FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

alexanderdavies-99382 "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.

Hitchcoc I could have used a scorecard to keep all this straight. I won't try to unravel the crazy (and really hard to fathom) plot here. This is one hour movie that features some of the best of the best for its time. For heaven's sake, we have Lionel Atwill, Bela Lugosi, and Lionel Barrymore (short of an essay about model trains, where else would you get two Lionel's in the same sentence). There's also a cast of wonderful secondary actors whom you would recognize. And, finally, director Tod Browning, who was nonpareil in the horror field of the day. We have mistaken activities and plot twists and overacting and all the stuff that makes this an absolute delight. Browning was a master at atmosphere and those old houses and castles were his milieu. I've probably seen this six or seven times and it always pleases.

jadzia92 Enjoyable vampire film with Bela Lugosi again playing a vampire after Dracula. Pretty easy going and what a twist towards the end of the film as not everything is not what it seems. The twist demonstrates that this is not the kind of vampire movie that one would normally expect. It is instead a plot line that is pivotal to what is truly been going on in the movie. It is rather interesting on when this movie was released in 1935 as noted by the DVD commentators. The commentators said that this was released at a time before World War II as no one was worrying about some guy called Hitler. Looking at this with the benefit of the passage of time since its release it certainly presents the innocence of the time prior to the horrors the world would see in a few years subsequent to its release. The performances were overall fine and Lugosi seems to enjoy playing another vampire whose name isn't Dracula. Definitely a good way to pass the time. An easy-going fluff.

Nigel P Films and stories with a twist at the end can be risky. If they get it right ('The Sixth Sense' and 'The Others', for example), audiences will be thrilled and eager to watch the production again to look for clues as to the denouement. Other ventures, such as this one, has proved to leave audiences feeling betrayed and reticent to re-view such a tremendous build-up, knowing that the final revelation is such a colossal let-down.By 1935, director Tod Browning's career was floundering. Three years earlier, his 'Freaks' production met with a disastrous reception for one reason and another. Here, he returned to more familiar ground, reuniting with Bela Lugosi (whom he directed in the ground-breaking 'Dracula' in 1931) in a remake of Browning's 'London After Midnight' (1927).What might have made the build-up even better would have been if MGM hadn't cut out nearly 15 minutes from its original version. Amongst the material cut was the story of Count Mora (Lugosi) and his incestuous relationship with daughter Luna (Caroll Borland), his subsequent killing of them both (explaining the bloodshot he sports on his temple throughout) and how he was condemned to spend eternity as a vampire.What we have left is one of the most beautiful horror films ever made. Languid, steeped in atmosphere, meticulous in detail, sumptuously played (Lionel Barrymore's Professor has been criticised by some, but for me is a perfectly judged creepy performance) and seductively directed. The murder victim is played by Holmes Herbert, (an actor curiously denied enough credit for his many horror roles) and it is his murderer Baron Otto (Jean Hersholt) who is the subject of a colossal hoax upon which the 'twist' hinges. Apart from the twist being unreasonable on many levels, Otto is hypnotised into a confession at the end anyway, rendering the hiring of actors to create the whole scenario pointless.Such a huge shame. Everything else is so good, from the grotesque hag being frightened by a bat at the beginning, to Luna's spectacular (but briefly featured) flight on outsize wings (a scene that took many takes to perfect), there is a rich sense of eeriness throughout. Lugosi plays his second vampire film silent (except for his brief dialogue at the end, as the actor PLAYING the vampire), which was (probably unintentionally) mirrored by Sir Christopher Lee's second outing as Dracula in 1965, which was also without dialogue.