Powerful

The acting in this movie is really good.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Spoilers Warning Elaborated: I'm going to discuss the endings of "The Cat and the Canary," "London After Midnight" (both 1927) and "Dracula" (1931), as well as that of this film, "Mark of the Vampire." The same director, Tod Browning, and star, Bela Lugosi, of "Mark of the Vampire," made the landmark 1931 horror film "Dracula." That production essentially invented horror as a Hollywood genre, and it created the iconic portrayal of a cornerstone character of horror with Lugosi's thick Hungarian accent, posturing and theatrical gestures. Since reading Bram Stoker's novel, I've been watching a bunch of Dracula movies, and it's abundantly clear that the 1931 film and particularly Lugosi's performance has had a pervasive influence on subsequent vampire pictures (as well as culture in general). With the same director and actor having another go at similar material, "Mark of the Vampire" is one of the more obvious examples of this.Partially, "Mark of the Vampire" is Browning's third attempt at adapting Stoker's book, after "London After Midnight" and "Dracula," and it's an unacknowledged remake of the former, now-lost silent film. Although we can't judge the 1927 lost film anymore beyond reconstructions based on stills, such as the 2002 one for Turner Classic Movies by Rick Schmidlin, "Mark of the Vampire" can be appreciated for improving on parts of the same director's "Dracula." Being an unauthorized and partial adaptation (which, reportedly, Universal (producer of the 1931 film) considered suing MGM (the producer of this film) over, anyways), it lacks the best parts of "Dracula," including the Transylvania scenes. Most of its narrative takes place in what were the stagiest scenes of the 1931 film-those in Seward's home and sanitarium-here, the estate of Baron Otto. Likewise, Count Mora's lair stands in for Dracula's Carfax Abbey. "Bat thorn," too, replaces Universal's "wolf's bane," which replaced Stoker's garlic, to begin with, as the natural protection from vampirism. While nothing exceptional otherwise, these scenes in "Mark of the Vampire" feature superior blocking and scene dissection, including plentiful reaction shots, compared to "Dracula." Due surely to improvements in synchronized-sound technology in the four years between the films, characters seem to be afforded freer movement within the spaces. Not even Karl Freund's mobile camera could mask the cramped limitations of the sound stages in "Dracula." There's also howling sound effects in "Mark of the Vampire" and a better use of off-screen dialogue as a transition between shots.The third and best major set within "Mark of the Vampire," the foggy, miskept graveyard, is unlike anything in the 1931 film. It affords Browning to develop Stoker's undead Lucy character-here, renamed "Luna." Her slow, deliberate walking and mute posturing remains haunting despite reminding one of today's goth youth subculture. Another nice Stoker-esque touch is the opening scene of gypsies-who, in the novel, helped Dracula move out and back to his Transylvanian castle. The opening wipe transition from a church tower is awkward, though.The insert shots of animals are better here, too, perhaps because Browning seems to have just went all-out with them, including bats, beetles, opossums, an owl, a brief shot of what appears to be a wolf in the background of one graveyard scene, rats, a fake spider climbing up the wall, and a strange crab-like-spider prop crawling on the floor in another shot. The obviously-fake flying bats are cheesy, but the bat theme, overall, is further assimilated into the narrative, including a shot where Luna swoops down in partial-bat form. In another scene, there's a substitution splice to show the transformation of Count Mora from bat to humanoid vampire.The cast is good, including enjoyable performances from character actors Lionel Atwill (as an inspector akin to his in "Son of Frankenstein" (1939)), Leila Bennett, Donald Meek and Ivan Simpson. Jean Hersholt, who has a humanitarian award named after him in real life, is well cast as the villain; his real-life image makes his villainy here doubly surprising. Carroll Borland and Lugosi, as always, are fantastic vampires despite their lack of dialogue. In the leading role, Lionel Barrymore is one of the more interesting to watch Van Helsing types. He's an expressive actor, and he draws attention just by the way he leans towards those he's talking to or with his constant fidgeting with his glasses.Many dislike the ending of "Mark of the Vampire." I think it's the best part. Before "Dracula" defined the genre, some proto-horror films would explain away the supernatural within the framework of a murder mystery. "The Cat and the Canary" (1927) did this, so did "London After Midnight." Although it's largely illogical (Why would the murderer believe his victim turned vampire? How exactly did he extract the blood again? What did he do with it? How is this confession expected to hold up in court? Etc.) and makes the film's preceding scenario into an absurdly-elaborate hoax, I like how it's self-referential. The movie itself and movies in general, after all, are an elaborate hoax. Moreover, like Browning once again tackling Stoker's novel, the hypnosis-aided confession is a reenactment-adding new twists to a familiar scene.I think Browning and company were being intentionally self- referential with this, too, especially by playing on the persona of its star vampire. In "London After Midnight," Lon Chaney played dual roles as the Dracula and Van Helsing types; one in heavy makeup, the other not. The reveal that he was an actor reflected Chaney's star image as "the man of a thousand faces." For this remake, Lugosi only plays the Dracula role-the part he had and continued to play on the stage, the one that made him a cultural icon in the 1931 film and the role that haunted him for the rest of his life and after-even being buried in the Count's costume. In "Mark of the Vampire," when he's revealed to be an actor in the final scene, he states, "I gave all of me. I was greater than any real vampire." He's right.

Top billed in this horror fest is Lionel Barrymore who plays a Van Helsing like expert in the occult, specialty being vampires. Lionel is well versed in all the folklore on the undead. But he's only one of many character players in this MGM production. Mark Of The Vampire is a great film for those of us who love those familiar character faces of studio era Hollywood.Holmes Herbert a local nobleman is murdered, some say by vampires who are rumored to reside in an ancient castle. A year after that his daughter Elizabeth Allan is similarly attacked with those two telltale neck punctures and behaving real strangely.It's then that Barrymore is called in and he does solve the mystery of the local vampires. The solution almost at the last second is quite a surprise.Lionel Atwill is almost in dress rehearsal for his famous role as the police inspector in Son Of Frankenstein. But Bela Lugosi is the real surprise. That familiar voice of Count Dracula is absent up to the last minute of the film though he looks as menacing as Dracula ever did as Count Yorga. But his voice closes out Mark Of The Vampire and it's on the order of what Joe E. Brown did in Some Like It Hot.Definitely worth the wait.

Mark of the Vampire apparently had a script change at some point in production, which gave it the controversial ending. I'm on the side of the naysayers- this is an above average, minor classic film, but fell flat for me at the last minute.Director Tod browning creates an incredibly eerie atmosphere, the mood is appropriately supernatural and even a bit sad....Count Mora(Bela Lugosi) and his "undead" daughter Luna radiate a convincing fear inducing allure. These are some of the spookiest moments you will ever see in a 30's horror film. The counterpoint offered by actor Lionel Barrymore in his Van Helsing-esque role is very satisfying (some find his character annoying, to me he is the eccentric uncle that everyone wishes they had)....However,the final 10 minutes upends the entire previous action, and the film concludes with a prosaic resolution. This may leave some viewers unsatisfied or even cheated.Overall, a good film that was probably marred by meddling censors. Watch it if only for historical purposes, but please watch it- late at night! Six stars.

The film deserves some points for mood setting and general creepiness. But the twist ending is a joke, akin to a Scooby Doo episode but without the buildup or humor that you expect when watching Scooby Doo.SPOILERS The plot is so full of holes that it's hardly a shame to give anything away. But here's the big one: the Baron kills the Sir Karill, apparently with an eye on eventually getting to the daughter's inheritance. He makes it look like vampires did it (with an extremely hokey scissors pinpricks and a heated glass to completely drain the body of blood???). Separate nit: You never see any neck wounds on anyone so are never sure what the heck is really happening. So to trap him, Zeler enlists actors and an exact duplicate of the dead Sir Karill to act like vampires??? Huh? To create a fear factor that will render the baron susceptible to hypnosis? WTH?? The Baron knows he – not vampires – killed the count. Vampires showing up now MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. The jarring revelation of this (plus the creepy old castle suddenly becoming clean and modern) will leave you wondering what the heck is going on.Separate nit: In re-enacting the killing, the duplicate count decides to go ahead and drink whatever the baron prepared for him knowing it's tainted. WTH? That could be poison! With the blood drained, who could tell later what killed him?] BTW, just how did Luna transform into a bat (or even have a bat flying around) if they weren't real vampires? See the Trivia that it took 3 days to shoot this shot. If you like old films for old films sake, maybe you'll enjoy this. But as far as a story, the ending will make you feel cheated and confused.