206) Let the Right One In (2006)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Ten...the final vampire, for now)

Director
Tomas Alfredson

Cast
Kåre Hedebrant - Oskar
Lina Leandersson - Eli
Per Ragnar - Håkan
Henrik Dahl - Erik
Karin Bergquist - Yvonne
Peter Carlberg - Lacke
Ika Nord - Virginia
Mikael Rahm - Jocke

After two overall terrible vampire movies, despite  some of the good things they both have going for them, I wanted to end this Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza with something well made...maybe even sublime. 

The 2006 Swedish horror film "Let the Right One In," based on the 2004 novel of the same title by John Ajvide Lindqvist, is a movie I had in mind to include in this thread since I thought up this year's Halloween movie extravaganza. And as I've mentioned in previous posts, I love saying the word "extravaganza." This movie is a unique story when it comes to vampires. 

The movie, which takes place in the early 1980s in Blackeberg, Stockholm, centers around a young Swedish boy, Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), who's a bit of a loner. 

He's unmercifully bullied at school by a small clique of boys. He lives in an apartment with his mother, Yvonne, (Karin Bergquist) while his father lives elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, mysterious and brutal murders are occurring around the neighborhood. The person responsible is a man named Håkan (Per Ragnar) who hoists victims upside down by their feet, cuts their throats, and collects their blood. He does this because he lives with a 12-year-old girl vampire named Eli (Lina Leandersson) who needs blood to survive. Håkan and Eli happen to live in the apartment next door to Oskar. 

Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson in "Let the Right One In."

However, he's unaware of these two until he meets Eli one evening out in the apartment courtyard. 

Oskar spends time alone at night wandering outside pretending to inflict revenge on his tormentors at school. 

One night, Eli sees him alone outside the apartment and talks to him. Oskar takes a bit of an interest in Eli as she appears to be his age. At first, she tells Oskar that she cannot be his friend without giving a reason. 

However, they slowly become friends. He opens up to her about the bullying he endures at school. And she encourages him to defend himself.

So, he enrolls in an after-school fitness class with hopes he can build up some muscle. 

Later, Håkan attempts to murder a passer-by in a secluded area in order to collect blood for Eli one evening but is interrupted by someone else out walking their dog. So, he runs off before getting caught.  He returns home with nothing to bring back to her. 

Eli has to go out into the night and attack someone herself to feed on. She lures a man named Jocke by pretending to be a young child in need and stranded out in the cold. 

When she returns to the apartment, Håkan goes back out to hide Jocke's body by dumping his remains in a frozen river. 

He tries again to collect blood for Eli by tying up a teenage boy after school one night in a locker room long after school hours. 

However, the boy's friends come looking for him and the boy wakes up before Håkan kills him and starts shouting for help. 

He hides elsewhere in the school hoping to avoid detection. In order to prevent being recognized, Håkan pours acid on his face. 

He's soon arrested and taken to a hospital first for treatment. Eli goes to see him that same night. Since he's in custody and will no longer be able to provide for her, Håkan offers his neck to her. She accepts the offer, drinks, and he plummets to his death out of the hospital window. 

Eli goes to see Oskar, while he's in bed. She taps on his window and asks him to invite her in. He asks how she managed to get up to his window as his apartment is several stories off the ground.

She simply says that she flew and them spends the night in his room. 

Now, he's all she has to take care of her. And she's the only friend he has. 

"Let the Right One In" keeps the vampire lore in a realistic style while being its own story unlike other vampire movies out there. 

I've heard it called a "coming of age" story, and I suppose it is for Oskar. Still, it's not the first movie with vampire children. Outside of probably a ton of made-for-children movies with vampire depictions suitable for children, Kirsten Dunst as Claudia in the 1994 movie, "Interview with a Vampire" is the only one that comes to mind right now. 

Kåre Hedebrant's performance makes his character sympathetic and memorable.

He and Lina Leandersson have true chemistry. Kåre's performance supports Lina's role as he needs to give her, as a vampire, a reason to befriend him and have the audience appreciate her doing that. That must have been a challenge. 

Though the movie carries themes of bullying and friendship, I'm torn as to what Eli's true intentions are from the moment she meets Oskar all the way to the end of the story. I couldn't tell if she was deceiving Oskar with her friendship to make him her next servant. Or, if she sincerely wanted friendship just as much as Oskar. Maybe there's a bit of both? 

My suspicions lean more into the side that Eli is really recruiting young Oskar to be a servant for her, whom she'll later command to kill people so that she can feed. 

In the scene when Oskar realizes Eli is a vampire, she admits that she is. She doesn't hide it. Oskar is rightly bothered by her need to kill people so she can feed. Still, he choses to remain a friend, even encouraging her to go steady.

She tells him they are a lot alike. Oskar has a secret desire to kill his bullies, while Eli needs to kill. 

She then tells Oskar, "Be me, for a little while." 

This sentiment gives the movie's title meaning - "Let the Right One In." 

Evil can disguise itself as good, but evil can't be anything other than what it is. 

Eli is the strength Oskar that lacks which is why he gravitates towards her. Or, it could be her vampiric lure to make him her slave. After all, he sees adults, even his divorced mother and father, as not too interested in his problems and situations. His mom is too busy. His father seems to include him because he has to. This certainly works in Eli's favor.   

As a vampire, she personifies the fact that true evil is willing to deceive in any way it can to ultimately drag souls down alongside them. The devil is the father of lies. In which case, perhaps the film is a cautionary tale about becoming comfortable and familiar with evil which ultimately seeks to enslave. 

Despite being a vampire, she never hints at any desire to feed on Oskar. 

In a later scene, Oskar takes her to a hideaway and wants to become blood siblings. He slices his palm and wants her to do the same to her hand. The idea is that they'll shake hands, and mingle their blood. Instead of cutting her hand, she can't hide her insatiable thirst for blood once she sees it as he naively stands in front of her with his hand out dripping blood. Instead of attacking him, she takes to the drops of blood on the floor and tells him to leave. 

The movie also adds a little to the vampire lore in that it shows what happens to a vampire if they enter a house without being verbally invited in. 

"Let the Right One In" got an American remake called "Let Me In" in 2010 with Chloë Grace Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas. I watched it several years ago shortly after I watched the Swedish film, and I can't remember anything about it. 

Anyways, this is a very unique vampire story that emotes more feelings of sympathy rather than fear, although it does possess some fear and horror elements as is needed in a vampire movie. A lot of the older Dracula movies have a bit of a fairy tale tone to them to some degree or another. This movie maintains a taste of that style, but with much more realism, or real-life style to it. And it's perfectly subtle and thought provoking.

🧛 So, that's another horror movie extravaganza in the bag...or on the blog...or where ever it needs to be. I had a lot of vampire movies I wanted to watch and include. Some I couldn't get my hands on for some reason or another, and others I would have had to pay for which I didn't want to do. 

As for the rest, there's just not enough time to get to all of them. My initial intent was to watch one Dracula/vampire movie from each decade between 1922 to 2024. Well, I made it to 2006, and watched 10 movies which is a number I decided to stick with. So, not bad. Below is a list of other movies I had considered including in this list, or tried to include. I'm certain I'll get to some of these in the future. 

"Vampyr" (1932)

"Vampire Bat" (1933)

"Mark of the Vampire" (1935)

"House of Dracula" (1945)

"The Vampire's Ghost" (1945)

"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" (1948)

"The Vampire" (1957)

"Kiss of the Vampire" (1963)

"The Fearless Vampire Killers" (1967)
"The Vampire Lovers" (1970)

"Blacula" (1972)
"Son of Dracula" (1974) - This one has Ringo Starr, Harry Nilsson, Peter Frampton and other rock stars! What the heck? 

"Zoltan... Hound of Dracula" (1977)

"Salem's Lot" (1979) 

"Fright Night" (1985)

"Vamp" (1986)

"The Lost Boys" (1987)

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992)

"Interview with the Vampire" (1994)

"Vampire in Brooklyn" (1995) - Eddie Murphy plays a vampire in this movie. 

"From Dusk Till Dawn" (1996)

"Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" (2012)

"What We Do in the Shadows" (2014) - I regret picking "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" over this comedy. 

"The Last Voyage of the Demeter" (2023)

🎃 Happy Halloween!🦇

205) Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Nine)

"Children of the night... What a mess they make."

Director

Mel Brooks

Cast
Leslie Nielsen - Count Dracula
Mel Brooks - Professor Van Helsing
Peter MacNicol - Thomas Renfield
Steven Weber - Jonathan Harker
Amy Yasbeck - Mina Seward
Lysette Anthony - Lucy Westenra
Harvey Korman - Dr. Seward
Anne Bancroft - Madame Ouspenskaya, the Gypsy Woman

If you mention Mel Brooks and "horror comedy" in the same sentence to anyone, chances are they'll throw the title "Young Frankenstein" back at you. And rightly so. 

Writer, director, and comedian Mel Brooks has satirized just about every movie genre there is. But he's knocked the horror genre around twice. The second horror satire from Brooks is his 1995 Dracula spoof, "Dracula: Dead and Loving It." 

It doesn't get anywhere near the same attention and appreciation as his 1974 horror comedy classic "Young Frankenstein." 

After checking out more macabre vampire movies, some being sublime and others taking themselves too seriously, I wanted to include something like this. I needed to toss in at least one horror comedy. And what better satirical Dracula movie could their be other than something from Mel Brooks. 

I've heard of this movie, but I've never seen it until now. 

It's a parody of "Dracula" by Bram Stoker with a lot jabs aimed directly at Francis Ford Coppola's 1992 film. "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

The story in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" is the same Dracula story told again and again. I laid it all out in my review of "Dracula" from 1931 so I'm going to skip the details of the storyline. 

The late comic legend Leslie Nielsen plays Count Dracula alongside Mel Brooks as Prof. Van Helsing. Peter MacNicol stars as Renfield. And the late Anne Brancroft, who was married to Mel Brooks, and is an actress I absolutely love, has a cameo as a Gypsie woman which I got a laugh from.

Steven Weber also stars as Jonathan Harker. And Harvey Korman, who's no stranger to Mel Brook's movies, plays Dr. Jack Seward. So, this movie is certainly well cast with strong comedic talent. 

Leslie Nielsen as Dracula in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It."

And yet the movie lacks comedy. There's not enough of it. Some scenes feel like a joke is building up, and then it doesn't arrive. Disappointing!

As for the rest of the movie, it's the same story of Dracula depicted over and over again in the movies, but with light satire. It doesn't have the comedic punch I would expect from a Mel Brooks movie. No wonder this film doesn't get the same attention as his other films, especially "Young Frankenstein." While that movie is mockery mixed perfectly with a clear reverence for the movie "Frankenstein," and includes unique lines and a memorable performance by Gene Wilder, "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" certainly has a talented cast, but it goes through the motions of the Dracula story. Aside from the cast, nothing else about it stands out. Not even the lines.  

Peter MacNicol is perfectly cast as Renfield. He depicts the character's tics and sporadic mannerisms, as well as Renfield's insanity spot on. 

In fact, MacNicol is an actor who appears to enjoy whatever roles he's in, though I admit the only movies I've seen him in besides this one are "Ghostbusters II," "Addams Family Values," and Mr. Bean's movie, "Bean." He always puts forth everything he has to fine tune his performances. In other words, he never half-asses it. 

Leslie Nielsen as Dracula is exactly that - Leslie Nielsen putting on his best Dracula impression. Behind the Dracula costume and pale face, it's Leslie Nielsen. It seems liker there's potential for some comedic gold in casting Nielsen as Dracula, and then seeing what he does with this character. But it's not his most memorable character. 

This movie has potential. It's the lacking comedy which is disappointing. Only a small handful of scenes got a bit of a laugh out of me. There's little, if anything, that stuck with me after watching this. Otherwise, it's a disappointment.  

204) Vampire in Venice (1988)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Eight)

"Nosferatu is a supreme lord of evil, second only to the devil himself."

Directors
Augusto Caminito
Klaus Kinski

Cast

Klaus Kinski - Nosferatu
Christopher Plummer - Prof. Paris Catalano
Donald Pleasence - Don Alvise
Barbara De Rossi - Helietta Canins
Yorgo Voyagis - Dr. Barneval
Anne Knecht - Maria Canins
Elvire Audray - Uta Barneval
Clara Colosimo - Medium
Maria Cumani Quasimodo - Princess

Decade by decade, the vampire movies become more and more abundant. It's hard to pick just one. 

When it comes to the 1980s, there's a respectable handful of popular vampire movies, "Fright Night," "The Lost Boys," "Near Dark," "Vamp," to drop a few titles. 

For this slot, I wanted to pick something not too common but stands in some way or another. 

I went vampire movie by vampire movie on a few different streaming apps, including one app called "Cinema Box" which has a fantastic list of classic and hard to come by films for free. 

I found the 1988 Italian horror movie "Vampire in Venice" on the Tubi streaming app. 

Also known as "Prince of the Night" and "Nosferatu in Venice" the film definitely has some notable details about it. 

For instance, it stars Acadamy Award-winning actor Christopher Plummer.

In this movie, Plummer plays an Abraham Van Helsing-like character named Prof. Paris Catalano. Incidentally, in the movie "Dracula 2000," Plummer plays Abraham Van Helsing, which is worth mentioning. 

Also, in this movie Klaus Kinski plays a vampire called "Nosferatu." As I previously mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Klaus Kinski plays Nosferatu in the 1979 movie "Nosferatu the Vampyre" - a remake of F. W. Murnau's 1922 silent film which I reviewed earlier this month. 

And Donald Pleasance, who famously plays James Bond villain Blofeld in the 007 movie, "You Only Live Twice" as well as Dr. Loomis in several of the "Halloween" movies, stars in this flick. 

Klaus Kinski as Nosferatu in "Vampire in Venice."

"Vampire in Venice" is a real oddity.

This flick starts with Prof. Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) traveling from the U.K. to Venice, Italy in search of the infamous vampire Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski).

He believes the remains of the vampire is indeed in Venice. The last time anyone ever saw Nosferatu was back in 1786 at some carnival. This makes me wonder if this vampire has been out-of-sight all that time, why bother looking for him? 

I guess the answer lies in the fact that Princess Helietta Canins (Barbara De Rossi) asked Catalano to Venice because she thinks Nosferatu's tomb is in the basement of her family estate. 

For some reason, even though Nosferatu must still be in his tomb after all these decades, Helietta believes the old vampire wants to end his immortal life and enter into eternal life although he'll probably end up in Hell. 

When Catalano shows up, he can't help but notice how much Helietta looks like Nosferatu's old love interest, Letizia. That seems to be a running trope in a lot of these vampire movies. 

So, that night Helietta and her family, along with Catalano hold a séance for reasons that aren't explained. It's like they want Nosferatu to awaken after 200 years. Even the local Catholic priest, Don Alvise (Donald Pleasence) warns them how stupid such a demonic act is, and shouldn't be performed for the sake of their souls. 

The Catholic Church, represented by the priest, is the only figure of sanity and right mindedness. 

But obviously they're not a bright group considering they're tempting fate. So, they hold their little séance which causes Nosferatu to awaken and flea his tomb. 

Now Nosferatu is out prowling around Venice! 

In no time, he finds Helietta's mother, Princess Catalano (Maria Cumani Quasimodo) where he forces her onto a balcony and pushes her over. She lands on an iron fence and is impaled. 

During the funeral, Catalano tells Helietta that Nosferatu can actually be stopped by love, which seems like lazy and cliché writing to me. 

This movie appears to make up its story as it moves along. And why Catalano wants to kill Nosferatu before he kills himself is beyond me. 

If there's one thing this movie loves, its the image of Christopher Plummer standing in all his Christopher Plummer glory on a gondola with a look of power on his face. The movie has several shots of people floating down gondolas along the streets of Venice. Venice is a beautiful city but too much of a good thing can easily become mundane and repetitive. 

Still, I am eager to find out more about "Vampire in Venice." Why was it made? What was the motivation behind it? What was it like on set during filming, especially with Klaus Kinski on board? Movies with Klaus Kinski often have quite a

Christopher Plummer as Prof. Paris Catalano.

fireworks show of stories. Just check out my review of the 1986 horror movie "Crawlspace" which also stars Kinski. I wonder what Christopher Plummer thought about Klaus Kinski while working alongside him. 

Considering that Kinski stars in the lead role and has a reputation of having been a difficult and explosive actor to work with - notorious for not liking directors - my curiosity needs answers. His performance is nothing more than glaring with an evil glare, and that's about it. It's unimpressive. His presences is so egotistical in this movie. It spews right out of the screen with all the shots of himself standing in front of the camera over and over again as if he's reminding the audience, "I am Klaus Kinski, and you are not." 

This film tries to be a serious horror movie with depth and impact.  It's loaded with more air of artistry instead of the much needed trepidation and fear any audience would expect from a vampire movie. By the ends, it's just a pretentious and tawdry spectacle that takes itself way too seriously.

Still, the movie has some beautiful shots of Venice aside from all the characters floating down Venice streets. 

Any inclusion of haunting nightmarish scenes feels more like an after thought. And with its over extravagant soundtrack that makes me chuckle though it doesn't want me to, it takes the bite out of its horror (no pun intended). 

Anyways, the soundtrack is horrible! It starts off eerily enough, and then keeps going into an overly synthetized style that irritates my nerves. 

And the cutaways seem as though someone forgot to make the final edits to the movie. It's like the entire movie was released haphazardly. 

I get the impression the movie takes inspiration from Pope Benedict XIV's (1740 - 1758) statement that vampires are nothing but human fantasies. 

He's referenced in the movie. In one seen, Catalano is asked, "What's the Church's attitude towards vampires?"

Boy, that's got to be difficult question. Surely, there's more to it than the Church's official teaching that vampires suck. No pun intended. 

"Vampirism is one of the thousand ways in which evil manifests itself. It was Pope Benedict XIV who decreed that," Catalano replies. 

Going back to Klaus Kinski, everything I've ever seen him in, he always strikes me as insane. For Kinski, it's in the eyes. This movie is no exception. He's not frightening. He's just insane. In fact, it solidifies my impression. I can't help having the impression that he enjoyed all the worst scenes involving Nosferatu's female victims too much.

All in all, there's no real climax in this movie. It feebly fades in, and then as mysteriously as it arrived, it ends. If there's one thing I've learned about Kinski's acting style just by watching this one movie, its that he sure loves himself. 

203) The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires; aka The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula (1974)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Seven) 

"It's the darkness that brings them out." 

Directors
Roy Ward Baker
Chang Cheh

Cast
Peter Cushing - Prof. Van Helsing
John Forbes-Robertson - Count Dracula
David de Keyser - the voice of Count Dracula (uncredited)
Robin Stewart - Leyland Van Helsing
Julie Ege - Vanessa Buren
Robert Hanna - British Consul
David Chiang - Hsi Ching/Hsi Tien-en
Shih Szu - Mai Kwei
Chan Shen - The High Priest, Kah

It's East meets West in this last vampire movie in Hammer Productions' line-up of Dracula movies - "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires." It follows eight previous Dracula films I mentioned in my review of "The Brides of Dracula" - the second Dracula movie from Hammer Productions.  

I've already reviewed that movie, along with the first movie, "The Horror of Dracula" and skipped the rest to get to this unique gem of a flick. 

No doubt I'll come back to the previous movies I have yet to watch. 

"The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" is unique both in my lineup of this year's Halloween reviews as well as among vampire movies in general. 

This movie is difficult to find. And the version I was lucky enough to come across was the 1979 wide-release from Dynamite Entertainment re-titled "The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula." I found it on the fantastic streaming app "Cinema Box."

It has a 75-minute runtime, and I don't know how the 1979 version differs from the original cut. 

Unfortunately, it's the second Hammer Dracula movie that doesn't feature Christopher Lee as Dracula. As I mentioned in my last post, Lee doesn't appear in "Brides of Dracula" neither. 

John Forbes-Robertson bears the fangs and dawns the cape of Dracula in this movie, making him the only other actor aside from Lee to portray Dracula in Hammer Film Production's movies. 

In the plus-column, Peter Cushing returns as Van Helsing which ties this to the previous Dracula movies.  

In this film, a Taoist monk named Kah (Chan Shen) who is also a high priest within the Temple of Seven Golden Vampires in China, travels to Transylvania to summon Count Dracula. 

The Golden Vampires of his temple are growing weak. So, Kah wants Dracula to restore their power and give them the strength they need to be as powerful as they used to be.

Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.

Dracula agrees to help only if Kah will permit him to use his body to escape his castle which has become a sort of prison for Dracula. 

Kah is reluctant but allows Dracula to use his body and takes his form to escape his castle. Dracula then heads to China. 

A hundred years go by. Prof. Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) actually lives up to his title of professor as he lectures at Chungking University on the legend behind Chinese vampires. During his lecture, Van Helsing mentions a Chinese village that has been tormented by a cult that calls itself the "Seven Golden Vampires." 

As he explains, a local farmer had tried to take down the cult himself. During the fight, he managed to grab a gold medallion in the shape of a bat off the next of one of these vampire cult members. It turns out the vampires need the medallion to live. 

The farmer escaped with the medallion, and the cult's high priest sent the seven vampires after him. 

They caught up to the farmer and cornered him. The farmer placed the bat medallion around a statue of Buddha just before they killed him.

One of the vampires tried to take the medallion off the Buddha statue only to ignite into flames as soon as he touched it. So, the seven Golden Vampires are reduced to six. 

Van Helsing thinks this village still exists and that the six remaining Golden Vampires are still preying on the villagers. It's just a matter of finding where it's located. 

After his lecture, all the students and professors think it's just an urban legend, and don't take Van Helsing seriously. But one student named Hsi Ching (David Chiang) knows it's true because that farmer was his grandfather. To prove it, Ching has that same medallion his grandfather took. So, he's completely on board with Van Helsing in finding the village and killing off the vampires once and for all. 

So, Van Helsing and Ching, along with Van Helsing's son Leyland (Robin Stewart) as well as Ching's seven siblings who are masters in kung fu venture off to find that long lost village and take on the six Golden Vampires. 

The tagline reads, "the first kung-fu horror spectacular!" That's really all I liked about this movie. Well, Peter Cushing, too. I've never seen a Peter Cushing role I didn't like. 

John Forbes-Robertson as Count Dracula

And to think that just three years after starring in this movie, he would appear in "Star Wars." Within that time between "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" and "Star Wars," Cushing appears in six movies. 

Anyways, this movie packs in three things I love into one film - vampires, Hammer horror, and kung fu. I don't really know much of anything about kung fu. I just know I love a good martial arts movie. In fact, while watching this, I could barely follow the story. I just wanted to see more fighting and vampires. It was a trip watching these fighting scenes as Peter Cushing stood off to the side also watching on screen. 

Everything else doesn't seem like it was thoroughly thought out. There's so much slow motion where it doesn't need to be. All that slow motion makes the movie feel like it's dragging.

The first twenty minutes contains a lot screaming and little to no dialogue. It opens with 23 minutes of gore and ghoulish blood sucking. 

Once Peter Cushing shows up, the film finally picks up and starts combining classic gothic style vampire with Chinese martial arts. 

I wish the final fight between Van Helsing and Dracula went on longer. It's the stuff of classics. Watching Dracula die marks the end of an era, or so it seems. 

A sequel called "Kali, Devil Bride of Dracula" was planned but was never executed. What a bummer! 

Otherwise, this movie has intense imagery that veers into a different mythos of vampires based in Eastern lore. And the scene with Cushing as Van Helsing explaining the differences between European vampire versus hunting Asian vampires, to Chinese vampire hunters is a real iconic vibe. If only the storyline had some stronger writing to support it, this would be a fantastic movie! 

202) Brides of Dracula (1960)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Six)

"Count Dracula, monarch of all vampires, is dead, but his disciples live on, to spread the cult and corrupt the world."

Director

Terrance Fisher 

Cast
Peter Cushing - Dr. Van Helsing
Yvonne Monlaur - Marianne
David Peel - Baron Meinster
Martita Hunt - Baroness Meinster
Freda Jackson - Greta
Miles Malleson as Dr. Tobler
Henry Oscar - Herr Lang
Mona Washbourne - Frau Lang
Andrée Melly - Gina
Victor Brooks - Hans
Fred Johnson - the priest

The end of August is approaching as I write this, and I still have six more vampire movies to get through before Oct. 31. I got this! 

I couldn't post a thread of Dracula movies for the Halloween season without including at least one movie from Hammer Productions over in the U.K. 

Hammer horror movies are a pillar in the genre. They revived the classic Universal Monsters and gave them the finishing touch which the original films from Universal tried to accomplish within the boundaries of what they could and couldn't do. And these movies are in color, treating the subject matter with reverence and appreciation. They polish the appearance and atmosphere of Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman, and all the rest, solidifying their place in horror pop culture. 

I've already reviewed Hammer Productions first Dracula movie, "Horror of Dracula" (1958) with Christopher Lee in the title role and Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing. It makes sense to look at its sequel, "Brides of Dracula" from 1960. 

The movie starts as a young attractive French school teacher, Marianne Danielle (Yvonne Monlaur), is dropped off and left at a village inn while travelling to Transylvania. Her coach driver basically ditches her at the inn.

The local Baroness Meinster (Martita Hunt) invites her to stay at her castle for the night. But the locals warn her it's not safe. Her son, Baron Meinster (David Peel), is rumored to be crazy and kept locked in the castle. But Marianne accepts the invitation. 

David Peel and Yvonne Monlaur in "Brides of Dracula."

Once Marianne settles in, she snoops around the castle and happens to find, to her shock and horror, Baron Meinster locked in a room and chained to a wall just as she was told.

He begs for Marianne to release him, claiming his mother has taken his lands and keeps him jailed.

So, she sneaks into his mother's bedroom and steals the key to free him from his shackles. The jokes on her, though. the Baron is a vampire! 

Now that he's free, the Baron attacks his own mother and drinks her blood, as vampires are known to do. Marianne witnesses this evil and horrific deed and escapes the castle during the night. 

Now a vampire, the Baroness starts brining in young girls for her son to feed on. 

By morning, Marianne meets Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) but can't seem to remember what she witnessed the night before. 

So, Van Helsing takes her to the school where she'll be working. When he gets back to the village, Van Helsing comes across the funeral of a young girl found dead in the woods with bite marks on her neck. He knows exactly what that means and doesn't waste time investigating the presence and location of the vampire responsible.

The local priest, Fr. Stepnik (Fred Johnson), joins Van Helsing in his pursuit. He and Van Helsing try to encourage the deceased girl's father not to bury his daughter. Of course, it sounds like an outlandish request. Naturally, the father refuses and buries her. As expected, she rises from her grave as a vampire. 

Van Helsing and Fr. Stepnik go the cemetery and try to kill the vampire girl. When they get there, they find the Baroness's servant, Greta (Freda Jackson), who knows that both the Baron and her master are both vampires, calling out to the buried girl to rise from her grave.

The girl begins crawling out of her grave. Van Helsing and Fr. Stepnik try to stop her, but Greta keeps them back. And the living-dead girl escapes. 

Peter Cushing as Van Helsing.

When Van Helsing gets back to the castle, he runs into the Baroness and her son. Van Helsing attacks them, but the Baron runs off. 

Feeling pity for the Baroness as her son's attack on her was an act of revenge for locking him up, Van Helsing decides to drive a stake through her heart while she's asleep the next morning. 

The Baron goes straight to Marianne and asks to marry her, which she agrees to do. 

This makes Marianne's roommate, Gina (Andrée Melly) jealous. However, the Baron pays Gina a visit later that night and turns her into a vampire. 

Now, Van Helsing has his work cut out for him as he tries to fend off all these vampires and ultimately kill the Baron. 

It's thanks to British director Terence Fisher that Gothic horror such as this movie, and other Hammer horror films, gave audiences the classic yet revived (for the time) Universal monsters in color. 

His first major Gothic horror movie was 1957's "Curse of Frankenstein" which instantly solidified Hammer Production's place in the horror genre. Actors Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing took on leading roles in the majority of these movies. Peter Cushing nails the role as he gives Van Helsing a holy determination to destroy evil at the roots. 

Fisher also directed "Horror of Dracula" and "Dracula: Prince of Darkness." 

He often portrays evil as alluring and charming, only to lead to immorality, and then to death and destruction. Meanwhile goodness and Christian morals are portrayed as strong and determined. I can get behind that. 

"Brides of Dracula" is a worthy follow-up to "Horror of Dracula." While Dracula doesn't appear in this movie, though he's mentioned, his evil sickness carries on which Van Helsing must continue fighting. 

Sure, this movie is dated as far as horror goes. But it still has a classic charm about it. 

I love these gothic Victorian era horror movies! I tend to compare them with Roger Corman's Edgar Allan Poe films made in the same period. Comparing them side by side, it's clear Hammer had a bigger budget to work with, and it shows. But Corman still made some fantastic period horror movies with his Poe series that still hits the spot. 

"Brides of Dracula" keeps the same unsettling atmosphere and classic vampire tropes previously seen. It is formulaic in its story, and doesn't add much, if anything, to Dracula's lore. It tells a tale of Dracula's aftermath, and how Van Helsing has to clean up the mess he left behind. That's an original take, I think.

It has fine acting, a unique style of horror and atmosphere, and a story that pulls the audience in. 

There are seven more Dracula films in the Hammer series following "Brides of Dracula" - "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" (1966), "Dracula has Risen from the Grave" (1968), "Taste the Blood of Dracula" (1970), "Scars of Dracula" (1970), "Dracula A.D. 1972" (1972), "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" (1973), and the martial arts horror movie "The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires" (1974). I'll get to that last one next! 

201) The Return of Dracula (1958)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Five)

"I bring you a death- a living death."

Director

Pat Landes

Cast
Francis Lederer - Bellac Gordal
Norma Eberhardt - Rachel Mayberry
Ray Stricklyn - Tim Hansen
John Wengraf - John Meierman
Virginia Vincent - Jennie Blake
Gage Clarke - Reverend Whitfield
Jimmy Baird - Mickey Mayberry
Greta Granstedt - Cora Mayberry


I've skipped over a few vampire movies released between the 1940s and 1950s to get to this oddity - "The Return of Dracula."

The last movie I posted, "Son of Dracula" spawned the sequel "House of Dracula" in 1945 with John Carradine and Lon Chaney, Jr. 

"The Vampire's Ghost" was released in 1945 as well, from Republic Pictures. It's its own movie, though, and has nothing to do with the previous Dracula movies from Universal. 

The classic horror comedy, "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" came out in 1948 with Béla Lugosi reprising his role as Dracula. That deserves to be included in the Dracula-verse.  

"The Return of Dracula" is a United Artists production. It's not Universal so "Dracula" isn't the same at all to Lugosi's depiction. Plus, it was shadowed by U.K's Hammer Horror masterpiece, "Horror of Dracula" with Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Michael Gough. I have a copy of "The Return of Dracula" as part of an MGM double-feature DVD set called "Midnite Movies." I found it on a free DVD shelf at a local library. 

There's several of these individual sets with different double-features, and this is one of a few I own in my library. It's packaged with the 1957 movie "The Vampire" also from United Artists. Both of these movies came out when horror movies were moving away from the shadowy and mysterious monsters, and moving towards the atomic age of the late 1950s and into the 1960s. 

"The Vampire" is a more sci-fi horror take on the vampire horror sub-genre. I was torn which one to post about in this slot.

However, they're both directed by Paul Landres. And as far as I know, the films are unrelated. 

In this movie, John Meierman (John Wengraf) is over in Central Europe investigating Count Dracula and attempting to capture him. 

Francis Lederer as Bellac Gordal, the vampire, in 
"The Return of Dracula."

He and some assistants are out at a cemetery planning on to corner Dracula inside his tomb and drive a steak through his heart. It's the best way to kill a vampire! 

When they open his casket, Dracula isn't inside. 

Little do they know that he's onboard a train heading out of town. 

On board the train. the vampire kills a Czech artist named Bellac Gordal who's heading to Carleton, California to visit some distant family members he hasn't seen since he was young. 

So, Dracula poses as Gordal once he steps off the train in sunny California. It doesn't sound like a safe place for vampires, but that's were he is.  

Gordal's widowed cousin, Cora Mayberry (Greta Granstedt) is fooled and is happy to see whom she thinks is Gordal after all these years. She invites him to stay inside her home with her son, Mickey (Jimmy Baird) and older teenage daughter, Rachel (Norma Eberhardt). 

Rachel is anxious to meet her distant cousin as she, too, has a love for art and is working on being a fashion designer. 

However, "Belloc's" behavior seems very strange. And he sleeps all day. 

Mickey's cat goes missing the day after he arrives, which is rather odd as well. 

Little do they know that he's really a vampire, and that he has taken up his resting place inside a nearby abandoned mineshaft. 

But the truth as a way of inserting itself, and before long Rachel and her boyfriend, Tim Hansen (Ray Stricklyn) begin to suspect Belloc isn't really whom he claims to be. 

"Return of Dracula" has a different setup to the customary Dracula movies, but the general idea remains the same. The vampire is looking to create a brood of vampires. Instead of taking up residence in the dark and sinister cold stone walls of a far-away castle nearly impossible to reach, this vampire takes up residence in Anytown, USA amidst an unwary typical suburban family. It could happen to anyone. 

Despite how much I found this to be a fun movie, I don't understand the title. First, where is Dracula returning from. I initially thought Dracula was returning from "The Vampire" which I mentioned. I actually haven't watched "The Vampire" yet, so I had to look up the synopsis. There is no Count Dracula in "The Vampire." I wonder if the writers of both these Landres movies are using the word "Dracula" as a noun instead of a proper noun. In other words, they think a vampire and Dracula mean the same thing as though Dracula isn't a proper noun. 

"A dracula snuck into my room last night and drank all my blood."

In one scene, Gordal turns Rachel's friend Jennie into a vampire. Later, Jennie is steaked through the heart. 

Norma Eberhardt and Ray Stricklyn.

Though the movie is in black and white, Jennie's quick death scene is colorized with the bright crimson red color of the stage blood grabbing the audiences attention.

The movie surpasses my expectations. I thought it was going to be the most vampiric B-movie so far. While it's certainly a product of its time, it's well executed and I found it satisfying and entertaining. This feels like a classic horror movie which may be why I enjoyed it. It has the feels of a B-horror movie or a long episode of "The Twilight Zone." Despite its obviously dated execution, it keeps it's classic premise sharp and maintains it's sense of horror, eeriness and dread. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen King pulled some inspiration for his vampire tale, "Salem's Lot" from "The Return of Dracula" in that the audience doesn't need to travel off to Transylvania to be in the presence of a vampire. The vampire pops up in their own American neighborhood with all his mysterious foreign mannerisms. 

"The Return of Dracula" keeps a sense of fear and trepidation, perhaps tarnished with age...but it's still there and recognizable. 

It's not a perfect movie, especially considering whatever it has to do with the name of Dracula. In fact, the title would suggest it's a sequel which it's not. It's misleading. The movie is banking on the property of Count Dracula, and mentions the name Dracula only once as lore. But the vampire isn't Count Dracula. No relationship is referenced. It's its own movie. 

This movie might be confused with the 1943 movie "Return of the Vampire" which stars Bela Lugosi once again in the lead role.  

Though this movie comes across as a bit unnecessary, it still manages to leave a humble mark on the legacy of vampire movies. 

For a film from the late 1950s, it's borderline risque. It also utilizes jump scares, shadows and creeps. 
It keeps the suspense and trepidation lasting, and maintains a decent pace. 
Also, the sound track sounds like the theme from "The Shining." That's probably because it's the Dies Irae which can be heard at traditional Catholic funeral masses. 

200) The Exorcist (1973) - My Defense of William Friedkin's Classic

My 200th  Review!  

"The power of Christ compels you!"

Director

William Friedkin

Cast
Linda Blair - Regan MacNeil
Ellen Burstyn - Chris MacNeil
Max von Sydow - Fr. Lankester Merrin
Jason Miller - Fr. Damien Karras, SJ
Lee J. Cobb - Lt. William Kinderman
Kitty Winn - Sharon Spencer
Jack MacGowran - Burke Dennings

Two-hundred horror movies into this blog! There's just 800 more to go until I reach 1,000. And it only took me since 2018 to get to this many. If I wasn't insane before, I must be now. 

I wanted to interrupt my series of vampire movie commentaries to post something particular for my 200th review. 

Like my 100th review, The Monster Squad, back in 2021, I wanted my 200th entry to be a good one! This time, I wanted to pick a title that would stir the pot...just a little. I wanted to include a horror movie that waves high above other movies in the genre. I wanted number 200 to be on a movie that doesn't cease to be discussed. I wanted a classic, which I know is a word that covers a lot of territory. 

My initial choice was going to be the 1931 movie "Frankenstein" which is an absolutely excellent film. It's one I have a lot of appreciation for. But I changed my mind as I normally do. 

I think a defense of the 1973 movie "The Exorcist" will turn some heads, especially within my little circle of fellow Catholics. I say that because I also think "The Exorcist" is a Catholic movie!

When I started this platform in 2018, I didn't have any plan nor desire to review "The Exorcist." But that changed when I sat through the despicable, abhorrent, lazy, stupid, unpleasant, repulsive, unwelcomed, pretentious and putrid mess of a film, "The Exorcist: Believer." It's a flick that intruded its way into theaters back in 2023. I apologize for mentioning it as I swore I would never bring it up again. So, I decided I wanted to comment on "The Exorcist" at some point. And there's no better time than my 200th horror movie commentary. 

Directed by William Friedkin, "The Exorcist" is a movie that has aged well as a religious picture considering how baseless and politically driven, or "woke" most modern movies have become. Heck, even "The Exorcist: Believer" has been dubbed by critics as the "Woke-cercist." 

I wrote about "The Exorcist" four years ago in a post regarding whether it's still the scariest movie ever. I also reviewed the third movie in the series, "The Exorcist III" if anyone cares what I thought about it. 

Linda Blair as Regan MacNeil in "The Exorcist."

The Plot

The film is based on William Peter Blatty's 1971 novel of the same name. Blatty's story is based on the real exorcism of a 14-year-old boy from Mount Rainier that took place in the late 1940s, 

"The Exorcist" centers on 12-year old Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair) who lives with her mother, Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) in a fancy Georgetown home. 

Chris is a film actress and is in Georgetown working on a movie directed by her good friend, Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran). 

At nearby Georgetown University, Fr. Damien Karras S.J. (Jason Miller) is a psychiatrist who counsels other priests at Georgetown. 

His elderly mother lives by herself in New York. Her health is failing, but she refuses to move out of her apartment and into a care facility close to Fr. Karras.

He tries to convince his mother to move someplace where she'll have the around-the-clock care she needs. All the while Fr. Karras confides to his fellow priest that amidst the turmoil he feels leaving his mother alone in her New York apartment, he thinks he's losing his faith. His work as a priest, counselor, and psychiatrist is overwhelming him. Fr. Karras doesn't think he can cut it anymore. 

In the MacNeil house, shortly after Regan discovers a Ouija board in the basement and plays around with it, her behavior and demeanor start to change. Regan becomes violent and soon, supernatural phenomenon starts taking place around Regan.

Fr. Karras's mother eventually passes away. His heart is not only heavy with sadness, but also with guilt as he wasn't with her when she died. He thinks there's a lot more he could have and should have done. 

Meanwhile, the more hostile and vulgar Regan becomes, medical professionals can't explain what is wrong with her despite several medical examinations. 

Chris is at her wit's end. On top of this chaos, when Chris returns home one night and checks on Regan who's fast asleep in her room, she's notified that Burke Dennings was found dead at the bottom of a set of stairs outside Regan's window. Evidence suggests he may have been in Regan's bedroom and somehow fell out of her window. 
Police Detective William Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb) investigates his death, going to Fr. Karras for information as Denning's head was found turned completely around. 

Regan's body develops sores and marks all over. And the medical professionals examining her without any answers suggest that maybe Chris should question the Catholic Church as Regan is showing signs of psychosis and even demonic possession. 

After Chris witnesses Regan attacking herself with a crucifix and then turning her head completely around, speaking in Denning's voice, she's convinced that a demon must be doing this to her daughter.

She consults Fr. Karras who's highly skeptical at first at the notion of demonic possession, but agrees to go visit Regan. 

When he does, Regan claims to be the devil himself. She speaks in different tongues, knows things about Karras that she couldn't possibly know, and has greater strength than what a normal 12-year-old would have. The demon inside Regan also tells Fr. Karras that it plans to remain until Regan is dead and decaying in the earth.

After a few more visits, Fr. Karras concludes that the girl needs to see an exorcist. 

He consults with his bishop who gives permission for an exorcism to be conducted, but wants another priest, Fr. Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow) who has experience with possession and the demonic, to lead it. 

Max von Sydow as Fr. Lankester Merrin in "The Exorcist."

My Thoughts

When "The Exorcist" was released, horror movies were transitioning out of the atomic age of giant monsters attacking cities and space aliens invading earth. The genre was entering a more authentic age with realistic movies that don't follow romantic leads amidst horrific or frightening scenarios. "Rosemary’s Baby" from 1967, which helped launch this sub-genre, "Night of the Living Dead" from 1968, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" from 1974, and "The Amityville Horror" from 1979 are such movies that come to mind. 

"The Exorcist," released just four years after "Rosemary's Baby," was a movie the likes of which had never been seen before. There is no other movie before it about a demonic possession and Catholic exorcism. It not only tells a story, but it has a documentary tinge to it. 

I've mentioned before that the supernatural/ demonic possession sub-genre of horror movies often makes my eyes roll. They're very few I consider good. Often, they're just forgettable and repetitious.   

These kinds of movies normally depict what Hollywood hack writers think the devil is capable of doing alongside the erroneous way they think God behaves. That is, in some kind of Deist way, these movies too often depict God as an entity too far away, sitting out there somewhere looking down and watching the scene play out but not caring enough to intervene, even when invoked, in the demonic attack the characters are suffering.  

His intervention is one big question mark. Maybe He'll help when invoked by priests or pastors, but don't hold your breath. Is He even listening? Who knows? But the demonic entities in these movies are free to do whatever they please, even kill people in the most gruesome way imaginable. The religious side, no matter how it's depicted, often lose but not before a severe beating.  

"The Exorcist" does depict the devil's activities, which goes without saying, are very disturbing to view for anybody. And God's intervention is depicted as well, but not with the same fireworks and performance the agitated and agonizing demon puts on. However, God's presences and intervention isn't doubted here. It's trusted.

The focus of Regan's possession is more on the grotesque and putrid phenomenon that has been known to take place with severe demonic possessions.  For instance, this kind of activity was witnessed in a demonic possession that took place in Earling, Iowa in 1928 involving a young girl as documented and verified in the book, "Begone, Satan: A Soul Stirring Account of Diabolical Possession in Iowa" by Fr. Carl Vogl. 

"The Exorcist" doesn't quite touch on the demonic mindset and psychological aspect of possession which can be much more frightening than projectile vomit and head-spinning. I mention this in my review of another well-made possession film, "Nefarious." 

In that review, I quoted real life exorcist Fr. Carlos Martin from his interview on a podcast called "Pints with Aquinas."

"['Nefarious'] brought you into the demonic mind which is much more interesting," he says. "That's the realm that I deal with - that an exorcist deals with. And that, I will tell you, at the end of the day is far more frightening. It's far more! If you saw somebody levitate in front of you, it would probably make the hair on the back of your head stand up. The 18th time, would it do that? The 118th time? At a certain point, you move on," 

"The Exorcist" briefly mentions something about the psychological attack that'll come about in the exorcism about to be performed when Fr. Merrin warns Fr. Karras about what's to come. 

"Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don't listen to him," Fr. Merrin says.

I don't know if the film intends such a depiction or it's my own interpretation, but as the Second Vatican Council had just concluded in 1965, there's a contrast between Fr. Karras and Fr. Merrin that's timely. 

Fr. Merrin is the more traditional "old school" priest while the younger psychiatrist Fr. Karras has a more progressive mindset and ideas that are far from being truly Catholic, such as demonic possession being a thing of the 16th century, and not relevant anymore now that people understand mental illness, schizophrenia, and paranoia much better than they did centuries.  

"It just doesn't happen anymore," he tells Chris MacNeil when she presses him about getting an exorcism, which is far from the truth. Exorcism is just as relevant and practiced in the Catholic Church today as it was since Christ instructed His apostles to cast out demons in His name. 

After visiting with Regan, he also tells Chris, "You probably know as much about possession than most priests." Ok....maybe that much is true in the modern conciliar church. 

Such a lapse was surfacing fast in the Catholic Church even before the Vatican II. It's no wonder he thinks he's losing his faith.

But the experienced and traditional Fr. Merrin proves him wrong, and surely Fr. Karras stands corrected. 

In the final scene when Fr. Karras tackles the possessed Regan, a St. Joseph medal he still wears around his neck dangles out of his cassock and in the devil's face. The possessed Regan grabs it and tosses it aside, showing that Fr. Karras hasn't completely lost his faith, and the devil is furious about that. He wants to destroy ever last vestige of it within the priest.

When the time comes to confront the devil, it's the traditional Fr. Merrin who leads the exorcism the minute he meets Fr. Karras at the MacNeil's house. Fr. Karras tries to talk about his psychological analysis of the situation with Regan. But Merrin abruptly corrects him, as the kids say, "like a boss." Don't get me wrong, Fr. Karras isn't a bad character. He represents one side of the current state of the church in its battle against evil. 

When the devil taunts Fr. Karras and he lets those taunts get to him, the "old school" Fr. Merrin tells him to leave and proceeds with the exorcism by himself.  

The devil makes it abundantly clear he's more threatened by Fr. Merrin. 

Still, both priests cast out the devil in the name of Jesus Christ as these Catholic priests are the only ones who can do that.

I initially had problems with Fr. Merrin dying of a heart attack during the exorcism ritual, and Fr. Karras slamming the possessed Regan to the floor shouting for the devil to enter into him instead. 

Still, despite their human frailty, God is victorious through these two imperfect priests in driving out the devil in His name as Jesus ordained them to do - St. Mark 16:17.
In the end, Fr. Karras maintains his faith through the repentance of his sins at the last few minutes of his life. And he fulfilled his duty to cast out the devil by the power of Christ. God's mercy is abundant to the very last second of our lives. 

"The Exorcist" isn't a movie I would consider required or recommended viewing for Catholics or Christians in general. Like I said, some of the scenes are very graphic and grotesque, shocking and uncomfortable to sit through. 

I'd say the same thing about Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." It's an impactful movie, but it's a movie I wouldn't recommend to everyone due to its graphic acts of violence. It's one thing to meditate on our Lord's suffering and passion. It's another thing to watch a realistic depiction of Jesus going through it, blood and all. Not everyone can sit through such an experience, nor do they need to. I also would not, not recommend it, either. 

Coming at the movie from a writing perspective, the depictions in "The Exorcist" serve an important part within the narrative. The devil is the prince of darkness and the father of lies. He's a disgusting entity. And I'm sure being in the same room with the devil manifesting himself would mentally scar anyone, even those close to God. This source of evil, disgusting and grotesque entity is possessing an innocent and charming young girl. So, obviously the devil is going to lash out at God and God's creature (i.e. Regan) by making her do disgusting and grotesque things. 

It's his feeble and weak way in mocking God by turning His creature, made in His image and likeness, to act like himself instead. It gives the audience all the more reason to want to see God victorious in this outcome. The movie can't depict just how evil the devil is without showing just how evil the devil is. 

Though there are several scenes that help accomplish this, one scene stands out. 

During Fr. Karras's evaluation of Regan in her bedroom where she's tied to the bed, he asks the possessing demon, "How long are you planning to stay in Regan?"

"Until she rots and lies stinking in the Earth." 

It's a line that well reflects how far demonic hatred for both Christ and mankind goes. 

The devil doesn't just plan on possessing Regan until she dies. He wants to stick around to watch her deceased body decompose and fall apart in her grave. Watching God's creations turn to dirt must be a thrill for the demonic.

There are some liberties taken in this movie. For instance, exorcists go through a period of preparation that normally involves prayer and penance before conducting an exorcism. And Fr. Karras expresses doubts about his faith after suffering the loss of his mother. He doesn't seem like he'd be fit to conduct an exorcism with his mental and spiritual state being what it is. 

But, again from a story-telling point of view, movies need room for character development. The two priests fight and expel the devil by the power of Christ. The devil doesn't go out calmly. His exit come with kicking and profanity on his part. And that's what happens here. 

Like any Hollywood production, "The Exorcist" has its share of artistic liberties which is to be expected. After all, the primary purpose of most, if not all, movies is to entertain. Even movies meant to educate and inform still need to be entertaining above everything else, whether that movie is "The Passion of the Christ" or "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure." 

Blatty's novel, by the way, helps explain and clarify some of the scenes and situations in the movie "The Exorcist" that never made complete sense to me. For instance, I never understood what or to whom Regan was referring to during the scene when Chris is throwing a fancy party and Regan wanders down from her bedroom, stares at one of the party guests and says, "You're gonna die up there." The scene is better explained in the novel. 

Regardless, the bottom line of the movie is that the devil, who is real, possesses a girl. And two Roman Catholic priests who believe in Jesus Christ, and stand in for Jesus Christ, use the power of Jesus Christ to conquer the devil in order to save a young girl. 

The story is just as much about Fr. Karras struggling to hang on to his faith and trust in God as it is about Regan MacNeil. 

Ultimately, this film is about regaining one's faith in God and how God can use the devil himself to lead souls back to Him. 

Again, the movie certainly isn't for every Catholic or anyone who calls themselves a Christian. It's a pro-Catholic movie the likes of which don't seem to come out in theaters much, if at all, these days. 

Whether you appreciate this movie or abhor it, one thing is unarguable. It has an amazing soundtrack. 

199) Son of Dracula (1943)

Son of Halloween 2024's spectacular and not random vampire movie review extravaganza! (Part Four)

"Alucard is not his name!"

Director

Robert Siodmak

Cast
Lon Chaney Jr. - Count Alucard
Louise Allbritton - Katherine Caldwell
Robert Paige - Frank Stanley
Evelyn Ankers - Claire Caldwell
Frank Craven - Dr. Harry Brewster
J. Edward Bromberg - Prof. Lazlo
Samuel S. Hinds - Judge Simmons

The 1943 horror flick "Son of Dracula" is the third installment in Universal's Dracula series. It follows the movie I previously reviewed, "Dracula's Daughter" which follows Tod Browning's famous movie, "Dracula." 

In this movie, the Wolfman himself, Lon Chaney, Jr., plays Count Alucard as he's invited to the United States by Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton). She's the daughter of a New Orleans plantation owner, Col. Caldwell (George Irving).

Just as Alucard arrives, the colonel dies of a heart attack. He leaves all his money to Katherine and his other daughter, Claire (Evelyn Ankers).

Claire gets his cash while Katherine inherits his estate known as "Dark Oaks." 

Also, Katherine and Alucard start dating and want to jump into marriage pretty fast, much to the dismay and jealousy of Katherine's former boyfriend Frank Stanley (Robert Paige). 

He can't stand seeing his old fling engaged to someone else. So, he tries to shoot Alucard. But much to his surprise, his bullets don't hurt him. He doesn't even flinch. They pass through him and hit Katherine. 

Frank thinks he's accidentally killed his former girlfriend. He quickly fetches Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven) to try to save her life. 

When the doctor arrives, Katherine is up and well, as is Alucard. 

For some reason, they open up to the doctor telling him how they're going to devout themselves to scientific research. Also, they'll only permit visitors in the evenings. 

Meanwhile, Frank is still upset thinking he has killed Katherine. So, he turns himself into the police 

Louise Allbritton, Lon Chaney, Jr., and Robert Paige in
"Son of Dracula."

while the sheriff goes to investigate Dark Oaks. 

There, the sheriff finds Katherine dead. Brewster tries to convince the sheriff that he has just seen Katherine alive and roaming around. 

Still, the sheriff has her remains transferred to the local morgue. 

Brewster figures out Alucard is vampire and turned Katherine into a vampire, too. What other explanation could there be? He also realizes that "Alucard" is Dracula spelled backwards. 

Hungarian professor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) comes to visit Brewster and confirms his suspicions of vampirism. 

An injured or dead young boy is brought to Brewster's home and has two bite marks on his neck which also confirms their collective fear that a vampire is among them.

Then who should show up? Alucard!

Brewster and Lazlo drive him away with a crucifix. 

Meanwhile, Katherine, who's up and about now, sneaks into Frank's jail cell to tell him she only wanted to marry Alucard in order to have immortal life. She also wants to share that immortality with Frank, whom she calls her "true love." 

At first, he doesn't want any part of what she's offering. But then he gives in, and she drinks his blood.

Afterwards, she instructs him to destroy Alucard. He agrees to do just that, breaks out of jail, and seeks out Alucard's coffin. 

When Frank finds the coffin, he sets it on fire. 

This leaves Alucard without a shelter from the sun's light which can destroy him. 

Lon Chaney, Jr., as Alucard.

When the sun rises, Alucard is destroyed. The sheriff, along with Brewster and Lazlo show up to find what's left of the vampire. 

Frank finds Katherine's coffin where she lies. He's torn as he has to kill her since she's now a vampire. But he loves her. He puts the ring that was on his finger onto Katherine's finger. And then he sets her coffin on fire. 

Rather than continue the story of Count Dracula, with more "exciting adventures" of the vampire, "Son of Dracula" continues the curse of Dracula. The story centers on how Dracula's aftermath continues turning other innocent victims into what he is- undead. It feels restrained in that it goes more for drama than frightening horror. 

Lon Chaney, Jr. is an iconic actor, and really established the infamous "Wolfman" into pop culture. However, as Dracula, he doesn't have the intimidating quality as Bela Lugosi has. Rather, he's more like a random guy dress as Count Dracula for Halloween, swirling his cape and giving off his best Dracula stare to scare all the kids. 

Chaney puts effort into his role and tries to give him a distinct personality all of his own. But despite his best efforts, he just doesn't quite pull off the fear factor Dracula needs to have, 

Regardless, I enjoyed this movie better than the previous "Dracula's Daughter." 

"Son of Dracula" has a little more horror movie feel to it when compared to the last movie I reviewed, while still carrying the noir vibe that "Dracula's Daughter" started. 

The camera work is great. There's a well worked shot of Dracula gliding supernaturally towards his victim in the woods. 

It's satisfying to see Dracula get sweet revenge. The movie presents an evil in such a way that the mere fact the characters know such an evil exists weighs heavily of their peace of mind.

Thankfully, underneath Chaney's performance, there still remains the taste of a classic Dracula flick.