Mark of the Vampire (1935)



By 1935, Universal was taking a new stab at horror success by resorting to sequels. Boris Karloff and director James Whale were back with Bride of Frankenstein, but the following year's Dracula's Daughter would end up neither featuring Bela Lugosi nor Dracula director Tod Browning. Instead, Metro Goldwyn Meyer (which had previously attempted to purchase the rights from the Stoker Estate to film a Dracula sequel itself) ended up recruiting the duo to make what is a Dracula film in all but name.

I've always considered Dracula (1931), Mark of the Vampire (1935), and Return of the Vampire (1943) to make up a sort of Dracula Trilogy for Bela. The three plots and backstories do not reconcile, but Bela is playing the same villain each time, and the director knows it.

In the case of Mark of the Vampire, look at how carefully Browning uses it to improve upon the original Dracula film. Instead of transplanting the film from atmospheric Romania to boring England, the entire film takes place in Romania, with the normal household literally next door to the creepy bat-filled one. Instead of awkward silence, the film's soundtrack is made up of creepy atmospheric sounds. The Van Helsing-like character is both creepier and far more endearing. And anyone who laughed at the stereotypical Lugosi Dracula accent that had been oft-parodied by this point gets a terrifying, glaring Bela who never speaks. And the special effects are SO much better.

However, presumably because MGM was fearful of a lawsuit, the end of the film totally usurps itself to prove that the two vampires we've been watching throughout this film are just actors posing as vampires in order to frame a murderer. Thus, Bela's Count Mora ISN'T Dracula. Right? Right?

The problem is that this solution makes no actual sense whatsoever. Most of the shots where the vampires appear serve no purpose in hindsight if they are being performed entirely for the sake of one person who isn't present for the majority of those scenes. And how did one of the actors descend from the air on beating bat-wings? The ending utterly ruins an otherwise amazing film.



Plot (0-5 points): Mostly borrowed from Browning's earlier London After Midnight, except that was produced back when horror films were more wary of frightening their viewers, always taking pains to prove the supernatural wasn't actually real by the close. It not only feels outdated by 1935 standards, it ultimately doesn't make any sense either. 1/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): By 1935 American film standards, this is one creepy film! Great sets, spooky ambient sounds and (in one particularly memorable scene) atonal organ music, incredible lighting, a few truly ambitious zooms and angles, and that one sequence where an animated Luna (the vampire daughter) descends from the window via bat wings is utterly breath-taking. Sure, the rubber bats are silly, but the rest of the film absolutely delivers. 5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): Lionel Barrymore is perfect as the creepy, yet endearing Van Helsing-like character, and Elizabeth Allen plays the best Mina Harker-type character I've ever seen in these films, playing both an endearing innocent victim and a positively mischievous potential bride of the vampire. Everyone else is relatively adequate. And (just to make it feel even more like a sequel to Dracula) they even brought back the Romanian innkeeper from the beginning of the first film. 3/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): He doesn't get enough screen time, never gets to talk until the disappointing ending, and his first sequence with his "daughter" is a tad awkward, but his faces are outright terrifying at times, due in equal part to Bela, the makeup, and the lighting. I don't know that Bela ever got scarier than this, even while we certainly didn't get enough of it. 8/10


Overall: My love for this one is complicated. I love the film, and it absolutely wouldn't be the same without Bela, and yet it doesn't use him enough, and yet it uses him incredibly well. The overall 17/23 I'm giving this film can't possibly capture both how brilliant this film is and how utterly badly it screws the pooch. See it anyway.

Chandu on the Magic Island (1935)

This is just a repackaging of the second half of The The Return of Chandu (1934) serial. For what it's worth, the second half was the superior portion.

Yes. If it weren't for the ending, it would rank among my favorite horror films of all time.

The Phantom Ship (1935)



Considering that Bela was taking pretty much any role that came his way in an effort to pay off debts at this point, it's a little surprising to find him starring in a quality film. High seas murder mystery isn't exactly my genre of choice, but this is an impressive and worthwhile film, nonetheless.

Plot (0-5 points): As with so many well-written films of the era, there is a sense the script was cut for time, but it's not hard to fill in the blanks. There's a surprising amount going on in this film, every subplot finds a resolution, and (if you pay enough attention) there is clear motive behind every one of the killings. We needed a few more minutes of falling action to better understand our villain and arrive at a less forced resolution as well, but the plot worked far more than it didn't. 4/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): A few striking shots (see the one above), but the camera is not overly expressive. The visuals and ambient noise do an effective job of making us feel like we are at sea in all but one scene (the shark at the end is clearly filmed in daylight while it's pitch black out). 3.5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): An effective cast playing relatively complex roles, but I can't say I found any of them particularly memorable. 2/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Definitely one of his finest acting roles. Finally given a complex character to work with, Bela does not disappoint and manages not to ham it up either. He truly earns pathos for his character while also wearing a cloak of mystery about him, and man does he deliver when all the cards are down by the close 10/10

Overall: Folks don't talk about this one too often when discussing Bela. I overlooked it, myself (as it's not truly a horror film), but I see my mistake now. It may not be a genre of choice for me, but this is a great film, especially for Bela. 19.5/23

Yes, I was intrigued by the Hammar connection too, not that this film bares any resemblance to their later films with which we are more acquainted. Still, pretty cool to know that Lugosi was in a Hammar film.

The historical accuracy of the film is questionable, at best. They took a well known naval mystery and effectively invented their own facts, from what I've read.

As for waiting on a better release, there is apparently 18 minutes of footage cut from the surviving release that was there when the film premiered in the UK. I'd love to see that uncut version, but it supposedly no longer exists. As modern critics seem to agree that this is a high point for Bela, maybe a more concerted effort will eventially be made to find an uncut version of the film.

Most of Fields's movies have at least some bit of business that's pretty damn funny. But if you want to start out with one of his best films, I have five suggestions.

I sort of have a four-way tie for favorite W.C. Fields film. I will usually pick "It's a Gift" as my favorite because it doesn't veer off into extreme absurdity nearly as much as some of the others. It's a little more real and has a lot more heart than my other favorites. It's still pretty damn funny. There's a scene where Fields is trying to shave that kills me just thinking about it!

The other three films in the tie are: 1) "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break," which is an irresistible parody of Hollywood; 2) "The Bank Dick," with one of the greatest chase scenes in Hollywood history; and 3) "The Man on the Flying Trapeze," which among many other things includes a Gertrude Stein parody that is HILARIOUS (but probably only if you know the work of Stein).

Last but not least is the silent film "It's the Old Army Game," which is pretty much the same plot as "It's a Gift," but also featuring Louise Brooks. Also, the Baby Leroy role is played by a double-jointed midget dressed as a baby who seems to endure much from Fields, and it's frequently hilarious.  

The Invisible Ray (1936)



Bela's final film for Universal for several years (I'll get into the reasons a few reviews from now) once again pairs him with Boris Karloff for their third B level Universal production together. Once again, the budget has been expanded, and even the running time is far more generous this time around, and yet the film fails to deliver on the same level as The Black Cat (1934) and The Raven (1935).


Plot (0-5 points): One of the trademarks of these Lugosi/Karloff face-offs is the original plots, unlike Universal's A level horror films that are almost always adaptations of existing tried and true horror stories. And yet, this time around, it just doesn't work. The plot meanders, lacks a center, and doesn't really become a horror film until the final ten minutes. Before that, it's watching a uni-dimensional scientist slowly grow more and more unstable in pretty cliche and uninteresting ways. 2/5

Atmosphere (0-5 points): Many of the special effects are quite impressive, and the first and final scenes are full of the kind of moody shadows one would expect from Universal, but so much of the middle section is just...drab. It's really the fault of the script -- filming an expedition in Africa that spends most of its time on people talking in tents is difficult to make visually interesting. Additionally, the villain's glowing skin is hard to depict in an eerie or terrifying way, considering the limitations of the time period. So it just looks cheesy instead. 3.5/5

Other Actors (0-3 points): Karloff does a decent enough job with the uninteresting role he is given, but it's nothing like what he brought to the last two team-ups, even though he's given more time on camera to explore the role. There just isn't much for him to find. Meanwhile, Frances Drake is quite powerful given the limitations of her role as discarded wife/love interest, and Violet Kemble Cooper is phenomenal as Karloff's creepy but tremendously wise mother. 2.5/3

The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): I strongly suspect the lead role was written for Bela. Mad Hungarian scientist living in a castle in the Carpathian Mountains? And yet somehow Bela ends up as the French doctor while thoroughly English Boris Karloff ends up playing the lead instead. Of course, whether this happened at Bela's request or not, he was desperate by this point (the acting roles were drying up quick -- I'll address this soon in the thread) to prove to Hollywood that he could play roles outside of the villain, and the role of Dr. Benet afforded him just such an opportunity. Unfortunately, the role is even more flat than Karloff's, so Bela brings a charm and a sincerity to it, but the character has no identity nor motivations. He's just the good guy against which to measure just how far Karloff's character has fallen. 8/10


Overall: The most disappointing of the first three Bela/Boris face-offs, even while it got the biggest budget and the longest running time. Not a bad film, but I only truly enjoy the first ten minutes and the last ten minutes. 16/23