Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Mark of the Vampire - huh?


Recommended Posts

Did I just see what I thought I saw at the end? I think I did, according to the folks here who reviewed this movie.

 

I wonder if it makes sense if I watched it again (which I would *not* do) from the beginning?

 

It appears the only horror in this horror movie is what they did to Bela (one of the reviewers notes that he was very angry) and to the audience! Oh, and Lionel - really?

 

mark, skip this one, please!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you all, you didn't bother with this one.

 

Under the guise of a true horror film, Bela 'played' a vampire. Turns out he was a hired carny act to help Lionel catch a killer.

 

This was only revealed (never mind the usual flying bat coming in the window schtick) in the final few minutes, with Bela lamenting that he wasn't happy with his part.

 

Sad stuff.

 

mark, if you watch it, keep in mind Bela and his two assistants are fakes, and see if any of it makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great, great horror film much better than Todd Browning's overrated Dracula. *Mark of the Vampire* has everytthing Dracula should have had. A great and creepy visually imaginative little gem. Ya gotta see Luna flying around that ruined chapel wingloose and fancy free and lighting upon the ground with those spiffy bat wings of hers. Why Browning insists on spoiling the whole thing at the end with this acting troupe BS is stupid and who cares if Jean Hersholt is a murderer. Wouldn't surprise me if Yvonne De Carlo's Lilly Munster was modeled on Luna. But what is really creepy and far ahead of it's time is Prof. Barrymore's warning that after they penetrate the vampire's lair if they stake Morla the vengeance of the other vampires would pursue them all to the ends of the earth. Shades of Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot 44 years later. Perhaps the most remarkable vampire movie of the 1930s. A true classic. I will always watch this when TCM runs it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Browning insists on spoiling the whole thing at the end with this acting troupe BS is stupid

 

Very. I was totally caught up in the story and to include that - it almost seemed an afterthought - was unforgivable.

 

Since you've seen it more than once, does it make sense, given the ending? The flying bat, that was supposed to be Dracula (or not, who knows), was that supposed to be a trained bat since the entire thing was a ruse? I doubt bats can be trained to fly on cue.

 

Stupid indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Mark of the Vampire. Great look, creepy sets. Luna! and the most ridiculous final act you'll ever see in a movie. All this and a running time of about 60 minutes... I say it's worth watching.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're a bit late to the party. MOTV (a remake of the lost Browning-Chaney silent, LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT) is a delight. Lugosi and Borland look sensational; Great cinematography and set design; Superior supporting cast (hello...Lionel Atwill). Jessie Ralph has a mere bit, as her part was deleted from the release print. But she fared better than Zeffie Tilbury, who was eliminated altogether!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of a handful (or less) horror films that MGM did during that genre's golden age of the early-mid '30s, showed what that studio could do when they bothered. Maybe they thought it was beneath them to emulate Universal's forte but *Mark of the Vampire* has it all. Acting, sets, atmosphere, and, of course, stars. Too bad that the Production Code forced cuts to the film and the 60 min run time is just too short. The ending, as been mentioned, was the same as the silent original and had nothing to do with the cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I want to make my opinion known about "Mark of the Vampire". I believe this is one of the better movies produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the early thirties, almost as good as "Freaks". Where in heaven's name could you or would you be made to believe you are watching is a horror film is really not what it seems until the last three, four minutes of the film.

 

 

A great movie in less than 65 minutes. Elizabeth Allen is beautiful in this film. Carol Borland is just absolutely drop dead gorgeous. Whenever TCM schedules this film I am in front of my television set.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

a horror film is really not what it seems until the last three, four minutes of the film.

 

Right, and that's when the audience (and Bela) was gypped out of a decent ending and had their intelligence insulted.

 

So, does the movie make sense given the bogus ending? Flying bat that was supposed to be a vampire? Can bats be trained to fly? All the other hocus pocus, does it fit with the capabilities of a carny act?

 

Simply stupid.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Thomas. To me horror movies are camp by definition (i.e. wake up folks there are not real vampires!), so the ending makes sense when viewed from that POV.

 

Ok I can understand why the ending may be offensive to diehard horror fans but to me the ending was better than the traditional ending of a horror movie: monster vampire gets killed but really doesn't, so there can be a sequel.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9NziaTzTzLm4G3hUtz2e

 

Mark of the Vampire (1935)

 

 

Lovely to look at, rich in atmosphere, wonderful sets, committed (if off-beat) performances... ultimately senseless and ludicrous, but it at least it's too short to qualify as a bore and its M-G-M stamp makes it all the more of a curiosity. It's a favorite of sorts of mine- numerous faults and all. In the end: it's a gorgeous, highly-watchable let-down, which is exactly how I'd describe Dracula (1931) which is also directed by Browning- about whom I often wonder "did he just get lucky with Freaks ?" Because so many of his films are great on atmosphere and acting but iffy on the whole.

 

 

edit: just went and checked Browning's filmogrpahy and realized I haven't seen enough of his stuff to make that last assertion. I will say it is true of Dracula and Mark of the Vampire, however The Devil Doll and The Thirteenth Chair are actually kind of fun, and of course, Freaks is a masterpiece.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 18, 2013 2:03 PM

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Apr 18, 2013 2:05 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ignore the end so for me after Neumann and Count Otto see Luna set down from her bat flight that's it for me. I also get a kick from the scene with Irena and her dead daddy tickling the ivorys. He looks at her and says "Try to be brave, my child". She answers "I'll try" then Sir Karell cracks me up with *"Then go with Luna"*. :^0

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}

> wake up folks there are not real vampires!

 

It is possible that they exist. It would be caused by a parasite/symbiont

 

It would attach to the inner lining of the throat and send tendrils to aorta and oral cavity. The ends of the tendrils in the mouth would form 'fangs' for intake of blood.

 

There would have to be a process to strip the blood of certain factors when passing through the organism before being injected into the aorta to prevent type reactions.

 

It is in this manner that a person could receive nourishment solely by drinking blood.

 

Extreme photosensitivity could be a side-effect of processing the blood.

 

A mature organism might have tendrils extending to all major veins and arteries and so be able to control or even stop flow to prevent bleeding from trauma which would make the vampire difficult to kill by normal means.

 

The tradition that the victim be buried for a time before arising as a vampire accounts for the time necessary for the organism to grow to sufficient size.

 

The organism could grow also to occupy part of the space previously taken up by the digestive tract as they atrophy. Their eventual disintegration would account for the traditional lean or skeletal presentation of the cursed as the organism would not need all of that space.

 

The organism could store excess blood for periods of greater need and control adrenalin levels so as to make the vampire exceptionally fast and strong.

 

The lean and pale appearance, higher levels of certain chemicals in the vitreous fluid and other aspects would heighten their beauty and sensuality.

 

Such an organism explains all parts of traditional vampire lore except their lack of reflection, fear of religious medallions and transforming into a bat.

 

It should be noted that silver is used to kill certain types of bacteria. The avoidance of mirrors with their silver backing could be innate to the parasite/symbiont. Most religious medallions were made of silver also which could that traditional reaction.

 

> the ending was better than the traditional ending of a horror movie: monster vampire gets killed but really doesn't, so there can be a sequel.

 

I had the thought at one time of a special twist for a sequel. It is in: *First a Girl* (1935) that a woman poses as a man posing as a woman. The sequel for this movie could revolve around vampires posing as vampire-impersonators!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...