Dracula's Dog (1977)

Director:  Albert Band

Writer:  Frank Ray Perilli

Composer:  Andrew Belling

Starring:  Michael Pataki, Jan Shutan, Libby Chase, John Levin, Reggie Nadler, Jose Ferrer

More info:  IMDb

Tagline:  There's More To The Legend Than Meets... The Throat!

Plot:  Russian soldiers accidentally unleash the servant of Dracula, as well as his dog, during excavations of Romania. Together, they set out for America, to find the last descendant of the great Count.

My rating: 4/10

Will I watch it again?  No.

Jesus!  Enough with the dog whining, already!  Everywhere you turn, dogs are whining and it gets old fast.  The premise is ridiculous and the film makers went the straight route instead of embracing the goofy story and have fun with it.  It's slow enough that you'll be banging your head halfway through when you find out your only halfway through.  The dog kills aren't nearly as convincing as they should be.  More time could've been spent editing something better.  Once you get past Zoltan being a vampire and after he bites and kills other dogs, they come back to life.  This sounds like winning fun but it isn't.  It drags.  We're told that Michael (Patakai) is Dracula's last living heir but Michael has a young son, so there's that.  The music is as bland as Jose Ferrer's performance.  He phones it in on someone else's dime.  At least it's got the Euro horror stalwart, Reggie Nalder.  That guy's unique mug is perfect for these pictures.   The ending is soso.  The dogs are killed and that's that.   This low budget affair isn't even worthy of a group watch with the liquor sauce flowing.  I feel zapped enough of energy as it is after watching it.

Vampire Hunters (2003)

Original title: Jian Shi da Shi Dai

AKA: The Era of Vampires

Director: Wellson Chin

Writer: Hark Tsui

Composer: J.M. Logan

Starring: Ken Chang, Michael Man-Kin Chow, Suet Lam, Kwok-Kwan Chan, Anya, Rongguang Yu, Horace Lee Wai Shing, Chun Hua Ji, Kuan Tai Chen, Lik-Chi Lee, Wang Zhen Lin, Zou Na, Yat-Fei Wong, Mei-Yee Sze, Kin-Yan Lee, Steve Blum, Richard Cansino

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Five heroes. A coven of vampires. A lot of bad blood.

Plot: In 19th century China, an evil monk awakens a nest of vampires hell-bent on devouring human life. Now, a quartet of heroes trained in the Taoist Mao Shan school of magic and their master must use their unique powers to destroy the Vampire King and its lethal coven before it is too late.

My rating: 6.5/10

Will I watch it again?  No.

This was surprisingly fun...at times.  The four actors that comprise the group (named Rain, Wind, Thunder and Lightning (I think)) have good chemistry together.  What's more is that they're fun and obviously fond of each other.  The pacing is pretty good.  I was rarely bored but the film felt long despite the 90 minute cut I saw (IMDb lists a longer cut by an additional 22 minutes).  The fighting was nicely choreographed and the editing doesn't cut away as bad as some pictures.  The scenes aren't quickly chopped up which is a good thing.  If you're looking for some vampire kung fu action then I'd say check this one out.  It's at least worth a look.  The Columbia DVD sports a nice anamorphic widescreen image with audio in Cantonese (with English subtitles), English and French (with English subtitles).  The only extras are trailers for COWBOY BEBOP, NATIONAL SECURITY and TIME AND TIDE.

Fascination (1979)

Director: Jean Rollin

Writer: Jean Rollin

Composer: Philippe D'Aram

Starring: Franca Mai, Brigitte Lahale, Jean-Marie Lemaire, Fanny Magier, Muriel Montosse, Sophie Noel, Evelyne Thomas, Agnes Bert, Cyril Val, Myriam Watteau, Joe de Palmer, Jacques Sansoul, Jacques Marbeuf

More info: IMDb

Plot: This erotic horror film, set in 1905, tells the story of a thief who seeks refuge in a castle owned by two women, Eva (Lahaie) and Elisabeth (Mai) who have different plans for him and he's all too willing until it's too late.

My rating: 7.5/10

Will I watch it again?  Yes.

I've seen a few of Jean Rollin's films and if there's one thing he likes, it's naked women.  His career focus for a while was making erotic horror films.  Most of what I've seen isn't that good but I did like THE SHIVER OF THE VAMPIRE (1971) and this one but they're both very different films with different vibes.  There's one that I'm really looking forward to based on Rollin's work and the title, THE NUDE VAMPIRE (1970).  Rollin's films have an arthouse vibe. 

The pacing is leisurely, if not downright slow), the women are beautiful and sensual and they look fantastic in that erotic, European 70s way.  All of that applies here except this doesn't drag.  I was hooked from the first few minutes.  I did tag this with 'gratuitous nudity' but the nudity isn't there just to be there.  Rollin paints with an erotic brush so the abundance of nudity serves that aesthetic. 

I'm not going to ruin any surprises but I was really taken aback at Rollin's refreshing look at vampires.  And that's just one of many reasons why I dug this flick.  I'd rather watch it again than talk too much about it.  If you know this man's work and like it (or want to like it) then this is a must watch.  For everyone else, Give it a shot but sit back and relax with a glass of wine because you just might find yourself taken in by the lure of Rollin's storytelling and the lure of Elisabeth and Eva. 

Fright Night (1985)

Director: Tom Holland

Writer: Tom Holland

Composer: Brad Fiedel

Starring: Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse, Roddy McDowall, Stephen Geoffreys, Jonathan Stark, Dorothy Fielding, Art Evans

More info: IMDb

Tagline: There are some very good reasons to be afraid...of the dark.

Plot: When a teenager learns that his next door neighbour is a vampire, no one will believe him.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again?  Probably not.

I think this is only the second time I've seen this since the first when it was on VHS in '86.  I like it.  It's well made, it looks great, the actors do a fine job, Roddy McDowall is always fun to watch and glue sniffing looking Stephen Geoffreys is hilarious as Evil Ed.  It's a neat twist on the vampire story with some great effects.  I know people who go apeshit over this flick and that's where I don't get it.  I want to but to me it's just a good movie and that's how it's going to be.  The Columbia DVD is a flipper disc with the fullscreen version on one side and the anamorphic widescreen version on the other.  The only extra is the theatrical trailer (non anamorphic widescreen).

The Flesh and the Fury: X-posing Twins of Evil (2012)

Director: Daniel Griffith

Composers:

Starring: Wayne Kinsey, Joe Dante, Kim Newman, Tim Lucas, Ted Newsom, James Carreras, Michael Style, David J. Skal, Christopher Frayling, John-Paul Checkett, Eric Hoffman, John Hough, Damien Thomas, Candace Cherie, Mattie Waters, Fiona Montagne

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The shocking story behind Hammer's most erotic vampire saga!

Plot:  This behind the scenes making of film covers a brief history of horror at Hammer and an in-depth look at the making of TWINS OF EVIL (1971).

My rating: 7.5/10

Will I watch it again?  Yes.

Made 40 years after TWINS OF EVIL (1971), this wonderful feature length documentary begins with a primer on the history of Hammer's horror pictures focusing on their big franchises (Dracula, Frankenstein and The Mummy) which serves as a nice lead in to how TWINS OF EVIL came to be.  Then it gets into the meat of it all covering all of the major aspects of the making of the film from the directing, writing, score, acting, special effects, cinematography and more.  There are lots of talking heads giving their stories and insight as well as vintage interviews with the major players.  The only major member of the cast we get to hear from is Damien Thomas who played Count Karnstein.  Any guess as to who is missing from this picture?  The TWINS OF EVIL themselves, Madeleine and Mary Collinson.  Why didn't they contribute?  Yeah, the '71 film was the last acting credit for both of them but they were the main draw for the film after all.  And what's more, no one even talks about what happened to the girls after the film.  They're certainly discussed in the documentary but it left me curious as hell as to their absence of contribution.  Despite that, it's a very informative and entertaining documentary and I highly recommend watching the original film and following it up with this one.

Let Me In (2010)

Director: Matt Reeves

Writers: Matt Reeves, John Ajvide Lindqvist

Composer:  Michael Giacchino

Starring: Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Grace Maretz, Richard Jenkins, Cara Buono, Elias Koteas, Sasha Barrese, Dylan Kenin, Chris Browning, Ritchie Coster, Dylan Minnette, Jimmy 'Jax' Pinchak

More info: IMDb

Tagline:  Innocence dies. Abby doesn't.

Plot:  A bullied young boy befriends a young female vampire who lives in secrecy with her guardian.

My rating: 7.5/10

Will I watch it again?  Probably not.

I REALLY liked the original, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008), and this English remake is pretty damn good.  It stays true to RIGHT which shocked the hell out of me.  I'm very impressed.  The dark, meditative tone carries through to the end and that's thanks in no small part to Michael Giacchino's outstanding score (LOVE that guy's work).  The end is in tact and I'm really surprised that they at least attempted to let us in on Abby's secret although it was more discreet than in RIGHT.  I would almost say I'd watch it again but RIGHT does edge this one out and I would prefer to watch that one before this one.  If you haven't seen either then definitely check this one out.  It's a great, moody and atmospheric meditation vampire picture that will surely please even the gore hounds.  Vampires for the arthouse crwod.

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace

Writers: Tim Metcalfe, Miguel Tejada-Flores, Tommy Lee Wallace

Composer: Brad Fiedel

Starring: Roddy McDowall, William Ragsdale, Traci Lind, Julie Carmen, Jon Gries, Russell Clark, Brian Thompson, Merritt Butrick

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Welcome back...

Plot: Charlie Brewster and Peter Vincent from the original Fright Night must face more vampires out for revenge.

My rating: 6/10

Will I watch it again? Nah.

I don't ask much from sequels except that they entertain.  There have been great sequels that continued the story in a logical manner and manage to do something different (and, in the rare case, better) than the original or it can simply be a vague re-telling of the first film, hitting all of the familiar beats of that picture, but still manage to be fun and enjoyable.  This picture is closer to the latter.  I liked FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) enough that I wasn't opposed to the watching the sequel but there's an awful lot of familiarity between the two.  My only real beef with the picture is why Peter Vincent (McDowall) so damn skeptical when Charlie (Ragsdale) tells him there are more vampires.  Peter is just like he was in the first film but then he comes around to realize Charlie is right.  You'd think that Peter would be a lot more willing to believe anything Charlie tells him after FN1 but instead he's a non-believer.  If you lived in a world where vampires were just creatures of fiction only to find out that they were real, do you really think you'd go back to not believing in them after you experience them first hand?  Exactly.  But hell, it's just a movie.  There are some funny bits and neat little things (like when the werewolf guy turns and growls at the dog) and there's some prerequisite 80s horror nudity (yay!) but then there's also some 80s music video-ish moments which probably looked dated a few short years later.  But it is enjoyable and I don't think at any point did I lose interest.  Fans of the first film will likely dig this one even if a little less than the first film.  It's fun but no one involved could have hoped that this could best the original. 

Salem's Lot (1979)

Director: Tobe Hooper

Writers: Stephen King, Paul Monash

Composer: Harry Sukman

Starring: David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, Bonnie Bedelia, Lew Ayres, Julie Cobb, Elisha Cook Jr., George Dzundza, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard, Marie Windsor, Barbara Babcock

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Iconic terror from the No 1 bestselling writer.

Plot: Vampires are invading a small New England town. It's up to a novelist and a young horror fan to save it.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again?  No.

Good flick, especially for a TV movie.  I just saw it for the first time and I can't imagine having to sit through commercials like audiences did in '79.  It breaks up the horror and suspense way too much.  But then it also gave people who frightened easily a break from the scares.  For a picture that's just over three hours long it's surprisingly well-paced and held together.  The visual scares are great.  The vampire kid floating outside the window, scratching on the glass was really well done.  The makeup effects for the main vampire, ala NOSFERATU (1922) was a nice touch, too.  Having James Mason in your picture classes it up a couple of notches.  Love that guy.  Good flick. 

Dracula vs. Frankenstein (1971)

Director: Al Adamson

Writers: William Pugsley, Samuel M. Sherman

Composer: William Lava

Starring:  J. Carrol Naish, Lon Chaney Jr., Anthony Eisley, Regina Carrol, Russ Tamblyn, Jim Davis, Zandor Vorkov, John Bloom, Shelly Weiss, Greydon Clark, Forrest J. Ackerman

More info: IMDb

Tagline:  New! Different! Shocking!

Plot:  Judith Fontaine (Carrol) is looking for her sister Joanie, who has disappeared into the hippie community of Venice, California. It turns out Joanie has become the victim of Groton (Chaney Jr.), an axe-wielding homicidal maniac working for Dr. Durray (Naish), who is really the last of the Frankensteins and is now running a house of horrors by the beach and is performing experiments on Gorton's victims. One night Count Dracula (Vorkov) visits the doctor, showing him the original Frankenstein creation that was buried in a nearby graveyard. The doctor revives it and uses it to take revenge on his professional rivals.

My rating:  4/10

Will I watch it again?  No.

I'll say this much, this picture has the best poster art I've ever seen for an Al Adamson film...by a long shot.  It's as if someone spent some money on them.  This is also a better than average Adamson film and you can take that however you want.  His pictures are generally pretty bad overall and poorly shot, acted, written and so on.  Bottom of the barrel stuff.  This one fares better when the scenes are filmed outdoors.  It has all of the ingredients of a bad picture including acting, writing but that also includes boredom.  There are some neat things like Dracula's zapping ring, the little guy's death scene and stuff but there's also a share of crap.  The IMDb trivia says this was filmed over a long period of time and now knowing that I can see how that would explain some of it.  It's the last picture for both Naish and Chaney Jr., the former spending a sizable amount of screen time making goofy faces as if he's anxiously awaiting a bottle of booze as soon as the camera stops rolling. 

I'm embarrassed for him.  I had a hunch of what I was getting into when I bought the Shriek Show DVD at a thrift store for a dollar but A) it's from Shriek Show, B) it's presented in anamorphic widescreen, something I didn't think Adamson filmed in, C) it's loaded with extras just in case I was wanting to punish myself that much more and D) it was a buck.  The extras are plenty with a commentary with co-writer/producer Sam Sherman, an 8 minute featurette on Producing Shock in which Shepard talks about the large amount of cheesy films he and Adamson produced and marketed (it's fun), an alternate ending (10 minutes), deleted scenes (9 minutes), deleted scene with Ackerman (5 minutes) with an introduction from him and Shepard, 2 minutes of 8mm location footage, monster's protest/picket line (5 minutes), the theatrical trailer (fullscreen), TV spot, 6 minute photo gallery (worth watching) and 2 Shriek Show trailers.

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

AKA: Dance of the Vampires

Director: Roman Polanski

Writers: Roman Polanski, Gerard Brach

Composer: Krzysztof Komeda

More info: IMDb

Tagline: You'll never know what bit you... but you'll love it!

Plot: A noted professor and his dim-witted apprentice fall prey to their inquiring vampires, while on the trail of the ominous damsel in distress.

My rating: 6/10

Will I watch it again?  Probably not.

Oh, boy.  I've known about this picture since the 70s, I'm a huge fan of Polanski's films and I only got around to watching it just now.  Nuts.  I really wanted to like this and I was excited that I was finally getting around to seeing it and now I'm sad.  I barely laughed at all.  As a comedy it's only mildly amusing and the horror is mild and intentionally not even remotely scary.  That's the worst of it which is pretty bad.  But the film is drop dead gorgeous.  The art direction and cinematography are some of the best (if not THE best) I've seen in a Gothic horror film.  Hammer pictures look great but this film takes it up a notch or two.  And that's probably the reason I didn't fall asleep watching it.  I liked spending time in this tiny world but the pacing is really slow at times and the laughs just aren't there.  Having seen the trailer many, many times (and it plays up in spades the comedy making it seem like a laughfest from start to finish) and then finally watching the film, I'm just perplexed at why this picture is held in such high regard.  I don't get it and I really wanted to.  I did like the ending, though.  The Warner Bros. DVD looks amazing.  The only extras are the theatrical trailer (anamorphic widescreen) and a 19 minute cute as hell promo (which is funnier than the film) called THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS: VAMPIRES 101.

Count Dracula (1970)

Original title: Nachts, Wenn Dracula Eerwacht

Director: Jesus Franco

Writers: Erich Krohnke, Augusto Finocchi, Jesus Franco, Dietmar Behnke, Milo G. Cuccia, Carlo Fadda, Harry Alan Towers, Bram Stoker

Composer: Bruno Nicolai

Starring: Christopher Lee, Klaus Kinski, Herbert Lom, Maria Rohm, Fred Williams, Soledad Miranda, Paul Muller, Jack Taylor

More info: IMDb


Plot:  A film version of Bram Stoker's classic novel.

My rating:  5.5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

I've had this for a few years and I've been meaning to give it a spin. Now that I have I wish I'd gotten it over with long ago.  It's not all that good.  I hoped that Lee was finally given a decent Dracula role where he could stretch his acting chops and give the character some much needed life instead of largely playing the monster seen in his Hammer pictures.  I was wrong.  He's got some dialogue in the beginning when he welcomes Harker into his castle but little else in the rest of the picture.  Franco has made some decent Gothic horror pictures but you can't tell from this film.  The camera gets crazy sometimes with more than a few quick zoom ins and outs.  A few scenes even have visible shadows from the crew.  It's lazy film making.  I don't know how closely this follows Stoker's book but I hear it's more faithful than most Dracula pictures.  Nicolai's score has some nice moments but the music he wrote for the "opera" is just awful.  The cast is good.  Hell, it's great having Kinski as Renfield but he doesn't really add much to the role enough to where you're glad he's in it.  He's OK and that goes for pretty much everyone.  No one stands out.  Nothing in this picture stands out. I can't say watch it but you will if you're like me and you won't listen to folks who try to steer you away from early 70s EuroHorror.  The Dark Sky DVD presents the film in its original 1:37 ration (fullscreen...why wasn't this shot wide?).  The  extras you get are a 26 minute featurette on the making of the film with Jess Franco (which is a great watch), Christopher Lee reading Stoker's novel (an hour and 24 minutes of audio with moving images of poster art for this picture as well as music and sound effects - it's quite good), a text essay on Miranda and a still gallery.  Considering you can pick this up for under 8 bucks, it's almost worth it just for the extras. 

The Lost Boys (1987)

Director: Joel Schumacher

Writers: Jan Fischer, James Jeremias, Jeffrey Boam

Composer: Thomas Newman

Starring: Jason Patrick, Corey Haim, Dianne Wiest, Barnard Hughes, Edward Herrmann, Kiefer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, Corey Feldman, Alex Winter

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die. It's fun to be a vampire.

Plot: After moving to a new town, two brothers are convinced that the area is frequented by vampires.

My rating: 6.5/10

Will I watch it again?  Nope.

I saw this way back when and it was OK.  Maybe if this caught me a few years earlier at age 14 I would have different feelings about it.  It's still just OK.  It's more style over substance with a bunch of pretty people looking pretty and living dangerously.  Grandpa (Hughes) is hilarious and I dig the carnival atmosphere.  The vampire gang lead by Sutherland got on my nerves.  They dress like what Hollywood thinks punks look like which is mostly idiotic.  It's also a film that's clearly a product of its time with the music, hair and so on.  There's some fun here and there which goes a long way in keeping this entertaining but there's also some meh every once in a while.  The Warner Bros. snapcase DVD has a flipper disc with the fullscreen version on one side and the non-anamorphic widescreen version on the other.  The only extras are text only and the anamorphic widescreen theatrical trailer.  I'm sure there's a newer version that's better in every way.

Pretty Dead Things (2006)

Director: Richard Griffin

Writers: Richard Griffin, Sandeep Parikh

Composer: Daniel Hildreth

Starring: Patrick Pitu, William DeCoff, Danielle Lozeau, Ashley Eaton, Ross Kelly, Salvatore Marchese, Jason Witter, V. Orion Delwaterman, Jennifer Scharf, Caleb Emerson, Donald Foley, Robin L. Watkins

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Death Never Looked This Good

Plot: Film star Jennifer Bond has everything a girl could want: looks, power, a dangerously sexy boyfriend - and an eternity in which to enjoy them. But as her 50th birthday draws near, Jennifer and her undead companions forge a trail mayhem to her hometown in search of the love of her life, unaware a recent victim is plotting a bloody revenge.

My rating: 4.5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

If you've seen any of Griffin's other films then you might recognize a few faces in this one.  As per usual the acting is all over the place but most of the cast seem to be having a good time with it regardless of how annoying some of them are.  The opening credit sequence has that great 60s/70s James Bond credits vibe. It's a shame they didn't have a fun, cheesy vocal tune to match it.  I better slow down.  It's beginning to sound like I dug it.  I didn't on a whole but it has its moments like with the porn parody stuff and the over the top porn guru, Moe Blu.  Even though I don't hold these independent low budget flicks to the same standard as full blown big budget pictures, I do want to be entertained and this one barely qualifies.  It looks and feels cheap.  If you want to see the greatness Griffin is capable of, just check out NUN OF THAT (2009) and you'll see why I was so inspired to track down and watch every one of his flicks.  The Camp Motion Pictures double feature set (with another Griffin picture, BEYOND THE DUNWICH HORROR (2008)) has this film presented in anamorphic widescreen and the only extras are a director's commentary and 16 VERY low budget horror movie trailers either in fullscreen or anamorphic widescreen formats.  Some have some entertainment value and some are just plain bad.  As with even the worst of Griffin's films, I'm holding onto the DVDs so I can someday listen to his comentaries.  I'd like to think they're informative, better and funnier than the films they accompany.

Dracula III: Legacy (2005)

Director: Patrick Lussier

Writers: Joel Soisson, Patrick Lussier

Composers: Kevin Kliesch, Ceiri Torjussen

Starring: Jason Scott Lee, Stephen Billington, Diane Neal, Jason London, Rutger Hauer, Ilinca Goia, George Grigore, Roy Scheider, Tom Kane, Alexandra Wescourt, Serban Celea

More info: IMDb


Plot: In the near future, Uffizi and Luke travel to the remote reaches of war torn Romania to rescue Elizabeth and finish the vampire once and for all. Along the way, they encounter TV news journalist and a corps of rebels trying to fight the vampire uprising which plagues their country.

My rating: 4/10

Will I watch it again? No.

Woof.  I only watched this because Rutger Hauer plays Dracula and Roy Scheider's also in it.  It's a fucking bullshit move that Hauer doesn't show up until 25 minutes from the end.  Up until then it's cheesy dialogue (that only a few of the actors can deliver without me cringing) and the typical fare you'd expect in a late night TV movie or DTV.  Filming in Romania is definitely a plus but there's far too much video grading, giving this an almost sepitone look.  I'd swear I've seen Jason Scott Lee give a good performance but it's definitely not here. Part of it is the crap dialogue and that he's trying too hard to be the soft-spoken, tortured badass.  Not many people can pull that kind of roll off successfully but this character type is way over-played in movies.  If you're interest in seeing this is purely for Hauer or Scheider, you're going to waste your time.  If I had known I would've moved onto something else instead.  The 4-movie Blu-ray I have (soon to be had) with the 3 Dracula pictures (the two films prior to this one) and THEY (2002) are all on one disc and have no special features.  I want my ten bucks back.

Dracula 2000 (2000)

Director: Patrick Lussier

Writers: Joel Soisson, Patrick Lussier

Composer: Marco Beltrami

Starring: Gerard Butler, Christopher Plummer, Jonny Lee Miller, Justine Waddell, Colleen Fitzpatrick, Jennifer Esposito, Omar Epps, Sean Patrick Thomas, Danny Masterson, Lochlyn Munro, Tig Fong, Tony Munch, Jeri Ryan, Shane West, Nathan Fillion

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The Most Seductive Evil of All Time Has Now Been Unleashed in Ours.

Plot: A group of thieves break into a chamber expecting to find paintings, but instead they release the count himself, who travels to New Orleans to find his nemesis' daughter, Mary Van Helsing.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

I honestly expected a lot more from this.  I had no idea it was so bad and cheesy. The music really goes over the top in a few scenes, making this look even more like a music video.  The story is just fine but the performances are mostly over the top and campy.  Plummer comes off the best and that's probably because he's, you know, a really good actor (he's had his moments of cheese but this isn't really one of them).  I think the big problem is in the direction and art direction.  I watched the Blu-ray and it looks super clean and too pretty.  I love the idea of setting it largely in New Orleans but even a lot of those shots look like they were filmed on a soundstage and look fake as hell.  The Mardi Gras crowd scenes look staged and unnatural.  I don't know, man, this just looks slick and superficial.  Yeah, it's a horror movie called DRACULA 2000 and that about says enough, but this should have been better.  The best part was seeing Nathan Fillion in a small role pre-FIREFLY.  I'm skipping the first sequel and the only reason I'm about to watch DRACULA III: LEGACY (2005) is because Rutger Hauer plays Dracula and it's also got Roy Scheider in it (he's also in the second one but it doesn't look like his role is substantial enough for me to waste my time).

Stake Land (2010)

Director: Jim Mickle

Writers: Jim Mickle, Nick Damici

Composer: Jeff Grace

Starring: Nick Damici, Connor Paolo, Kelly McGillis, Michael Cerveris, Bonnie Dennison, Jean Brassard, Chance Kelly, Sean Nelson, Danielle Harris

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The Most Dangerous Thing Is To Be Alive.

Plot: Martin was a normal teenage boy before the country collapsed in an empty pit of economic and political disaster. A vampire epidemic has swept across what is left of the nation's abandoned towns and cities, and it's up to Mister, a death dealing, rogue vampire hunter, to get Martin safely north to Canada, the continent's New Eden.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again? No.

One of the biggest issues with horror films like this is having characters you care about or at least like to a certain degree.  Most horror films fail on this.  STAKE LAND does not.  I really dug Mister (Damici, who also co-wrote the film).  He's very serious about what he does but he's not over the top or goofy about it.  He's got a sense of humor but it's not for wisecracks and play time.  He's a survivalist and he's very much like you think that kind of guy would be if the situations in this film were real.  Paolo (as Martin) does a great job, too, and much in the same manner as Damici.  He holds back and doesn't allow his character to become a stereotype or the comic relief.  That's the high praise this film deserves.  The story and gore are good but they don't stand out as much as the grounded performances because we see good gore in a lot of films these days (and better than that CGI crap on THE WALKING DEAD) and stories similar to this aren't hard to find, although vampires do make a nice, albeit easy, substitution for zombies here.  It's definitely worth seeing although I'm not sure I will need to see it again.  I'm glad I finally got around to it.  I've been hearing about it for years and Netflix made it all too easy to finally pull the trigger.

Son of Dracula (1943)

Director: Robert Siodmak

Writers: Eric Taylor, Curt Siodmak

Composer: Hans J. Salter

Staring: Lon Chaney Jr., Robert Paige, Louise Allbritton, Evelyn Ankers, Frank Craven, J. Edward Bromberg, Samuel S. Hinds, Adeline De Walt Reynolds, Pat Moriarity, Etta McDaniel, George Irving

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Can You Take It? More Startling . . . More Blood-Curdling Than Anything You've Ever Seen!

Plot: Count Alucard finds his way from Budapest to the swamps of the Deep South; his four nemeses are a medical doctor, a university professor, a jilted fiancé and the woman he loves.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

Really?  They had six years to come up with a sequel to the drab DRACULA'S DAUGHTER (1936) and this is the best they could do?  Before I forget, the coolest thing in the picture is the guy shooting at Dracula and the bullets kill the woman standing behind him.  Nice!  I mean, really nice!  Could Chaney be any less interesting and drab?  It's like he was trying to out-bore the vampire from the previous film.  Was there some rule at Universal that whoever plays Dracula or someone like him has to be devoid of any charisma?  Ugh.  And what's with him going back and forth from calling himself (and other referring to him) as Dr. Alucard and Count Dracula?  I don't think it's ever even mentioned that he's the son of Dracula.  This film is mediocre at best.  I won't be seeing it again.  This is included in the Universal Dracula Legacy DVD set and the only extra for this film is the theatrical trailer.

Dracula's Daughter (1936)

Director: Lambert Hillyer

Writers: Garrett Fort, David O. Selznick, John L. Balderston, Charles Belden, Finley Peter Dunne, Kurt Neuman, R.C. Sherriff

Composer: Heinz Roemheld

Starring: Otto Kruger, Gloria Holden, Marguerite Churchill, Edward Van Sloan, Gilbert Emery, Irving Pichel, Halliwell Hobbes, Billy Bevan, Nan Grey, Hedda Hopper, Claud Allister, Edgar Norton, E.E. Clive

More info: IMDb

Tagline: She gives you that weird feeling!

Plot: Hungarian countess Marya Zaleska seeks the aid of a noted psychiatrist, in hopes of freeing herself of a mysterious evil influence.

My rating: 5.5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

At first it was a little annoying that there was so much exposition that opens the film (and with some idiot coppers) that was all covered in the first film, DRACULA (1931), until you realize that this is the 1930s and audiences hadn't seen the other film for five years.  That and it's actually important to the story.  Also at first, Gloria Holden's performance (as the titular character) is low, breathy and mysterious.  The problem is that she doesn't change her delivery for the rest of the picture.  That makes her either look like a bad actress or her character about as boring as they come.  I can't see whey anyone would want to be around her and not everyone is under her spell.  She's almost constantly in a 'woe is me' mode.  Her performance brings the picture down a lot.  Then there's the plot line where her (Contessa Marya Zeleska) vampirism is compared and somewhat treated like an addiction.  That was great except they abandoned it before the end.  I'd like to seen that explored more.  You could make a case that she changed her mind and decided not to kick the blood sucking habit.  If that were true then it's the failing of the actress to show any kind of transition from wanting it to not and I didn't see it.  I'm watching this (again but for the last time) from the great Universal Legacy Collection with the Dracula films.  The only extra for this film is the theatrical trailer.