Mark of the Vampire (1935) User Reviews

An underrated film

[jluis1984 · 7/10 · 22 February 2007]

After the commercial failure of his controversial masterpiece "Freaks" in 1932, director Tod Browning found himself in serious problems to find new projects. Browning was a man of proved talent, being the director of some of the best silent films starring Lon Chaney as well as the mind behind the 1931 horror masterpiece "Dracula". However, "Freaks" proved to be too ahead of its time and sadly suffered the prejudices of audiences clearly unprepared for the tragic story of a midget in love with a full grown woman. In this state of disgrace, the studio rejected his projects and instead gave him the job of directing "Fast Workers", a melodrama with former silent superstar John Gilbert. Fortunately, luck was still on his side as in 1935 he was allowed to direct a remake of his successful silent "London After Midnight", a movie that would reunite Browning with Dracula himself: Bela Lugosi.

"Mark of the Vampire" is the story of the tragedy surrounding the wealthy Borotyn family. The patriarch, Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert) has been murdered under mysterious circumstances, and soon everyone in town suspects it was the work of Count Mora (Bela Lugosi) and his daughter Luna (Carroll Borland), as these two deceased nobles are rumored to awake by night as vampires and wreak havoc in the small superstitious village. Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill) doesn't believe in this, as he suspects there is a more mundane motif for the murder of the rich old man, however, when Sir Karell's only daughter Irena (Elizabeth Allan) becomes the vampires' new target, Insp. Neumann will have to join forces with a strange scientist specialized in the occult, Prof. Zelin (Lionel Barrymore) to solve the mystery before someone else gets killed.

As written above, "Mark of the Vampire" is essentially a remake of the now lost classic "London After Midnight", although this time Browning enhances the horror elements of the story by focusing on the couple of vampires and their actions instead of the mystery of the plot. The story is pretty convoluted and very clever for its time, with a nice use of black humor (some even see it as a satire of horror films of it's time) and very surprising plot twists to keep the mystery a secret until the end. Sadly (and like always happened to Browning), the film suffered approximately 20 minutes of cuts by the studio, who disliked Browning's idea of incest as background for Count Mora among other things. Unable to fight the studio (as they were still mad at him for "Freaks"), Browning had to let them cut the film, leading to the creation of many plot holes in the already convoluted story, ultimately destroying most of its effect by enhancing its flaws.

As in most Browning's films, the power of the movie is in the haunting visuals conveyed by this master of silent films, images so powerful that in a way make up for the messed up and disjointed storyline. In fact (and like "Dracula"), most of the best scenes in "Mark of the Vampire" come when nobody talks and only the images are what carry the story. Taking his expressionist influences to the max, Browning makes the figure of the vampire to embody the ultimate vision of irresistible evil, as their unnatural shining in complete darkness makes them diabolically attractive. Browning always struggled with the use of sound, and this problem shows again in "Mark of the Vampire", although the high quality of his cast manage to improve Browning's direction in this "talkie".

Lionel Barrymore is very good as the eccentric Prof. Zelin, and while he receives some bash for giving an over-the-top performance, I think his acting is right on the money, as he is not a serious Van Helsing, his character seems to be wicked, almost as wicked as the monsters he fights, so his hammy touch is, in my opinion, very appropriate. Lionel Atwill shines as Insp. Neumann, bringing a sense of dignity to the film as the stoic hero who is forced to work with what he considers as superstitious fools in order to fulfill his mission. Borland and Luogsi are simply wonderful as the almost silent vampires, relaying mostly on gestures to convey their emotions. Jean Hersholt, Donald Meek and Ivan Simpson have nice turns in supporting roles, with Meek and Simpson delivering some nice comedy that seems to parody stereotypes of horror films of its time.

Sadly, the film (or what was left of it) suffers from many flaws that effectively make the brilliant parts of it look bad, leaving the final product as simply a slightly better than average 30s movie. Not only the cuts done by the studio ruined the storyline, as being honest, Browning's talent wasn't as fond of talkies as it was of silents. Browning was a genius of black comedy, but this skill couldn't translate well to sound movies and often his attempts of comedy look too over-the-top for the overall mood of the movie. To make things worse, the performances of Elizabeth Allan and Henry Wadsworth (the main romantic couple of the movie) are atrociously poor, paling in comparison to the work of the rest of the cast.

"Mark of the Vampire" is a very good film of Browning's short post-"Freaks" career, as despite being plagued by many problems, it still works as a nice tale of mystery and horror. It is definitely not the typical vampire movie, and a number of factors make me to be willing to believe that Browning intended this to be a satire than a proper horror (for example the fact that vampires are silent and humans are very talkative for example). While certainly not a masterpiece, it is a fine film to watch despite its troubled upbringing. 7/10

A minor gem among classic horror films...clever ending...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 18 August 2006]

All of the essential ingredients for a good vampire film are here, but I guessed who the culprit was from the beginning (and even his motive), but I wasn't prepared for the nice twist in the surprise ending.

The story about a vampire stalking people in a picturesque village is handsomely photographed by none other than James Wong Howe and the settings rival any of those used in the original "Dracula" film. This time ELIZABETH ALLAN is the frightened heroine while BELA LUGOSI and LIONEL ATWILL fill their standard horror film assignments in fine form.

LIONEL BARRYMORE is Prof. Zelin and seems to have great difficulty in standing on two feet rather than being in a wheel-chair, so early was he inflicted with his rheumatism that forced him to be seated in most of his films by the end of the '30s, notably as Dr. Gillespie in those Dr. Kildare films. He's obviously a replacement for the usual Van Helsing character assigned to solve the vampire mysteries.

With a running time of 1 hr. 1 min. there's no time to be bored. A neat little thriller with good supporting roles from character actors like Jessie Ralph and Donald Meek--with all of the histrionics strictly in broad '30s horror style. One of Tod Browning's better films.

The atmospheric sets and shadowy but crisp B&W photography are beyond reproach.

Trippy vampire tale with a twist.

[Captain_Couth · 7/10 · 12 November 2003]

Tod Browning's return to the genre that made him famous brings along Bela Lugosi to reprise his role as a sinister Count. This vampiric tale is mixed in with a murder mystery. I found the end results to be very weird, unusual and entertaining. What I thought was going to be a routine horror story has a very funny twist. To give it away would be telling. If you're in the mood for something different then by all means watch.

Recommended.

B+

One of the Best Supernatural Films

[wdbasinger · 28 March 2005]

This was one of the best vampire films of the classic black-and-white era. Essentially a composite remake of "Dracula" and an earlier film called "London After Midnight" with some bizarre twists, in terms of ghoulish settings and atmosphere, particularly the cemetery scenes, and Lugosi and Borland wandering in the night, this film is second to none. There is no doubt that Bela Lugosi was the classic Dracula of the early sound period. If I were to make a list of his best 10 films, this would be one of them along with the 1931 "Dracula", the 1943 "Return of the Vampire", the 1940 "The Devil Bat" and others. Carol Borland's role as "Luna"sets the standard for "Vampira" of the 1950s and "Elvira" of the 1980s as well as "Morticia" of the Addams Family on TV. She does an excellent job in the role of a "creature of the night". And of course, Bela Lugosi as Count Mora is without peer. The entire cast including Lionel Barrymore, Lionel Atwill, Elizabeth Allen, Jean Hersholt, and others do an excellent job.

10/10.

Dan Basinger

You can't frighten us. We've been over your foul roads before.

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 19 January 2014]

Sir Karrel Borotyn is found dead with two punctures on his neck and drained of all his blood. A professor (Lionel Barrymore) and a police inspector (Lionel Atwill) investigate and all evidence points to vampires. Now it looks like Sir Karrel's daughter (Elizabeth Allan) is being targeted by the blood suckers.

Director Tod Browning's remake of his now-lost film "London After Midnight." In the original, Lon Chaney played multiple parts. Here his roles are divided among Lionel Barrymore, Bela Lugosi, and Lionel Atwill. Lots of horror fans dislike this one because they feel the ending is a cheat. I thought the ending was great, though it might not hold up on closer scrutiny of certain previous scenes. The entire movie plays out more like a murder mystery with horror overtones rather than a straight horror film, so I didn't feel cheated at all. It's beautifully shot by James Wong Howe. The cast is great. Lugosi barely says anything but is a menacing presence in a Draculaesque role. Carol Borland is sufficiently creepy as his "daughter." Definitely a keeper.

An interesting idea mired by plot holes so big you could walk through them, yet I liked it!

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 1 November 2015]

This starts out looking like a conventional horror film. Baron Otto (Jean Hersholt) comes downstairs to inform the servants that their beloved master, Sir Karell, has been murdered.

Upstairs, in Sir Karell's office, the slumped body of the nobleman is examined. Dr. Doskil (Donald Meeks) is the superstitious and nervous one. He notes the two marks on Sir Karell's neck (not that big of a deal, maybe there before the murder), and that the body has been completely drained of blood (a very big deal, impossible to explain). His explanation - vampires. Inspector Neumann from Prague (Lionel Atwill) basically says poppycock, and goes around doing a methodical investigation, but comes up empty handed.

Nearly a year later, shortly after the marriage of Sir Karell's daughter, Irena, to a young man with no real station in life or money of his own, odd things begin to happen. A local legendary vampire father/daughter team - Count Mora and daughter Luna - are spotted wandering near the old castle where the baron was murdered. Apparently the trauma of living in the same place where her father was killed was too much for Irena, so that castle was abandoned and now she is living in equally luxurious digs nearby. First Irena's husband is attacked near the old castle, but escapes with his life, then the vampires Luna and Mora start showing up and repeatedly attack Irena, and it is found that Sir Karell's grave is empty. Professor Zelin (Lionel Barrymore) - obviously a clone of Dracula's Van Helsing, shows up and assures everyone that this is the work of vampires, that Sir Karell is now one himself, and Sir Karell's daughter is next.

Unlike Dracula, there turns out to be a logical explanation for everything. Or at least there is supposed to be - I'll let you watch and find out. Just suffice it to say that this evidence of vampirism is a huge ruse backed by the police that includes just about everybody being in on the plan EXCEPT the person that the police believe is guilty. If they are wrong, they have probably tipped off the actual murderer! Now let me go through the rest of the plot holes. Sir Karell's castle that the vampires haunt was a beautiful home just a year before at the time of the murder. In just one year's time the windows are broken, the masonry is crumbling, there are spider webs everywhere, and rats and huge spiders rummage through what one can only call ruins? The actual murderer gained nothing by committing the murder - the murderer never got what the murderer wanted, and apparently didn't even try to get it after Sir Karell died. So what was the point? Plus the film clearly shows one of the "vampires" turning into a bat - with no logical explanation. Finally, there is no satisfactory answer as to how the killer removed and disposed of all of Sir Karell's blood.

Why do I like it? The performances and the pace mainly. Everybody is perfect at their roles. Atwill as the stiff police inspector, Elizabeth Allan as the distraught daughter, Donald Meeks as the nervous physician, but most of all Lionel Barrymore as the vampire hunter was a delight. He took what could have been a hammy role and made it work. He would have been a great Van Helsing in the original Dracula.

There were tons of scenes deleted from this film that might have caused it to make more sense, including the description of an incestuous relationship that existed in life between legendary vampires Luna and Count Mora that explains the bullet wound clearly visible in Mora's forehead that left me scratching my head UNTIL I heard the commentary on the DVD. For MGM to mainly be a studio for churning out dramas not horror in the 1930's, I think they did a good job with this one considering the limitations the production code put on them at the time.

Tod Browning's third horror milestone in a row!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 9 May 2004]

Tod Browning easily is one of the most important directors who ever lived. Sure, he might not enjoy the same post-mortem status as a Stanley Kubrick or a Alfred Hitchcock but he single-handedly was responsible for some of the most important and genre-forming horror films. In a period of barely 5 years he brought us: Dracula (the mother of all vampire-movies and THE film that made Bela Lugosi immortal), Freaks (still amazingly scary after more than 70 years), this Mark of the Vampire and Devil Doll in 1936.

This film more or less is the first accomplishment that `plays' with the rules of the genre and creatively adds some very ingenious twists. A prominent citizen of a small community is killed and the superstitious population are convinced that the bizarre, vicious Count Mora is responsible for this act of terror. Count Mora and his freaky daughter Luna are believed to be vampires and the village's curse. Since the victim's beautiful daughter obviously is the next target, professor Zelin sets a trap the bloodthirsty killer red-handed. Mark of the Vampire is an eccentric horror effort and definitely ahead of its time! The opening sequences are atmospherically frightening and the nightly noises still have the ability to scare you. The illogical – but extremely dared – twists near the end easily guarantee this film an honored spot in the horror annals. Please see it for yourself and you'll agree that this film is tough to review! Personally, I thought Lionel Barrymore overacts terribly….then again, the development of the film provides him with an excuse for this! I am certain about one thing, though! Bela Lugosi gives away an outstanding performance. Naturally, his role here is overshadowed by his starring in Dracula but I dare to say he's equally chilling here. Lugosi almost has no lines to say, but his grimaces speak for themselves. Check it out!!

A bit of trivia

[jknoppow · 5/10 · 25 April 2002]

Count Mora has a scar on his temple. It's a gunshot wound acquired when after having incest with his daughter he committed suicide. That was meant to explain to the audiences how he and his daughter became vampires. But censors demanded the deletion of references to both the incest and the suicide.

Barrymore Stalks Lugosi

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 29 May 2003]

The MARK OF THE VAMPIRE lies heavily upon the terrified inhabitants of a lonely European manor house.

In 1935 director Tod Browning set about the remaking of his 1927 silent Lon Chaney shocker LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT. The final result was rather an odd film for the MGM roster, but it benefited by being given the Studio's first class production values and casting. It is a tremendously entertaining film to watch even now, full of chills & suspense.

However, at a running time of barely one hour it has been obviously heavily edited. This does not help the already ludicrous plot, many of whose elements simply do not make the slightest sense. It is perhaps just as well to enjoy what the film does have to offer and not to harp about the incongruities of the storyline. The ending will come as a surprise to many viewers - some will be delighted at the turn of events, others will feel betrayed at the final fadeout.

The cast is excellent. Lionel Barrymore is at his most eccentrically watchable as the elderly vampire stalker. And who could play the Undead better than Bela Lugosi? Although he speaks not a word until the final seconds of the film he is pure menace throughout, stalking along cobwebed corridors, associating with giant bats and radiating pure evil. Lionel Atwill as a stern police inspector and gentle Jean Hersholt as a befuddled baron complete the quartet of leading actors.

Elizabeth Allan is lovely as the menaced young lady, while Carol Borland is properly mysterious as Lugosi's vampiress. Various members of the supporting cast are allowed moments to shine - Donald Meek as the frightened local doctor; Ivan Simpson as the manor's old butler and Leila Bennett as a rather hysterical maid. Movie mavens will spot an unbilled Christian Rub as a deaf peasant at the coroner's inquest.

The film's editing sadly left several very fine character actors on the cutting room floor, including Robert Greig, Eily Maylon, Zeffie Tilbury & Jessie Ralph (whose name still appears in the credits).

James Wong Howe's excellent cinematography should be mentioned, as should also the creepy special effects which add immensely to the atmosphere.

Vintage horror film that's not what it appears to be

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 15 October 2017]

"Mark Of The Vampire" has a great cast (even with a few too many comic relief supporting characters), some striking scenes and lots of creepy-crawlies, but the big surprise in the story is also a let-down, as it turns the supernatural into the mundane. Ultimately, this doesn't quite qualify as one of the classics of the genre. But it does make you wonder why Carroll Borland didn't have more roles like this - she is perfect. **1/2 out of 4.

(spoilers) ending is not all that original

[funkyfry · 5/10 · 20 September 2007]

Despite his reputation as a bit of an outsider and even possibly a sadist around Hollywood (he was once described as the only director to surpass Von Stroheim in the area of the bizarre and immoral), Tod Browning was one of the most important film-makers of the silent era and made 2 of the most recognizable films of the early sound era, the original "Dracula" starring Bela Lugosi and the infamous "Freaks." Unfortunately his later effort "Mark of the Vampire" displays the same poor ability in terms of directing dialogue as those 2 films but only a little of their unique visual appeal. Perhaps just as he was emboldened by the success of "Dracula" to make the controversial "Freaks", the failure of that self-same film may have humbled him enough to offer MGM a relatively weak imitation of "Dracula", which he had made for Universal (Lon Chaney having abandoned the project, probably signaling the fact that his loyalty to Irving Thalberg was far greater than any such associations with Browning himself). Other than the creation of a prime female vampire archetype in Luna Mora (Carol Borland) and some nice atmosphere, this film has little that's original to offer.

In fact according to David Skaal's excellent biography on Browning, this film was done as a re-make of his 1927 Lon Chaney vehicle "London After Midnight" in an effort to avoid possible litigation from Universal. After all, who could claim that "Mark" was an imitation of "Dracula" when both films obviously owed so much to "Midnight"? The most unfortunate aspect of this decision however is the fact that they retained the cheat ending of "Midnight" where everything is explained away as a conspiracy instead of a supernatural event. Despite the comments of dozens of IMDb users, this was NOT a "highly original" ending and it would not have been hugely surprising to 1930s audiences even if it ironically is surprising today for those who haven't seen many American thrillers from the 1920s (or perhaps a few episodes of Hanna/Barbera's "Scooby Doo"). But watch a few movies by Roland West and you'll see what I mean; this kind of thing was so normal that for the 20s audience the question wasn't so much whether the monsters would end up to be criminals in disguise but rather the basic mystery element of which character was the one wearing the disguise (we also see this device in serials from the 1940s including "The Crimson Ghost"). In "London After Midnight" the surprise was pretty good – it turned out that the vampire and the inspector were actually the same person (both parts being performed of course by the incomparable Lon Chaney)! This probably surprised audiences since they would have expected the vampire to be one of the criminals, and not the police. In this version we have the much less interesting premise that the vampire (Bela Lugosi) is an actor hired by the inspector (Lionel Atwill) and the vampire-hunter (Lionel Barrymore) to trick the real criminals into revealing themselves.

The only really fun aspect to this is the brief comic scene with Lugosi and Borland packing their trunks at the very end of the film. Obviously it makes most horror fans feel "cheated" – but what they should try to understand is that there was a dual purpose to these types of endings. First, they did act as a kind of buffer between the supernatural elements and the audience, which might have either religious objections to the material or might feel too sophisticated to believe in the material. In that sense, it could be considered a cheat. But at the same time these kind of devices enabled the audience to enter into a kind of proxy world of moral equivocation – imagine the possibility that any character in the story, from the leading man down to his little old mother, could be "the monster." In the sense by which the audience identifies with the characters in the story, this provides juicy opportunities for the viewer to identify with various possible incarnations of the monster and to experience vicariously the amorality of the adventure. I hope I've given those horror fans who felt "cheated" another perspective on the original appeal of this kind of suspense story.

As far as the meat of the film itself, like I said above there are some creepy atmospheric effects including weird music and sound effects and the wonderful image of Luna's transfiguration from bat to woman. I think the scene where she "attacks" the ingénue was probably pretty racy and fetishistic for its time. Lugosi and Borland look nice and creepy, and are kept mostly silent. You might wish Lionel Barrymore would follow their example a little more because even though his style is appropriate for this film there is just too much of him compared to everyone else and it unbalances the film. I think it was supposed to be more humorous than it ends up being, and Barrymore can do the "eccentric" humor (for example in "You Can't Take it With You") so here the blame lies mostly with Browning for the lifeless performance of Barrymore and others. I did enjoy the work of some of the character actors, especially Donald Meek.

One final note – I read through the comments and a lot of people are complaining that Lugosi isn't in the film very much even though he's "top billed". In the print I saw however Lugosi appeared in the second row of the supporting credits and it was Barrymore who was the top-billed star. I suspect these people need to pay more attention to the credits of the film and less to the credits printed on the video box. Of course Lugosi is a bigger star than Barrymore nowadays, but it's completely ridiculous to hold the film to account for an exaggeration made by whoever packaged and sold the video copies currently circulating.

Quite enjoyable.

[Hey_Sweden · 8/10 · 20 December 2012]

This is an ingenious, delicious film that offers a different take on the vampire tale. It's a remake of director Tod Brownings' 1927 silent "London After Midnight", one of the most sought after "lost" films of all time. It features a number of the trappings of the vampire sub genre, and establishes a respectfully sinister atmosphere.

When a man named Sir Karell (Holmes Herbert) is found murdered, an investigation is launched by intrepid Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill, who's in fine huffy form). When it's believed that the death was a murder perpetrated by a vampire, an occult expert (a hilarious, delightful Lionel Barrymore) is called in to provide all the advice they could need.

And for a while, this plays out the way we would expect a vampire movie TO play out. Our blood suckers are played by Bela Lugosi, once again cast in a perfect sort of role for him, and Carroll Borland, whose striking, long haired Luna can easily be seen as a forerunner to characters like Vampira and Morticia Addams. The cast is rounded out with people such as Elizabeth Allan as the distraught Irena, Henry Wadsworth as her suitor, Jean Hersholt as her uncle (the worried Baron), Donald Meek as Dr. Doskill, Ivan F. Simpson as Jan the butler, and comedy relief provider Leila Bennett as Maria the maid.

One can't help but notice just how short this movie is - it runs barely over an hour - and in fact approximately 20 minutes of footage was cut after the preview. Unfortunately, because Brownings' previous film "Freaks" had flopped upon its release, he wasn't able to object to these studio decisions. Still, even in the movies' current incarnation, it works pretty well, with decent special effects and typically solid work by cinematographer James Wong Howe. But the reason why this should be so entertaining is the unexpected ending, which does a fine job of pulling the rug out from under us and turning into a different type of film altogether. Even the actors weren't informed of the big twist ending until it was time to shoot it, which does nothing but add to the effectiveness of their performances.

Overall, "Mark of the Vampire" is great fun and a worthy viewing for any fan of old school black & white genre entertainment.

Eight out of 10.

Lugosi looks menacing

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 31 October 2016]

Top billed in this horror fest is Lionel Barrymore who plays a Van Helsing like expert in the occult, specialty being vampires. Lionel is well versed in all the folklore on the undead. But he's only one of many character players in this MGM production. Mark Of The Vampire is a great film for those of us who love those familiar character faces of studio era Hollywood.

Holmes Herbert a local nobleman is murdered, some say by vampires who are rumored to reside in an ancient castle. A year after that his daughter Elizabeth Allan is similarly attacked with those two telltale neck punctures and behaving real strangely.

It's then that Barrymore is called in and he does solve the mystery of the local vampires. The solution almost at the last second is quite a surprise.

Lionel Atwill is almost in dress rehearsal for his famous role as the police inspector in Son Of Frankenstein. But Bela Lugosi is the real surprise. That familiar voice of Count Dracula is absent up to the last minute of the film though he looks as menacing as Dracula ever did as Count Yorga. But his voice closes out Mark Of The Vampire and it's on the order of what Joe E. Brown did in Some Like It Hot.

Definitely worth the wait.

Ta-da

[jortegasa · 2/10 · 1 June 2019]

Oh the old last minute ta-da moment in movies. It has been employed since the beginning and sometimes its even been clever. Let me start out by saying that this movie is dull. I mean it is truly a dull movie. Of course I did not know how dull it would be when I first started it but even at even just an hour in length it felt like 4 or 5. And all for what may you ask? Well the ending of course.

So what is this tale all about? Well vampires of course, I mean it's in the title. But specifically about the murder of one Sir Karelia Borotyn, who is found with two marks on his neck. Of course then talk is all about how this is all the work of a Count Mora, played by Bela Lugosi. Traps are set and people are hunted until it is reveled that not everything is it seemed. All that sounds super interesting right? Well it did to me and then I started to watch it and like I said it was a dull affair. It was a good take on what a vampire is and how one man tried to use it's lore to get away with murder but thank God it was only an hour long.

Which all leads to the idea that sometimes you have to look at movies from a bigger frame. This movie isn't a classic nor is it all that great of a viewing but the ideas placed forth make it something worth seeking out. After all, are vampires real and can a legend be used to hide our worst acts?

So should you see this movie? Honestly yes, i mean its only an hour but I do warn you its dull but the twist at the end is something that makes one wonder what in our world is even real.

Bit creaky and hammy but is still an enjoyable horror from the period

[bob the moo · 13 January 2005]

In a small village of Prague, dignitary Sir Karell Borotyn is found murdered and the police put it down to "unknown circumstances". The whole village knows the cause though and the consensus of opinion is that he was killed by the legendary vampire Count Mora. This belief is dismissed by the authorities but seems to be backed up when Mora appears to Borotyn's daughter Irena. Enter Professor Zelen, who plans to save Irena and bring an end to the rule of terror that Mora has brought to the village.

I have been watching several horrors from the first half of the last century recently mainly because I am tired of the "shock 'em with gore" school of thought that seems to have replaced atmosphere and creepy direction that should always make up a part of a horror film. With this film the story is actually quite interesting, albeit based on the usual "vampire hunter" storyline but it still works and has a certain amount of mystery to it. This is supported by a good sense of atmosphere and period – not just all dark shadows and so on but a feeling that this is a real place and that the evil is only a few steps away at any time; hard to describe but it looks good. Of course it is dated and modern horror fans will scoff at it, but it does have some genuinely unsettling moments and the slow movement of Mora and the zombie-ish Luna is effectively used once or twice – it was only a shame that they had surprisingly little actual time on screen.

The cast are impressive on paper and they do a good job on screen. Lugosi may just be doing his usual stuff in a supporting role but both he and the Count are probably the main draw to this film and he provides his usual ham with relish. Likewise the rest of the cast overact a bit but it suits the film and works pretty well since this film doesn't seem to be taking itself too seriously. Barrymore is good and is well supported by Allan, Atwill and Borland. They all play it up a bit and it works without taking away from the creepy atmosphere.

Overall it is hardly the most frightening thing you'll ever see, nor does it even come comes but it is still enjoyable and a little creepy if you meet it on its terms rather than with a modern eye. It is creaky and you might get a laugh out of it but viewed as a film it has enough going for it to stand up with some of the more "classic" horrors of the period.

Could And Would Have Been

[LeonLouisRicci · 7/10 · 28 July 2012]

This could have been a film that would have made every critics Creature Feature list of the best of the early Horror cycle and certainly Vampire films in general. It is an amazing array of atmospheric touches and special effects.

A top notch cast all having a hammy horrifying hoot. The photography is excellent and has that MGM sheen, and the lighting and makeup are all fantastic. The sets are superb and there is one incredible scene of wire-work that is frighteningly flawless.

The problem here is the ending. Most Horror buffs take this stuff very seriously (as did the 1930's audience). Their "Famous Monsters of Filmland" upbringing has enabled them to be proud of their "ghoulies and ghosties, and long leggedy beasties", when others, who are less enlightened, only scoff.

So, the final few scenes are an insult to the audience who went along, got suckered in, and MGM said...Ha! Ha! How can you take this inferior stuff seriously. Fact is they do. Universal's James Whale had fun with his films but never lost respect for the fans.

Shame on this uppity studio for their condescension.

Only for dedicated movie buffs

[artroraback · 6/10 · 31 October 2002]

Mark of the Vampire is based upon London After Midnight and is an unusual vampire tale. There are genuinely creepy moments but the ending ruins the story. Lionel Barrymore and Bela Lugosi can't save this movie and we can only recommend this to dedicated movie buffs. The ending is disappointing and inexplicable.

Pales in comparison to Dracula

[nickenchuggets · 6/10 · 6 October 2021]

Mark of the Vampire is one of those movies that is good up until the very last minutes or so and then manages to throw away all its credibility. I'll get to this in a moment, but it's sad how the people responsible for it ruined the ending the way they did. The movie's title is appropriate at least. We see early on how a man named Sir Karell is found dead in his house with two marks on his neck. It's obvious what this means to the audience, and the characters are quick to realize what it means as well. Count Mora (Bela Lugosi) is thought to be the culprit, but the cops don't believe the characters. Later on, Irena (the daughter of the person Mora killed) is now firmly in his sights. A guy named Zelen (Lionel Barrymore) shows up to guard her against him, since he knows many things about vampires and their weaknesses. Another character then reveals that the vampires are actually actors and are not guilty of murdering anyone. The real murderer is Baron Otto, a former friend of Karell's. Otto later admits to killing Karell and making it look like a vampire attacked him instead to get away scot free. He did this because Karell wanted to keep his daughter away from him. The movie ends with Luna, Count Mora's daughter, explaining to someone else how she will be the new vampire in the upcoming act, showing the audience that it's all fake. If you're like me, it's easily understandable why you would be pretty disappointed with this movie. The vampires are not actually responsible for the deaths of anyone, and they're just decoys to get real killers to admit their guilt. It's one of the most absurd movie twists I've seen yet, and for it to appear in a Lugosi movie is an extra slap in the face. Lugosi was, in most people's eyes, the best Dracula there ever was. He's not Dracula in this film, but he's still a vampire. The movie's bland exposition ruins this and tells you it's all part of an act. Even though this movie's ending left me pretty annoyed, I would still tell people to watch it on account of Lugosi, as well as its short length. Lugosi performs well (as always), but the script of this movie probably disappointed him too. A little known fact about this movie is that it was supposed to be a sound remake of a film that is now lost forever and not known to exist in any archives: London After Midnight. It's one of the most sought after lost films because Lon Chaney is in it and he plays a truly creepy looking character with razor sharp teeth and a top hat. Sadly, only a few stills from the original print are known to survive.

Not as silly as it seems.... we'll not quite.

[1930s_Time_Machine · 5/10 · 1 May 2022]

If you quite liked Tod Browning's Dracula, you'll probably quite like this. If you loved Dracula and don't like to see your favourite movie classic adulterated then this will probably annoy you.

Although made only three years after the original Dracula, this feels much more modern - almost 1940s. Browning's flair for creating atmosphere and suspense have been honed and with the benefit of MGM's higher production values, this is a much more sophisticated movie than Dracula.

Why am I comparing two different films? Because this one doesn't try to disguise the fact that it's a Dracula film - even down to having Bela Lugosi playing the Count. But MGM couldn't simply make a copy of something made by those upstarts at Universal, they had to make something just as good and then almost belittle the whole brand by making their 'better Dracula' something silly and simply part of their own proper film. They needn't have bothered since Universal themselves managed to trash their own brand a few years later all by themselves.

It's a little bit sad to hear Bela Lugosi's final - and indeed only lines in the film as the has-been actor deluded that he is a great thespian wondering whether he could make a career out of playing the vampire. It's as though MGM are showing that they can denigrate and swat away Universal's former mega star just like one of Renfield's flies.

A "Different" Kind of Vampire movie

[Norm-30 · 9/10 · 29 May 1999]

There are some excellent scenes in this film -- when the Prof peers in the window & sees Carole Borland "landing" -- very surrealistic! Also, when the father & Bela are in the cemetery, motionlessly watching the people looking into the crypt -- creepy sound effects!

Also, Donald Meek is excellent as the superstitious doctor.

What's wrong with it is that you hardly ever see Lugosi, and Lionell Barrymore REALLY hams it up in the "Van Helsing" role! He moves & speaks so slowly, so deliberately, that one would think that HE'S of the Undead, too! He tries for a dramatic effect, but fails miserably.

You may notice the (bullet) wound in Bela's temple; the original storyline had him killed for having an incestuous relationship with his daughter (Borland). That whole scenerio was cut from the film.

Even so, this a VERY "odd" & interesting "vampire" film; must see!

Norm had Lug

Solid remake of Tod Browning's silent film.

[alexanderdavies-99382 · 7/10 · 18 May 2017]

"Mark of the Vampire" from 1935, is a remake of the Lon Chaney film "London After Midnight."

The plot of the above film is quite similar to the earlier one, with a murder being investigated amidst reports of vampirism in the local vicinity.

Technically, I consider "Mark of the Vampire" to be superior to Tod Browning's "Dracula" from 1931. There is more direction from Browning on this film and the pace is considerably better.

Having Lionel Barrymore, Bela Lugosi and Lionel Atwill on hand, makes for a great cast and they don't disappoint.

I know that some fans felt a bit cheated by the twist at the end. However, I don't feel this movie cheats really but it does mean that not everything is what it appears to be.

A very good film all round.

Tod Browning sinks this glossy MGM remake, a waste of Bela Lugosi

[kevinolzak · 3/10 · 20 April 2021]

1935's "Mark of the Vampire" was director Tod Browning's sound remake of his 1927 Lon Chaney vehicle "London After Midnight," splitting up Lon's dual roles of detective and vampire into separate parts, Lionel Barrymore over the top as the investigating Prof. Zelen, Bela Lugosi completely silent in the guise of Count Mora and kept off screen for all but 3 lousy minutes of this hour long travesty. A European village appears to be teeming with the undead because no one among the populace talks of anything else, Michael Visaroff spouting the same gibberish as the identical innkeeper he played in "Dracula." Visually, Browning apes the Universal classic very closely, but in going through the motions exactly the same way provides for a very dull viewing for those familiar with Lugosi's great triumph (and who among us is not?). His Count Mora has a female sidekick named Luna (Carroll Borland in the prototype of the seductive Hammer vixens), supposedly a father and daughter guilty of incest who became vampires after a double suicide, a fact deleted in post production but clearly outlined by the bullet wound in his temple. Most infuriating of all is the director's insistence on sticking to the legendary climax from the silent version, acceptable to a 1920s audience but not to that of Bela's era just 8 years later, making the interminable goings on collapse during a final reel reveal that proves tougher to swallow and about as digestible as rat poison. The actors involved all play to the hilt with total conviction, Lionel Atwill much better than Barrymore, but the entire cast was completely deflated by the ending, assuring a box office dud for MGM and only two final features ahead for Tod Browning. Lugosi of course looks magnificent and he and his 20 year old protege make a very impressive team, too bad this was the only time they worked together on screen.

Delightful!

[standardmetal · 8/10 · 4 January 2003]

I haven't seen this film in quite a while but I found it very satisfying. I take issue with those especially who disliked the ending which I found absolutely right. Yes, Lionel gives his usual scenery-chewing performance as the "Von Helsing" character but it seems appropriate here.

*** out of ****

Horror with a twist.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 9 July 2005]

I'm not going to spoil anything for you but the story was much different from what I expected it to be. The ending was highly original to say the least. One of the first real surprise endings for a movie in movie history? I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was the case.

The movie is a sort of remake of "London After Midnight" from 1927, also directed by Tod Browning. A literally still as of today lost movie, with Lon Chaney in the main part. The movie starts of as a typical Dracula movie, with once more Bela Lugosi in the role as the Count, as the movie progresses the story is taking a twist, which I'm not going to spoil.

Lugosi fans don't get high hopes. Lugosi's role is fairly small and he doesn't have any lines (untill the ending). Still true fans should be able to still appreciate his presence and grimaces. The real main character is played by Lionel Barrymore. It can't exactly say that I'm happy about this to be fair. I really don't like this acting and he was even irritating me at points. I would have had much more preferred to see Edward Van Sloan reprise his Van Helsing role. Afer all Professor Zelin and Van Helsing are basically the same sort of characters so I don't understand why they didn't tried to get Van Sloan back, to reprise his role? It was kind of fun to see Lionel Atwill in this. Atwill has played various roles in dozens of Dracula and Frankenstein movies, before and after this one.

Horror fans will most likely be disappointed by this movie and perhaps will even feel cheated afterward. Still this movie is a 'little classic' that deserves some more recognition, were it alone for the daring and unusual twist in the movie. And oh, I just love the final lines of Lugosi in this movie!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Low marks for this Vampire dud.

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 22 May 2020]

Tod Browning's Mark Of The Vampire is a very atmospheric movie, the eerie ambience helped no end by superb gothic set design -- a cobweb strewn castle, a foggy forest, a mist shrouded graveyard -- all captured in sumptuous black and white photography. It's a shame that the overall film doesn't do the splendid visuals justice, the dreadfully dull and extremely muddled plot being quite nonsensical, and the performances overly theatrical.

A virtual remake of Browning's long lost movie London After Midnight, Mark Of The Vampire stars Lionel Barrymore as Professor Zelin, who is trying to find out who or what was responsible for the death of Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert), whose body was found totally drained of blood with two puncture wounds on the neck. Dr. Doskil (Donald Meek) believes that it is the work of the vampire Count Mora (Bela Lugosi), but Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill) isn't so quick to come to a supernatural conclusion, and puts into play a plan to reveal the culprit. Meanwhile, the Count and his female companion Luna (Carroll Borland) loiter menacingly at night waiting to put the bite on unsuspecting victims.

Much like Count Mora and Luna, Mark Of The Vampire moves at a deathly pace, and also makes not a lick of sense. The killer's identity is ultimately revealed and the vampiric shenanigans explained, but not adequately enough to answer all questions. Why are we, the viewer, shown both Luna and Mora --supposedly actors posing as the undead -- transforming from bat into human form (is this something they teach at RADA)? How does Luna cause Irena to faint (is she a hypnotist?), what is bat-thorn and why does Count Mora have a bullet wound on his temple?

As for being able to completely drain a body of its blood using a heated glass placed over two small puncture wounds... sounds unlikely!

Apparently, studio interference was responsible for the scrappy nature of the narrative and the glaring plot-holes, but as someone else here on IMDb quite rightly points out, we can only go by what we see on screen, and what we see is a total mess.

2.5/10, rounded up to 3 for the possum, the rubber bat, and the clockwork spider with googly eyes, and for Luna's bat to human transformation, which cannot be adequately explained within the context of the story, but which looks great anyway.