed to be strong fearsome beings which strike fear into the souls of their intended prey, not walking dead denizens that are easier to run away from, let alone kill. But most forms of escapist fiction, such as movies, books, and comics, tend to treat them more like disposable husks in order to make the stories more workable In the formula of characters being able to move in such an all-encompassing premise, or at least substantially enough to allow them to last more than just a few scenes.

  In the final analysis, it seems like any plot that involves vampires as giant groups of marauding minions that swarm over humanity is going to do so at a great cost to the legend of the vampire mythology as universally feared blood imbibing bipedal beasties, who will suck the life out of anyone who crosses their insatiable line of sight. Fortunately, even though Stake Land falls under the category as one of those movies that is guilty of this kind abbreviated use of the vampire, it does manage to do it in a way that doesn't diminish it's horror element in its portrayal of a sanguisuge endemic of planetary proportions.

 When Prussian actor Max Schreck took the role of Count Orlok, it was pretty well-known and obvious that the character whom he was really playing was the original Dracula (for the uninitiated, there were some copyright problems that prevented this movie from using the actual names of the Bram Stoker novel but I'm gonna refrain from getting into the details because I cover it in another entry on this list and you can read it all there). However, it is a testament to Schreck’s distinctive, acting ability, not to mention to the excellent job by the make-up artist, that the role of Orlok has become almost a legend unto itself. Thus, attracting some of the most uniquely characteristic actors (Klaus Kinski, Willem DaFoe, and Bill Skarsgard) to take on the role in later remakes.

  Now, Shadow of the Vampire isn't actually a remake, but it is one of the few times that we see the portrayal of the Nosferatu version Dracula make on cinema. Teaming up with DeFoe is the always interesting John Malkovich, who takes up the role as F. W. Murnae, famous director of the silent era of film. A fictionalized telling of the filming of one of the very first vampire movies, its slant is that lead star Schreck may have actually been a real vampire instead of an eccentric actor who took his role to "heart". 
 When I first saw the ads for Shadow of the Vampire, speaking honestly, I didn't have much in the way of high hopes for it. This film came out at a time when indie horrors of this type often tended to dilute much of its flavor of fright and thus sacrifice it more for the sake of whatever artistic merit it was trying to aspire to. And I usually try to be open to the more alternative aims of many independent features, but after a while, I did begin to tire of their intent to stray away from the essence of whatever genre they were dipping their big toe into, just so that they could feel vague and artsy. But Shadow manages to utilize the combined idiosyncratic charisma of the two leads to create a simple tale that successfully merges the theme of a creative force such as Marnau seeking to make his vision come alive at any cost, along with the basic premise of a "true to life" bloodsucker who's on-camera career is an effective course towards continually "putting food on his plate". Funny, witty, entertaining and with a unique spirit of darkness that casts away from the same old-same old, SotV is a nice little way of providing an alternative for any scary loving cinephile who may have a taste for blood of a different variety.

  Charlie Brewster is a high schooling teen and a "horror head" (which just means that basically he's a hardcore fan) who’s favorite TV show is a weekly creature features program named appropriately enough, Fright Night. He is so into it that is basis and the inspiration into his belief that his two new male neighbors are in actuality, a vampire and his human familiar. Obviously, no one around him shares this fantastical belief, but that doesn’t stop Charlie from seeking out the host of the Fright Night television series, a washed-up actor, Peter Vincent, with nothing better else to do outside of shooting his TV show and who therefore decides to investigate, in return for an easy paycheck.



  Fright Night is another example of one of those movies that never ever should have been remade. However, unlike certain other movies that fall under this category (Psycho, RoboCop, Karate Kid, The Magnificent Seven, etc.), the reason for this one is not because this is such a perfect movie and therefore it cannot be improved upon. Fright is far from being perfect. But what it is, is a perfect capsule of the time period of lightweight horror that was the 1980s. When people think of vampire movies from the 80s, the first movie that they most likely will come up with his Lost Boys. The second movie that they will come up with is Fright Night.
Despite the dated look of the special effects and make up used to make the concept of a blood sucking dead walker come alive on the screen, it is still pretty apparent to modern eyes that these were the highest quality level of visual techniques of the time that were being utilized. The plot, still buried deep within the nature of camp of which this material is built for, is still written with the level of integrity that balances between suspending one’s sense of disbelief towards dead humans rising from the grave with appetite for the blood, and the subsisting continuity of the corpse lore that doesn’t insult the intelligence, at least to the point where your brain has to be left at the door.
  As I mentioned earlier, it's not perfect, but FN's intentions are honest. Because of this, it does a pretty effective job of capturing the spirit of the best classic horror films that featured the classic creatures and the longtime legends that came attached to them. And within the capabilities of the time, it updates them to fit within the aesthetics of enjoyable scare-fare cinema that was the decade of the 80s.
  And, IMHO, that is why the remake wasn't as successful or TBH, will not be considered as a long-term classic as the original is. The 2011Fright Night, isn't bad, but it is forgettable. The updates that were administered in that production doesn't encapsulate anything from the decade in which it was made, and it certainly doesn't have the same level (or look) of the camp or the spoofy admiration that was staked into the heart of the genre that this 1985 staple in the genus of the vampire medium was able to achieve.

 As a indicated in the previous entry (and in a couple of the other ones), I am not a fan of most remakes.
Or, more specifically, I am not a fan of remakes of quality classic films.
There's a reason why a classic is a "classic". If a film is considered a classic, there's very little reason to remake it. Because most of the time, the remake will never be able to make the kind of mark that the first one did.
  I don't even like watching remakes that are generally considered good. Because, even if they're good, for me, they're still not as great as the original, it still not worth my time to watch it. I always felt why should I settle for watching something "good" when I can watch something "great" (that's the primary reason why you don't see Let Me In which is generally considered a really good vampire flick, on this list....)
All that said….
  Obviously, since this movie is on this list, I'm sure that it’s pretty easy to figure out by now that Nosferatu the Vampyre is an example of the exception to the rule.  Yes, for me it’s one of those rare few remakes that I feel does succeed as a successor to its original.
  Directed by the stylishly cinematic talents of Hollywood outsider Werner Herzog, it's no wonder that the updated Nos, despite being an outright rehash of the most famous of all bloodsuckers, Count Dracula himself, this 1979 version pays homage to the original quite faithfully yet with just enough distinction to stand out on its own.

  In the title row is Klaus Kinski who, despite being one of the most difficult to work with actors in the history of world cinema, he is Herzog’s favorite actor to cast in his films (that does not mean however that Kinski never fails to bring to the director’s productions, his fair share of headaches). Very often, KK made up for his troublesome ways with his extra high-level thespian skillz which were always on display whenever he appeared in front of the camera (or whenever he appeared onstage). And they are quite evident here. Just as Max Shreck did 57 years earlier, and as Willem Defoe did 21 years later, Klaus managed to bring his own unique flair to the character of the Count (who has abandoned the Orlok name for this film as a result of the copyrights going public by this point), thus transforming the faux Dracula Into a fanged fiend that was able to stand on his own. His ability to make this Drak the most sympathetic of all the Draculas presented on celluloid, combined with Herzog’s art house friendly verité style of filmmaking, allowed this repeated story of the vampyre to distinguish itself far beyond its own brand of spelling.

  Trying to get by in modern society these days can be a bit of a chore. Trying to get by in modern society as a bloodsucking immortal can be one heck of a nightmare. As four vampiric flat mates living in suburban New Zealand have been discovering for the better part of a century (or two). In this 2014 mockumentary, the camera follows the lives of this quadruple set of long-lived ghouls, who, despite the amount of their accumulated experiences, still haven't been able to overcome the daily domestic obstacles that continually challenge those things that they do in the shadows.



  WWDitS is a very hilarious dead-on take on the style of mock documentary filmmaking, taking advantage of the handheld camera technique to great effect and making a point that comes off sharper than the end of a wooden stake. Stabbing the concept of the classic vampire legend into the heart of its parody, it manages to suck enough blood from its victim to showcase the increasing pace and unending struggle that comes in a world that seems to change faster the longer one lives.

 Those who were not familiar with the character of Blade the Blood Hunter until they saw this movie are most likely unaware that he started out as a very insignificant character in the Marvel Universe. He made his debut in the 70's in a comic book series called Tomb of Dracula and was just one of the many adversaries of the King of All Vampires of which the comic was named. What separated Blade from the rest of the pack of neckbiter killers was that he himself was a vampire. A super-vampire, as a matter of fact. Because unlike all the others afflicted with the Count's infirmity for the life-fluid that courses through the rest of us, he had the advantage in that sunlight had no effect on him. It was a trait that gave him an advantage over the other bloodsuckers to which he is sworn to destroy, and it is also what earned him the nickname of the "Day-Walker".
Blade was a good concept on the rich roster of the comic series, but the truth is, no one in the creative staff responsible for creating each issue of ToD never bothered to write him anything above just a minor headache to Lord of Darkness. What
That is why it always mystified me how the heck was such a minor character was able to get a pretty big movie deal. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that he did since this is one of my top favorite vampire movies of all time, I just don’t understand why he of all the other non-mainstream characters within Marvel Comics vast roster of heroes and villains, was the one who got the fanged film franchise treatment.
 Whatever the reason, the surprise success of the first chapter of Blade journey through the cinematic Universe transformed him from a relatively unknown heart stabber into of the most bad ass big screen stars to ever jump out of the funny papers.

  Before there was Lestat, Blade, Eli, that wimpy, waspy whitey, Edward Cullen, or even Dracula hisself,
there was this guy.
The first vampire ever to be captured on screen and still is, by far, the creepiest looking bloodsucker of all time.



Oh alright, I know I know...the vampire's name is not Nosferatu, it's Olak. Count Olak, to be exact.
But it's just that I think that Nosferatu is such a cool demonic sounding name. Like Belathauzer or Astaroth. It makes him sound more like the personage of darkness that he resembles. Olak sounds more like an alien name that you would find on Star Trek. The 60s TV show, not any of the movies
And yes, I also understand that Nosfer....uhmn, I mean Olak was really supposed to be Dracula. The producers couldn't get the rights to Dracula so they changed the capillary count's name to Olak. So that to say this Count came before that Count might be a bit of a slight.
I know all this.
But still, after all the different renditions that have been done of the King of All Vampires, none of 'em have come close to resembling anything like the Nosf, and even more important, none of ' em have come close to looking as blood curdling. Add to that the misty quality and the rusty, monochromatic atmosphere that comes from being such an early piece of cinema, and there can be no doubt that Nosferatu is a life draining, nightmarish force of nocturnal nature all its own.

At the time of this posting, this is a movie that I had just recently watched for the first time.
As I posted in some of my earlier entries, the Universal Movie Monster Trio, Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolfman are perennial favorites on my TV set every Halloween. I had meant to watch this Spanish version of Dracky for awhile now, especially since TCM tends to show it every once in a while, back to back with it's American counterpart.
Filmed at the same time (literally) as the Bela Lugosi version, this one features the same energy and enthusiasm as it's originator, seems even crisper in appearance (at least, to my eyes), and has more creative camera work than was allowed to the original version. Yet the best part of it all, is that this one is longer in length, but without any sacrifice to it's story quality.
Though, the actor playing Dracula doesn't seem to have the "weight" in his presence that Bela Lugosi did,
over-all, this is still a version of the "rey de los vampiros" that, after finally watching it, makes me feel like I just struck some big time cinema gold.

Okay, let's just forget the vampires in this movie for a second.....
Any movie from the 1980's that can feature a Corey in it, let alone two, and still come off as cool,
well, that would be a movie that surely had to have been touched by the hand of God.
I wouldn't be surprised if the director, Joel Schumacher was actually the Christ in his Second Coming (I mean seriously.... Jesus did rise from the dead after 3 days, often spoke of drinking his blood, and simple logic would dictate that he would have developed an aversion to wooden crosses....
so, you'know.... it all fits....)

  Since the beginning of the new millennium, there have been a lot of good horror movies that have come out.  But what are really rare are great horror movies. And what are even more rare are great horror movies about vampires. And even more rare than that are great horror movies about vampires that are centered around honest-to goodness romance. But the rarest of them all are great vampire romance movies that make it into my top ten favorite films of all time.  Luckily, they might be rare, but that doesn't mean that they're non-existent. 
I'm pretty sure that it's rather obvious by now where I'm going with this.
  Released at a time when the world of horror cinema was engulfed with the madness that was Twilight, Let the Right One In is also a bloodsucking love story between two adolescents from both sides of the folklore, but this time, it is a fang fraught affair done right. Its approach is from a more mature manner, yet still with enough of an escapist sensibility that is respectful to the mythology of the genre. This is a soft, beautiful and beguiling coming of age story of two kids finding love for the first time through the flaws of each of their separate (and sometimes desperate) life situations, but, at the same time, it doesn't shy away from the consequences of such a pairing.

  Sometime during the pre-Code Era of Hollywood, the film rights to Bram Stoker's most famous work of fiction, Dracula, were purchased by the son of one of the most powerful filmmakers/producers of Hollywood at the time. Carl Laemmle Jr., Still very much inexperienced in the role that was bestowed upon him by his father as the head of Universal Studios, he paid the Stoker estate a then whopping $40,000 to own the right of putting the fictional Count onto celluloid. To ensure that Universal was the sole owner of the Dracula property, Carl Jr. would later end up buying up the rights to all stageplay adaptations as well. 
Okay, so in the film world, even though Nosferatu came first,
it's well known that it was the tale of the original Count Dracula that Count Orlok was modeled after.
Therefore, when it comes to the big screen, this is 1931 movie is the one that finally brought the one true Master Of The Dead to life.



And I don't care what any of the younger viewers of today might think of the old Count,
as far as I'm concerned, he's still the O.G. of bloodsucking bloodsuckers, suckas.
Sure, maybe his accent and royal sash have been spoofed, satirized and caricaturized to the point some may feel desensitized to his presence on the screen. But there can be no denying that his contributions to the iconography of horror and to pop culture in general, is and will always be "countless".
For instance, we should never forget that if it weren't for him, instead of Count Chocula, that brand of cereal would just be called something like Chocolate Flavored Cereal Wit' Chocolate Flavored Marshmellows In It.
So y'know....
pay 'em his due propers.
Suckas.