Unfiltered Smoke

by Isaac Thompson

Is there anything better than a great vampire movie? Probably, but for the purpose of this article let’s say no, there isn’t.

In this entry of my Horror Movie series, I have decided to celebrate my all time favourite vampire movies and it was the opposite of easy (whatever that is). There are so many great vampire movies that it was impossible to narrow it down to just 10, so I cheated a little as you’ll see.

But before I talk about the good ones, I’ve gotta spend some time talking about:

Twilight: The Elephant in the Crypt (or: Rant in the Key of Sparkling Vampires):

Have you ever thought to yourself  that vampires are pretty neat and all, but it would be way better if instead of being scary blood-sucking monsters who rise from the grave to terrorize the living , they were pale underwear models who’d stay up all night cuddling and talking about their feelings?  Have you ever felt in your gut that instead of wielding their awesome powers for evil, vampires should formally introduce themselves to your parents and make googly eyes at you ’til you feel like throwing up?

Of course you haven’t, that would be ludicrous…right? Right?

Vampires are the hottest thing right now. I recently visited a local middle school and before I was escorted off the property by the police, I got literally thousands of testimonials about how much the kids ‘dig’ “Twilight” and how ‘far out’ and ‘groovy’ they find vampires now. Vampires have replaced zombie flicks as the current horror sub-genre that has been drug out of the ghetto, prettied up and put on display for the masses by the big brain-deficient parasite that is the Hollywood marketing machine. If you don’t know by now, everything that Hollywood touches it destroys. Thanks to “Twilight” we’re at the beginning of a tedious and predictable slope.

What happens now is Hollywood will spend the next few years releasing vampire movies, each one more watered down than the last until the whole thing caves in on itself and every ounce of integrity has been drained from the genre (They did it to zombie movies). It wont be long until no one gives a shit anymore and vampire movies spend the next 20 years crawling out from the muck Stephanie Meyer so gleefully buried them in with her shit books and her shit movies.

The new trendy breed of vampire aren’t interested in being scary, they’d rather look sexy and fall in love. This neo-neutered-vampire can be found everywhere in today’s world. On Television there is the brutally popular vampire series “True Blood” which has inexplicably stayed on the air longer than the actually good HBO series’ “Deadwood” and “Lucky Louie” (If “Entourage” hasn’t proven to you that HBO airs terrible shows just like every other network, I submit exhibit B: ‘True Blood’). There is the tweeny “Cirque du Freak” book series and lame looking movie adaptation “The Vampire’s Assistant”, something called “the Vampire Diaries” (I’m sure the less I know about that one, the better) and of course, the multi-media phenomenon that is “Twilight”. Stephanie Meyer’s series about vampire puppy love has sold over 70 million copies (!) and the film version made $382 million worldwide (!!!). The sequel “New Moon” is currently in theaters and has been breaking box office records all over the place (FML).

If you’ve read any of my earlier horror movie articles you know I’m not a fan of “Twilight”. You also now know that all of my “Twilight” jokes in the previous articles were leading to the lame sight gag above. Truth be told I’d never read “Twilight” or watched the movie. I’d read enough about it and seen enough clips during the blitzkrieg of promotion that followed the film’s release to know I didn’t like it.  Still I figured I should at least watch the movie for this article. So I did just that.

I was not swayed.

I’d like to share a few choice thoughts:

1. I think the Feminist publication “Bitch Magazine” put it best when they poignantly dubbed “Twilight” ‘Abstinence Porn’.

2. I know a lot of people say “Oh, ‘Twilight’ isn’t so bad, it’s a beautiful love story” (yes it is that bad and no it’s not a beautiful love story). Or “Come on, it’s for teenage girls” (this movie makes ‘Hanna Montana’ and ‘The Wizards of Waverly Place’ look like the most riveting hour on television). The truth is; “Twilight” is the most sorry excuses for a love story I’ve ever seen. Sure, Bella is in love with Edward. I know this because she spends like 3/4ths of the movie telling him how wonderfully dreamy he is. But the thing is, Edward never tells Bella such things, he simply wants her. Although it’s her blood he hungers for instead of her sex (by God’s wounds, what a brilliant twist!). He doesn’t seem to be ‘in love’ with her, he just wants her hot body. Is that what today’s teenage girls think love is? A self obsessed, good looking guy who couldn’t give a damn about his conquest other than the fact that she makes him horny (or toothy) ? Is that what passes as a love story these days?  *crickets*

3. The acting is awful. It’s like the most sickening episode of “Dawson’s Creek” ever filmed. Robert Pattinson’s acting ability consists of one silly face. I’m pretty sure Zoolander was his acting teacher.

4. The worst thing about “Twilight” is that it’s about vampires. I love vampires and twilight is ruining them. The vampires in twilight don’t kill people, they apparently eat animals but we never see that because it would border too much on cool. Instead they play baseball during thunder storms and when exposed to sunlight they SPARKLE LIKE DIAMONDS!!!!

5. When a vampire is exposed to sunlight it bursts into flames, period.

6. After two hours of nothing happening the movie ends and the self loathing begins. I’m seriously considering getting a refund on my tickets to see “Twilight 2: Zoolander’s Revenge!”.

There, I feel a lot better. Now on with the list of the best Vampire movies.

Top Ten List # 3/10 : Top Ten Vampire Movies:

Vampire Movie 101:

- Vampires (or vampire type creatures) have existed in human folklore for about as long as humans have existed. Every culture has their variation on the vampire myth. Back in the days before we realized that sexiness makes everything better, vampires were depicted as bloated, smelly walking corpses. In 18th century Europe, people blamed all of their problems (plagues) on vampires. In those days it wasn’t too uncommon to see your friendly neighbourhood vampire slayer digging up graves in your local bone yard in order to drive a stake through the hearts of those mischievous corpses while a crowd of onlookers cheered him on.

- Vampires quickly made their way into the arts. Famous dead guy Edvard Munch depicted one in his painting “Vampyrin” in 1893. The earliest known literature involving vampires was the poem “The Vampire” (1748) by Heinrich August Ossenfelder. The first fictional prose concerning vampires was “The Vampyre” (1819) by John Polidori. This novel was originally erroneously credited to Lord Byron (Polidori was actually Byron’s personal physician). Polidori conceived his novel as part of a “who can come up with the scariest story” pissing contest held by a group of bored authors. The winner of said contest was 18 year old Mary Shelly whose story “Frankenstein” you may be familiar with. In 1845 a guy named James Malcolm Rymer wrote a penny dreadful serial story called “Varney the Vampire”. It was extremely popular in it’s day and it marked the first time a vampire was shown as a tragic figure as opposed to a demonic monster.

- What really got the ball rolling for the vampire was Bram Stoker’s “Dracula” (1897). It is easily the most popular, important and influential bit of vampire fiction ever conceived. Stoker was the first guy to stumble onto the inherent sexual metaphor of the exchange of body fluids that takes place in an encounter with a vampire. In Stoker’s novel Vampirism is treated as a disease (our heroes combat Dracula’s tainted bite with constant blood transfusions) and thus was a relatable metaphor in old syphilis ridden Victorian Europe. Another stroke of genius in Stoker’s inspired book is the main character’s namesake. Dracula is named after a real historical figure, Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia. Vlad’s nicknames included “Vlad the Impaler” (which I think was due to his habit of impaling people and not his Romanian hospitality) and Dracula (a sort of sir-name which means “son of the dragon” or “don’t fuck with me”). This historical aspect helped imbed the legend and give the book a cool “this totally actually happened” feel.

- Here’s some more non-movie Vampire fiction of note:

Books: Richard Matheson – I am Legend (1954), Stephen King – ‘Salem’s Lot (1975),  Anne Rice – Interview with the Vampire (1976), Whitley Strieber – The Hunger (1981)

TV: Dark Shadows (1966), The Night Stalker (1972), Buffy The Vampire Slayer (1997), Angel (1999), Hellsing (2002)

___________________________________________________________________________

# 10. Vampires

[1998]

Starring: James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, Maximilian Schell

Written by: Screenplay: Don Jakoby, based on the novel by John Steakley

Directed by: John Carpenter

What it’s about: Vatican sponsored vampire killer Jack Crow (James Woods) is the sole survivor of his crew after a deadly attack (slaughter) by the world’s oldest and most powerful vampire. Jack assembles a rag-tag team to stop the vampire from obtaining the all powerful such and such.

Why it’s good: “Vampires” is a film with a very straight forward plot that really serves as just an excuse to show some of the most badass, badassery ever shown in the genre of vampire ass kicking. James Woods is dead on as the hardened, smartass action hero who’s quick with the one-liners (and most of Mr.Woods’ awesome one-liners were ad-libbed). He acts with a playful enthusiasm and has his badass snarl down to a science.

“Vampires” plays out much more like an action packed western than vampire movie, but John Carpenter has enough respect and experience with the genre to be able to deliver some great horror moments. The “vampire slayers at work” scene that opens the film is a great example. John Carpenter is a horror fan’s best friend.

# 9. Shadow of the Vampire

[2000]

Starring: John Malkovich, Willem Dafoe, Udo Kier and Cary Elwes

Written by: Steven A. Katz

Directed by: E. Elias Merhige

What it’s about: A wildly imaginative retelling of the filming of F.W. Murnau’s 1922 masterpiece “Nosferatu”. in the film, Murnau (played by Malkovich) hires a crazy method actor named Max Schreck (Dafoe) to portay Count Orlok the vampire. Schreck’s strange behavior seems to creep out everyone he meets. The crew of the film begin to suspect Schreck is an actual vampire.

Why it’s good: This movie has one of those awesomely cool ‘why-didn’t-I-think-of-that’ concepts and that should be enough to get anyone to watch it. The two leads; John Malkovich and Willem Dafoe are on top of their game. Dafoe does a dead on portrayal of Count Orlok/Max Schreck. It’s one of those out-of-body performances where the actor seems to disappear in the character.

# 8. Interview With the Vampire

[1994]

Starring: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas and Christian Slater

Written by: Anne Rice, based on her novel

Directed by: Neil Jordan

What it’s about: A reporter snags the interview of a lifetime, a real (not so) live vampire! The vampire, named Louis, tells of his 200 years of existance with his vampire companions; the eternally young Claudia, and the evil trickster Lestat.

Why it’s good: The epic scope of “Interview With a Vampire” gives it the feel of a sprawling history lesson…With vampires! The storyline spans 200 years in different American historical settings.  Each era shows the movie exploring new moods without ever losing the overall tone of the picture.

The casting of Tom Cruise as Lestat was a controversial one at the time (even Anne Rice publicly complained) but I have to hand it to him, he did a fine job, as did Brad Pitt and Christian Slater. Far and away the best performance in this movie is by (believe it or not) Kirsten Dunst as Claudia. Her performance is very disturbing in its realism and honesty. She captures the inner emptiness of a centuries old soul trapped forever in the body of a little girl with maturity and a real sadness .

# 7. The Lost Boys

[1987]

Starring: Jason Patric, Kiefer Sutherland, Corey Haim, Corey Feldman and Jami Gertz

Written by: Janice Fischer, James Jeremias and Jeffrey Boam

Directed by: Joel Schumacher

What it’s about: Michael and Sam Emerson move to a California town with their mother. Michael then ends up hanging out with the wrong croud; I’m talking the undead, bloodsucking, sun-fearing crowd. It’s up to Sam and his new pals, two self proclaimed “vampire hunters”,  to stop the curse. Which is really hard when one of the vampires you’re trying kill is Jack fucking Bauer!

Why it’s good: “The Lost Boys” is fun, thrilling and hilarious. It’s a hard combo to pull off.  It’s a twisted take on Peter Pan with a rock and roll soundtrack. Most 80’s babies like myself know it well. You don’t find this much entertainment, smarts and style in one movie very often.

# 6. From Dusk Till Dawn

[1996]

Starring: Harvey Keitel, George Clooney, Quentin Tarantino, Juliette Lewis, Ernest Liu, Fred Williamson, Tom Savini, Cheech Marin and Salma Hayek

Written by: Quentin Tarantino, based on a concept by Robert Kurtzman

Directed by: Robert Rodriguez

What it’s about: Richie and Seth Gecko are two crooks on the run from the cops. They take a family hostage and head towards Mexico, specifically a bar called The Titty Twister, and find themselves smack dab in the middle of a vampire feeding frenzy.

Why it’s good: With “From Dusk Till Dawn” you get two movies in one. It’s part Tarantino gangster flick, part over-the-top splatter picture. Tarantino’s script is typically smart and super-cool, and Robert Rodriguez is one of the best directors mainstream Hollywood has to offer. He does a seamless job at merging a gritty crime flick with an “Evil Dead” style orgy of gore.

This movie marks the first starring role for George Clooney and it’s one of my favourite parts he’s played. He portrays Seth Gecko with a cool, detached confidence in contrast to Tarantino’s manic depiction of little brother Richie (easily Quentin’s best role). It’s a big, loud, rock ‘n’ rollin vampire movie. Nothing quite like it.

# 5. Martin

[1977]

Starring: John Amplas, Lincoln Maazel, Christine Forrest and Tom Savini

Written by and directed by: George A. Romero

What it’s about: Martin is a nice young boy with a severe problem: He believes himself to be an undead creature of the night. This belief drives him to stalk the night, murdering women with a razor-blade so that he can feed on their blood.

Why it’s good: George “I created the entire sub-genre of zombie movies” Romero is one of horror history’s all time great social satirists. He makes films with a purpose and a message. He’s responsable for some of the finest horror flicks ever including the original “Night of the Living Dead” and “Dawn of the Dead”. Martin is one of Romero’s best and most overlooked films.

Romero’s gritty film isn’t about true vampires in the classic sense, it’s a look into the mind of a disturbed young sociopath who is so mad he thinks he’s immortal. It’s like “Dracula” meets “A Clockwork Orange”.

Tom Savini is the Frank Sinatra of gore and nails it like a night at The Sands. There are some brilliant set-pieces of splatter and hemoglobin  in this film. It’s all played as real as can be and some scenes are truly hard to watch.

# 4. Fright Night

[1985]

Starring: Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall

Written by and directed by: Tom Holland

What it’s about: All American High School kid, Charlie Brewster has a problem: His new next-door neighbour is a vampire. Charlie’s parents and peers think he’s crazy so he proves them wrong by doing something totally un-crazy: He asks Peter Vincent (an actor who was famous for portraying a fearless vampire killer in his old films) to help him slay the beast. Pure 80’s magic.

Why it’s good:Created by Tom Holland (the same mad genius who brought us the genre classic “Child’s Play”), “Fright Night” is a simple old fashioned vampire tale with a few modern twists. Sure, it has great special effects, synthey 80’s music and slick directing, but it doesn’t rely on those elements alone. “Fright Night” is more content to let the engrossing story and creepy atmosphere do the talking. The acting is great and all of the main characters are well defined, but the real star of this gem is Roddy Mcdowall who plays Peter Vincent. His performance is extraordinary. He delivers his lines with a gusto and enthusiasm that’s laced with a heartbreaking vulnerability. Robert Pattinson would do good to take note.

# 3. Near Dark

[1987]

Starring: Adrian Pasdar, Jenny Wright, Lance Henriksen, Jenette Goldstein and Bill Paxton

Written by: Eric Red and Kathryn Bigelow

Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow

What it’s about: Boy meets vampire, boy is bitten by vampire, boy joins roaming gang of vampires.

Why it’s good: When I watch this movie today I’m still shocked by how gritty and uncompromising it is. “Near Dark” is a vampire movie full of innovations and surprises. What starts out as a love story quickly becomes a roller coaster ride through Hell. The gang of vampires, led by world-class badass Lance Henriksen, are viciously tough. The bar scene is classic and Bill Paxton’s performance is legendary.

# 2. Dracula

[1922] / [1931] / [1958] / [1992]

Starring: Max Schreck / Bela Lugosi / Christopher Lee / Gary Oldman

Written by: Henrik Galeen / Garrett Fort / Jimmy Sangster / James V. Hart / Based on the novel by Bram Stoker

Directed by: F. W. Murnau / Tod Browning / Terence Fisher / Francis Ford Coppola

What it’s about: The original gangsta, Count Dracula, has decided Transylvania has nothing more to offer him and makes the move to England. He spends his time in his new hometown making friends and having sexy late night rendezvous with the hottest girls around. Everything in Big Count D.’s (un)life is totally groovy until that prick Van Helsing rolls into town wearing garlic around his neck and thumping his bible. A ghoul just can’t catch a break!

Why it’s good: For my number two spot (heh heh, number two…) I decided to make it a four-way tie between four different interpretations of Bram Stoker’s uber-important “Dracula”. Each one of these interpretations was vital in the time period they were released. Each one brought something new to the table, not only in regards to vampires but horror as a whole. Watching these four films is like a “Coles Notes” version of horror movie history, starting in the golden age of film, with F.W. Murnau’s “Nosferatu”.

“Nosferatu” was extremely important in the development of horror films. During the silent era of Hollywood there were semi-horror films such as “The Phantom of the Opera” and “London after Midnight”, but they would only dance around horrific subject matter and any supernatural threat was eventually revealed to be “just a dream” or they’d throw you the time tested “Scooby Doo” ending. Germany on the other hand were pushing the boundaries in both content and visuals. Films such as “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”, “The Golem” and “Nosferatu” were doing things no American film dared. Made before most living people were born, “Nosferatu” has aged better than most films of it’s day. It has an impressively chilling atmosphere and Count Orlok is still, hands down, the creepiest vampire ever.

Interestingly, at least to me, the makers of “Nosferatu” never got around to getting permission to make a movie about Dracula (hence the name change from ‘Dracula’ to ‘Nosferatu’) and were sued by Bram Stoker’s widow. Long story short, the filmmakers lost the case and all copies of “Nosferatu” were ordered destroyed. Luckily a few copies survived and the movie is readily available today!  Film Industry: 1, Intellectual Property: 0

In 1931,  Universal studios was a small underdog studio still trying to find its place in Hollywood. The company had hits in the silent era with their resident movie star and “man of a thousand faces” Lon Chaney, but the invention of talkies changed the game and Universal were struggling to keep up. Carl Laemmle Jr. was newly in charge of production and needed to carve out a niche for his father’s company.

Laemmle was a fan of suspense and horror stories, and when he saw “Nosferatu” he knew exactly what his next picture would be. He secured the rights from Stoker’s widow  and began putting together a team to construct “Dracula”, America’s first supernatural talkie thriller. He was heavily influenced by “Nosferatu” and used that and the hit broadway production of “Dracula” as blueprints. He went so far as to hire much of the cast from the play including Bela Lugosi in his seminal role as the Count.

“Dracula” is outdated in many ways, but still a powerful film. There is absolutely no musical score and the staging is much more like a stage play than a movie, but Bela Lugosi’s amazing talent and charisma shines as brightly today as it did on audiences in it’s day. Lugosi’s portayal has been copied, parodied and regurgitated so many times that it is part of modern mythology. Laemmle’s intuition was dead on, “Dracula” was a huge hit and paved the way for every horror movie that followed. Soon, Universal became the horror studio, releasing classics such as “Frankenstein”, “The Bride of Frankenstein”, “The Mummy” and “The Wolfman”.

Interestingly, well to me anyway, a Spanish version of the film was produced simultaneously. The American crew would film by day, the Spanish crew at night: Same lot, same sets. In many respects the Spanish version is superior to the classic American one. It’s edgier in its depiction of violence and the camera work is much more adventurous and exciting.

Fast forward to 1957, this time it’s the U.K.’s chance to change the face of the horror film. Hammer Studios was quickly becoming the late 50’s answer to Universal Studios. They were hot off the heels of their hit “The Curse of Frankenstein” starring Peter Cushing as Victor Frankenstein and Christopher Lee as his monster. Hammer was re-making classic horror films in vivid colour, with amped up violence and sex. The rich red blood, the bulging bussoms, the gross makeup effects; Hammer’s horror combined gothic themes with the colourful comic book scares of E.C. Comic’s Tales From the Crypt series.

Dracula was a natural follow-up to “The Curse of Frankenstein”. Christopher Lee was cast as The Count, and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The film (titled “The Horror of Dracula” in the west to avoid confusion with Universal’s “Dracula”) was a revelation. Where Bela Lugosi played the character as a sophisticated gentleman with evil tendancies, Christopher Lee played the big “D” with the fury and intensity of a wolverine. A true force to be reckoned with.

The Dracula ritual came full circle in 1992 with the most faithful adaption to date. An all star cast of respected actors (and Keanu Reeves) combined with impressive modern effects amping up the sex and violence one step further. Gary Oldman’s Dracula is a tortured soul; denied love, peace and death. His Dracula is in constant pain, he finds no joy in his vampiric activities, only the brief satisfaction of transfering his immortal pain to his victims.

Director Francis Ford Coppola’s respect to his source material is impressive and yet he still makes nods to the films that came before his. There are homages in the film to “Nosferatu”, “Dracula” and”The Horror of Dracula”.

Being one of the most important literary characters ever, Dracula made the vampire what it is today (for better or worse). We haven’t seen the last of him. One of these days someone will show us a different side of the character and audiences will fall in love with Dracula all over again.

# 1. Let The Right One In

[2008]

Starring: Kåre Hedebrant, Lina Leandersson and Per Ragnar

Written by: John Ajvide Lindqvist, based on his novel

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson

What it’s about: The only soul young, introverted Oskar can relate to doesn’t really have a soul. She’s a vampire. And she’s afraid she might love him back.

Why it’s good: In one of the greatest ironies of our time, my absolute favourite vampire movie and my absolute least favourite have many similarities in their plots. They were even released around the same time. It also helps to further my earlier point about how the American film industry is often miles behind the curve when it comes to the horror genre.

Like “Twilight”,  the beautiful, quiet Swedish movie “Let the Right One In” is a story of young love and vampires. The difference is; everywhere “Twilight” goes horribly wrong, “Let The Right One In” goes horribly right. Every stake is hit firmly on it’s head. The love story is played with complete honesty and layers of tragedy that the American industry seems afraid to touch on. The acting is top notch, the script doesn’t have a sour note. Most importantly, the rich history of the vampire legend is treated with total respect.

It’s a love story without the commercial “sexiness” of its American counterparts. It’s directed in a refreshingly quiet oldschool way. You wont find quick cuts and closeups during action scenes, the camera sits still as the action unfolds before us. There is an anxious anticipation that builds to some intense horror setpieces including a finale that will knock your socks off your ass. The young leads completely rule in this film. Although it is about children, it is the farthest thing from childish. The concepts are heavy, the story-line is deeply engrossing and the violence is brutal.

I don’t want to give too much away about this movie because there are probably a lot of you out there who havent seen it yet. I’ll leave you with this: It is the smartest and most satisfying vampire movie I’ve ever seen. It left me thinking about it for weeks. See it before Hollywood gets the bright idea to remake it as a “sexy” music video for tweenage twits.

This Just In: Hollywood is currently planning a remake of “Let the Right One In”….be afraid, be very afraid.

Somewhat like this article? Got some time to kill? Check out my last two entries:

Horror Movie Top Ten List # 1: Slasher Movies

Horror Movie Top Ten List # 2: Giant Monster Movies