The Lucky 13: Week Six: Vampires

The history of horror is populated with a cornucopia of malicious monsters to chill the blood and excite the imagination. But for roughly the past eight decades, one monster in particular has stood head and shoulders above the rest as the most prominent, and the most readily identifiable with the genre: the vampire.

There's something about the vampire's ability to literally drain away human life that seems to resonate at the very epicenter of what horror is all about. From ancient folklore to Victorian literature, and eventually on the silver screen, they have called to us, both terrifying and irresistible. Vampires have been the subject of countless horror films. As challenging as it may have been, our crew--along with the Brutal as Hell gang--have selected our all-time favorites. Read on, and remember, the dead travel fast...

B-Sol on Nosferatu

Not only the greatest horror film of the 1920s, but I believe an argument could be made that it might be the finest horror film ever. However, I'll just say it's my all-time favorite vampire flick, and leave it at that. Pure joy for any true horror fan, from beginning to end, Max Schreck's exploits as the demonic Count Orlock make up an almost transcendent experience of movie viewing. It might be easy and predictable to choose this one, but I choose it for a reason--it is the most frightening movie of its era, and still the most rewarding to watch. Not to mention the best screen adaptation of Dracula.

But despite Nosferatu technically being a Dracula adaptation, Max Schreck's Orlock is an entity all on his own, with a distinct persona and look that virtually transcends horror cinema, if not cinema as a whole. The rising out of the casket, the unforgettable shadow-walk up those stairs. This, readers, is the stuff of cinematic horror immortality. It gets no better.



Fandomania's Paige MacGregor on Underworld

It’s surprising how few vampire films I’ve watched, given how many vampire books and novels I’ve read over the past several years. Fortunately, I’ve managed to avoid the majority of the Twilight franchise, limiting my experience of vampires on the silver screen to the laughable Gerard Butler film Dracula 2000, Robert Rodriguez’ From Dusk Till Dawn, the classic vampire film Nosferatu, and the ever-popular Underworld franchise. For various reasons, I recently reached the conclusion that of this limited selection, Underworld has made its way to the top of my vampire horror movie list to become my favorite movie featuring the blood-sucking undead.

Although Underworld isn’t particularly intellectually stimulating, it is a fast-paced action-adventure horror film with vampires, werewolves (or lycans, as they’re called in the film), and a centuries-old war raging between the two factions. Using the traditional star-crossed lovers theme of Romeo and Juliet, Underworld follows the sexy, self-sufficient vampire Selene (Kate Beckinsale) as she falls in love with a human named Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman). Unfortunately, Michael was bitten by a lycan and is undergoing the painful process of becoming one of Selene's mortal enemies.

Many people will be surprised to know that Underworld was my first introduction to both Kate Beckinsale and Bill Nighy, two actors that I really like. In my opinion, Len Wiseman's casting in Underworld is phenomenal; Beckinsale is the essence of the vampire Selene, and her porcelain complexion couldn't be more perfect for the role. In addition, Bill Nighy is unbelievable as one of the first vampires ever created, corrupt and cruel and filled with hatred for the lycans. The special effects used to turn Nighy into the blood-deprived corpse as he first appears in Underworld is very well done, but without Nighy's effective acting and powerful presence, the role would've fallen flat.

I also love the visual style that Len Wisemen and his Oscar-nominated cinematographer, Tony Pierce-Roberts (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, De-Lovely), use in Underworld. Everything from the rainy urban landscape and the vampires’ massive, hulking mansion, to the skin-tight black leather that Selene wears and the dark, shadowy complexions of the lycans contributes to the stunning contrast of lights and darks that characterize the film’s cinematography. In addition, the camerawork in Underworld is superb. Establishing shots are often grand urban vistas. Even the use of CGI in these shots is flawless, creating images that convey both the dark, secretive nature of the vampires and lycans while also expressing the enormity of the landscape in which they dwell.

The use of slow motion camerawork during the climactic fight scene at the end of Underworld is genius given the speed attributed to both lycans and vampires in the film. This fight sequence is dissimilar from many of the fight scenes in other contemporary films like Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 3, which often feature images that move too fast for audiences to follow adequately. Instead, Wiseman and his production team used slow motion not only to keep viewers in the loop with regards to the mechanics of the fight, but also to highlight the beauty of the fight choreography itself.

It is no wonder to me that Underworld spawned both a sequel and a prequel, with yet another sequel rumored to be in production. The leading lady is a sexpot with giant pistols and a hunger for blood, the cinematography is breathtaking, and the story of love and betrayal is interesting, if not compelling. I look forward to a fourth installment of the Underworld franchise, and I hope someone talks Beckinsale back into a skin-tight suit of leather for me.



From Beyond Depraved's Joe Monster on Fright Night

Vampires and I kind of have a quirky romantic comedy-esque relationship. One minute I’m fawning over the genre for its brilliance, suspense, and eroticism, and the next I’m pulling the hair from my scalp over the blasé simplification and mindless exploitation of its powerful themes (hello, Ms. Meyers…). It would be difficult for me to cite a vampire film from the last thirty years that I’ve seen and can call my favorite. Modern flicks concerning the nosferatu tend to just fall flat with me, no more memorable than the last fast-food burger that slithered down one’s throat. Not so, however, with a little film from the '80s called Fright Night.

From the very first time I viewed Fright Night (on a double-bill with Creepshow, no less!), I knew that I had happened upon something magical. If I’m not mistaken, it was the very first modern vampire movie to have been viewed by my young, impressionable eyes. Up until that point I had only been acquainted with the likes of Lugosi, Lee, and the rest of the gang as they creaked their way through cobwebbed castles and crypts. This was an entirely new experience. Vampires in today’s world? My adolescent spine shuddered at the very thought. Not to mention the overt sensuality exhibited by the charming-as-hell Chris Sarandon and his bloodsucking brethren. Seeing the act of vampirism turned into an appealing and sexual act was a giant bombshell that went off in my brain. Like the ravaged wasteland of a real explosion, my perspective on vampires would never be the same again.

Fright Night is a wild ride, a film packed with homages to those Universal and Hammer terrors, but with a decidedly 80’s flavor. For instance, the vampire’s abode is your typical Gothic house squatting in an impenetrable mist and filled with ghostly antiquities. But a few scenes later we’re transported to a bustling nightclub where the synthesizers blare through the speakers and the dancers have more hair than the members of a werewolf convention. The mixture creates a highly electric and downright fun atmosphere that won’t be forgotten for some time. The powerhouse performances from the ensemble cast bring the movie to a whole new level. I could go on for days about how every role is fully realized and the amazing chemistry that sparks between each actor. Magic like this is a rarity, particularly in horror films. But somehow Fright Night makes it seem like a feat that can be accomplished with a passive wave of the hand.

I love watching movies made by filmmakers who actually love horror movies. The passion and hard work put forth shines in every shot, the loving product of a devoted craftsman. Fright Night is a prime example of just that type of genius. Even though some may see it at worst as only a fair parody of the vampire theme, I actually think it’s one of the sub-genre’s highest achievements. This is how the undead were meant to be seen. Sinister, mysterious, terrifying, and oh-so-seductive (no sparkles included). Fright Night is just the film I’d instantly recommend to anyone seeking a good time with some bloodthirsty friends. It’s everything you’ve been waiting for, with just a little more of a… bite.



Cinema Suicide's Bryan White on Dracula (1931)

My taste in horror trends toward the '70s and '80s, but not even I can resist the baroque charms of Bela freakin' Lugosi as the original vampire. Dracula is a movie that needs no introduction. Lugosi's performance was so intense and profound that even in times when the vampire was represented most commonly by Lestat and Edward Cullen, the cape and brow is still iconic. Slick your hair, throw on a tux and vaguely ceremonial medallion and you're instantly recognizable as Count Dracula 80 years later.

Tod Browning's movie throws most of Bram Stoker's novel out the window and it mixes and matches characters, but the major themes remain. It also represents the beginning of a golden age of horror for Universal Studios where every picture was drenched in crashing thunder and crumbling castles and unmatched performances by legends of the genre. Every god damn frame of Tod Browning's movie is deliberately crafted for maximum gothic. Shots of Lugosi frame his imposing presence perfectly and his intense, burning stare is highlighted frequently by a band of light across the eyes to entrance you exactly as his vampiric stare is supposed to be doing to the cast.

Dracula is fundamentally awesome; the text-book by which all horror films follow and a subtle exercise in how to sneak themes of kinky domination and submission into a movie made in a very chaste studio system. It plays a heavy hand at times, rubbing your nose in its intensity but this expertly crafted horror film is so perfect that it just doesn't matter if it feels excessive. The Count, his vampire brides, his accent and his sinister influence are such incredible storytelling elements and played so perfectly by Bela Lugosi that by comparison, the Harkers and Abraham Van Helsing seem like total downers. Not to put too fine a point on it, I love Dracula.

I'll tell you what else: Mexican Dracula is pretty cool, too.



* * * * * * * * * *

Head over to Brutal as Hell to see what Marc Patterson and his crew have come up with. And if you're interested in taking part in the future, just give Marc or myself a holler.

Week 1: Grindhouse & Exploitation
Week 2: Creature Features & Monster Movies
Week 3: Demons, Witches & The Devil
Week 4: Gore!
Week 5: Horror Comedies

Join us next week, when we get all brainy and tackle the sub-genre of psychological horror!

Tweet

"Rise of the Lycans": A History of Werewolf Movies, Part 3

After the heady days of the 1980s and the great horror movie boom, the 1990s, as most fans who lived through them know, scaled things back a bit. And yes, of course, werewolf films were affected by this, as well. The '80s had been a golden age for the subgenre, but now, it looked like the wind had once again left the sails of the lycanthrope.

Nevertheless, there would be some signs of life in the old dog--just not very promising signs. For example, the mid 1990s saw something of a mini-craze involving the old gothic horror monsters, thanks mainly to Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film Bram Stoker's Dracula. Kenneth Branagh brought us Mary Shelley's Frankenstein not long after, and it would be in 1994 that the third of the Universal biggies would get a brief moment in the sun.

In this case, it would be the Mike Nichols-directed Wolf, starring none other than Jack Nicholson as the titular shapeshifter. Although the concept of Jack as a werewolf, as well as the fact that he'd be joined by fellow past Batman villain Michelle Pfeiffer, made this one look promising, it was an ultimately forgettable flop.

But Wolf would seem a masterpiece compared to what was attempted just three years later. What better way, you ask, to inject new life into the genre than by going back to its most successful entry? Well, anyone who may have thought that was dead wrong, as can be evidenced by the 1997 "sequel", An American Werewolf in Paris. Bearing little to no connection to the John Landis original, An American Werewolf in London, this mess is now remembered as one of the great horror missteps of the past 20 years.

With the 1990s mercifully over, the new century ushered in a more favorable climate for horror films. And just as the dearth of werewolf flicks was a reflection of the downturn in horror flicks in general, so this new boom in horror also brought about an influx of interesting and innovative movies on the subject of werewolfism.

The first of these, in 2000, would be Ginger Snaps, a fascinating film that draws an analogy between lycanthropy and puberty. Our main character is a teenage girl who is bitten by a werewolf, and must struggle with the murderous beast she is becoming. Her friends try their best to locate a cure for her condition, as she becomes more and more dangerous.

The fact that Ginger's initial victimization takes place on the same exact night she experiences her first period makes it abundantly clear that the filmmakers are using the tried-and-true werewolf warhorse to tell us a story of sexual awakening. It's an interesting attempt to do something different with a seemingly dead subgenre. Ginger Snaps would lead to a pair of 2004 sequels, Ginger Snaps Unleashes, and Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning.

The next major werewolf film of the new century would be the one most fans point to as the finest the subgenre has offered up since the aforementioned AWIL. Released in 2002, Neil Marshall's Dog Soldiers is also one of the most underrated horror films of the decade, period.

Grafting werewolf horror onto military adventure, Dog Soldiers puts a "Predator" spin on things, telling the story of a British Special Ops group battling mysterious monsters in the Scottish Highlands--monsters whose true nature they're unaware of until it's too late. This gem of an action horror flick would help put Marshall on the map, and lead to more high-profile projects such as The Descent and Doomsday.

Nevertheless, despite its high level of quality, Dog Soldiers went unseen by many fans, thanks to poor distribution. Rather, the film that would help return werewolves to the mainstream consciousness would instead be another horror action movie by the name of Underworld (2003).

Starring Kate Beckinsale as a vampire/vampire-hunter, Underworld presents us with a secret world in which bloodsuckers battle werewolves (here referred to as "lycans") for total domination. Though heavy on the CGI effects, the movie represented a return to the "monster vs. monster" vibe that had pitted vampires and werewolves against each other in the movies of decades gone by.

The premise was a big hit with fans, proving that people always love to see monsters fighting each other. In fact, Underworld would grow into a full-fledged franchise. The sequel, Underworld: Evolution, would be released three years later. And just this year, we got the third installment, a prequel that showed us the beginnings of the vampire/lycan war. Proving the staying power of the concept, this third movie didn't even feature Beckinsale, and still managed to be a decent success with audiences.

This would be in stark contrast to what should have been another triumphant return to old-school werewolfery--namely Van Helsing, Universal's lame 2004 attempt to reinvigorate its central horror characters. The film had all the markings of success, including Hugh Jackman in the title role, and director Stephen Sommers, the same man who had brought The Mummy back to life some five years earlier.

Featuring Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, the Wolf Man and other classic creatures, Van Helsing was supposed to be a good old-fashioned monsterfest that would please both classic horror fans and newbies. Nevertheless, it was a colossal failure both critically and with audiences. Ironically, it would be the Underworld series that did a better job of returning werewolf mayhem to American prominence than the legendary Universal Studios itself, home of Lon Chaney Jr. and Henry Hull.

There's no question that films like Dog Soldiers and Underworld have kept modern audiences interested in the concept of the werewolf. Something about the idea of a man transforming into a beast, of the monster within being unleashed, is enthralling to us. We see it in other classic creations like Jekyll & Hyde, and even the Hulk. And recent films like the German production Blood and Chocolate (2007) continue to keep the subgenre going strong.

Now the saga of the lycanthrope stands at a pivotal turning point. This fall will see the long-awaited release of Universal's full-scale remake of the Chaney classic The Wolf Man, starring Benicio del Toro, with Anthony Hopkins in the Claude Rains role. After all these years, and all the other classic monster retreads, this is the first time that the most famous werewolf story of all is getting the remake treatment.

Will audiences accept it? The project has been plagued with issues since the beginning, including director musical chairs, and recent news of extensive reshoots. And so fans of one of horror's most enduring creatures wait with bated breath to see what the future holds for their beloved beasty. But one thing's for sure, whether it's a hit or a miss, the new Wolf Man will most certainly not be the last time we hear that distinctive howl in movie theaters...

Part 1: "...And the Moon Is Full and Bright"
Part 2: "Bad Moon Rising"

Tweet