My Top 30 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 sequal to the original b&w Dracula film starring Bela Legosi. 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.

I just recently watched this on DVD. I didn't think it was too bad.
But if the idea of the vampires was a little more like vampires than it was like sun-fearing zombies, I think I'd be able to muster up more to say 'bout this so-called legend. And maybe then, I'd have put this movie up higher on the list.
So for right now, there is one thing that I can definitely say was cool about this flick: Near the beginning of the movie, there was a scene that featured billboard that featured a Batman/ Superman World's Finest insignia. And as a comicbook nerd, I found that to be pretty kick-ass.



That may not be much to say about this movie and it's theme, but as you can probably tell by now,
trying to stretch out a list about quality bloodsuckers,
especially since vamps flicks these have been romanticized like hell,
finding one that fits more easily into the category of "horror" can be pretty scarce.

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 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 more often referred to as Monster Rallies instead.



As far as this movie 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 monster's head and face.)

Now, of course The Count's screen time 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 "under the same roof",
therefore, IMO, worth mentioning in this list of blood-thirst faves.
Plus,
ya gotta check this out just to see the King of Darkness sporting a top hat. Never has Drak looked so debanier, so dashing.

When Universal Studio's streak on iconic "halloweenic" horrormeisters such as Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man burned out after the 40's, by the late 50's, Hammer Studios came along and made gruesome Gothic films popular again. At the beginning of the seventies however, once again, monsters rarely rallied in movie theaters. Fans were treated only on occasional with a screen scare fare featuring the fight-infested faces of Hammer standbys such as Christopher Lee's Dracula.
And even though it was still cool to catch a momentary glimpse or two of the visceral visage of the vampire, by this time, the scars were beginning to show.

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.



And when you think about it, isn't that enough of a plot description for this fear flick to make any fan of Franky-Mon want to go and see it?

What is the secret to eternal life?
Why, human blood, of course.
So if you wanna live forever, try becoming a gosh-to-honest vampire.
But, as we all know by now (from watching movies like this one), there comes quite a high price to pay for becoming an eternal bloodsucker.
A price that kinda gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "get busy living or get busy dying".

When "they" first started adapting the works of horror-miester Stephen King onto the big screen, it was a venture that went up and down, and from what I recall, it tended to go down more often than up.
One of the main reasons was because, since Mr. King's novels were often so extensive, simplifying the stories down in order to fit in 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 try and make it into a television mini-series (which were all the rage during the 70's) instead.
And it worked. At least, for the time-period in which it was made, it worked. The series was a big success, both in it's ratings and in it's critical reviews, and without sacrificing as much of the book's blood-filled innards as it would 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 simply reason of it's intention of being an adaption that is "pure" of blood.

Y'know, in their earliest appearances in the cinema, vampires were made to be that dwelled within the genre of horror.
After a while, particularly through the sixties and 70's, the idea of a fanged neck-biter became aligned more on the campiness of creature features. Nowadays, we tend to divide 'em into the two categories: that of the comic-book crowd (as in Blade) or worse, in the rallying side of the romantics (you know what I'm talking about).
In this film, we get to see the concept of vampirism in manner that was probably the original intention of those whose first spawned the folklore:
As a soul-craving thirst to unleash our deepest desires and darkest urges with an immortality that flies above pitiful human morals.



Damn.
I never realized that I scribe down something so.... Freudian.

One of the earliest "Monster Mash-ups" I saw as a kid on a local TV frightfest show called "Creature Features". 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, Franky, Dracky and Wolfy, would be making an appearance throughout this film.
To which I couldn't help but inquire "All three of 'em? Cool. Who's on first?"

Ah, I have a real soft spot in my heart for horror movies that were made for the TV back during the seventies.
But because of the countless batch that were spawned during this decade, most were crafted from writers who seemed to have gotten their "writer's license" right out of the seventh grade,
only three are worthy enough to include on any of my lists of favorite fright flicks.
Two of 'em, Dead Of Night and Trilogy Of Terror belong on a list of Favorite Demon films. The third one, The Night-Stalker, which eventually would become a TV series, belongs right here.
Never too over the top, but just enough of a touch of camp, a few dabs of bad monster make-up and a pinch of seventies kitsch,
this movie is a recipe that crosses the side of a fine line to make it into my personal cache of warm happy childhood memories.

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 of 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, overall, the residents of the Bronx these days walk through the streets with their heads held high.
But when a small group of vampires descend into their midsts 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. And while it may not become the classic "kids vs fanged fiend" flick that TLB was able to achieve, it's worth a bite or two for those who thirst for this kind bloodspilled urban legend.

It's bad enough when an innocent family of vacationing road-trippers find themselves in the midst of the carnage and blood of a hidden coven of cravenous, murderous vampires out in the middle of the desert,
but then on top of that, they also hafta face the threat of the snake-cradling Selma Hayek and her absolutely formidable and absolutely perfect puppies. I promise you, after watching her in this Tarantino/Rodriguez monster mash-up, it won't be her neck that will you be fantasizing about sucking. 
Count Dracula can only wish that his will-sapping gaze was this hypnotic.

Well, whaddaya know.... the first Hotel Transylvania was successful enough that it's looks like we may have a whole new franchise to check in to every 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?
Ah, the crazy concoctions they cook up for these computer-conceived creature cartoons......

With House Of Frankenstein from the year before, the Count probably figured that if the ol' patchwork monster could have a house, why couldn't the Master of all Vampires? So, obviously we know have House of Dracula, a direct sequel to HoF. And just like Franky's house, the whole gang of Universal's macabre membership are present and accounted for.
However, with the novelty of the morbid motley crew beginning to wear thin, this is one of the last times we get to see the monsters mashing it up in one film.
It wouldn't be until decades later that we finally get to see the gang all together again, and by then, Dracky's heirs have moved on up from a residing in a house to hotel.

Bram Stroker's classic story about the king of the undead comes to life on the big screen, in it's most literal interpretation yet (especially compared to any of the other "Dracula flix" feature here). Directed by the man responsible for the Godfather, F.F. Coppola, and starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, not to mention that one guy from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (a role, in my eyes, that he will never be able to escape from...heheheheh....), Keanu Reeves.
In a most epic flick depicting the "real life" adventures of that most excellent of all vampires,
Dracula, d00d.

The subject of addiction has been the theme to many movies. And so has the subject of vampires.
This one tackles both.
In lovely black & white with a few interludes into philosophy....
which, at certain points, kind of left me screaming for blood.
But in the end, the climax resolved itself in manner that found this story back into the genre of horror, with a dash of "brains" added into the mix.
Which was quite nice.
And when I say "nice".
I mean nice by vampire standards.

To be quite honest, I'm not as big a fan of Anne Rice's depiction of vampires as most people are. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with her writing, just on whar her concept is of those classic freatures of folklore who maintain their "dead" immortality thru the sustenance of human blood.
Since it would take several paragraphs to explain the specifics of those elements that I take issue with, I won't go into it here. But, whatever those specifics are, it is 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 and/or subjectively sloppy about.

Half the cast that portrayed the soldiers in Aliens reunite as a gang of vegabonding vampires..
This biker band of bloodsuckers (count how many times I use the term bloodsuckers on this list) (get it...? ......"count"?....) are hardcore.



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.

So, completely opposite his legendary legend, in Hotel Transylvania, Count Dracula is shown to be 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 daughter, Mavis.
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's still cool to get any kind of depiction of the Universal Monsters with the kind of cool, crisp computer technology of today.

Back when the world of cinema was still in it's infancy, how could a director make a film about a vampire at a time when the first CGI special effects won't make an appearance for yet another 70 years?
Easy.
Instead of an actor, hire a real-life vampire for the lead role.
*Insert your own "Hollywood-is-nuthin'-but-a-buncha-bloodsuckers-anyway" type of wisecracking analogy here*

Is it my imagination, but doesn't "Stake Land" sound like it could be the name of a franchised beef restaurant?
Anyways,
take the 2009 zombie flick "Zombieland", remove the humor, replace the zombies with mindless vampires, and of course, replace the word "zombie" in the title with the word "Stake", and what you end up with, is this movie.
A bloodsucking apocalypse that I found myself enjoying a bit more than the comparable and much more popular "I Am Legend".

What could be better for a horror fan than a fright night, in which old scary movies are watched late into the night?
How about having a neighbor who will allow you to experience the real thing as opposed to just watching it on television?



A modern day vampire flick made at a time when the mythos of the vampire was not yet twisted by the twirly Twilightisms that soon had all of Hollywood sucking out the classical characteristics that made the bloodsuckers the timeless true bloods that they were for centuries.

I gotta tell you guys, I hate most remakes.
Or, more specifically, I hate 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 kinda 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. I always felt why should I settle for watching something "good" when I can watch something "great". (I guess that's why you don't see Let Me In on this list....)
Like I said, I hate most remakes.
Obviously, since this movie is on this list, I'm sure that you've figured out by now that Nosferatu the Vampyre is an example of one of the rare few that I feel does succeed as a successor to it's 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 it's own.

Trying to get by in modern society these days can be a chore. Trying to get by in modern society as a bloodsucking immortal can be a nightmare. As four vampiric flatmates 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 these long-lived ghouls, who, despite 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 hand held camera tecnique 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 it's parody, it manages to suck enough blood from it's victim to showcase the increasing pace and unending struggle that comes in a world that seems to change faster the longer one lives.

A very insignificant character in the Marvel universe, blood hunter Blade is transformed on the big-screen into a sword-welding bad-ass with the kind of fighting skillz that the Dark Knight only wishes he possessed. The fight scenes in this movie are a true stand-out for any kind of action flick and the story and visuals supersede any Marvel publications that the vampiric vigilante was ever involved in.
Now this is how all comicbook superhero film adaptations should be approached.



(BTW, even tho as a vampire movie, I have Blade ranked at #6, as a vampiric bad-ass, Blade definitely rates as #1.
So, for any vampires out there reading this, I don't care what your position is in the bloodsuckers' hierarchy, Blade would still kick all yo' asses.
Suckas.)

Before there was Lestat, Blade, Eli, that whimpy, 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 it's 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....)

Good horror movies come so rarely into my life. The same with good vampire movies. And the same also goes for good love stories (I refrain from using the term "romance movies" since I find Hollywood's idea of romance is always so impossibly and ridiculously fairy-tale-like). This movie is 2 outta 3 (although there is some, it's very light on the horror).



Told more in an adult manner, yet still with enough of an escapist sensibility that is respective to the genre, this is a soft, beautiful and beguiling story (which is really saying something since I don't know what that word means) of two 12 year olds finding love for the first time thru the flaws of each of their separate (and sometimes desperate) life situations.
The lead actors for this movie portray their characters with a true down to earth awkwardness that is usually found with kids at this age, along with a longing that is both sincere and convincing.
As far as vampire love stories go, I find myself agreeing with those who compare this one with another human-falls-for-bloodfeeder film that was released around the same time :
the 15 year old girls can have their Twilight. I'll take LTROI.

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.