Edgar Allan Pooh . . . to demean a national treasure (rival studio Universal's DRACVLA) with this ham-handed blood-sucker spoof, MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. Stage bozo Lionel Barrymore turns the courageous Professor Van Helsing into a squinty-eyed slouch, Dr. Zelen. Watching Zelen chew the scenery makes one picture Columbo becoming sheriff of Bent Fork in the TWILIGHT flicks. "Bat thorns" take the place of garlic in this would-be comic send up of an actual horror flick, and the bogus bleeders spend half their time primping in front of mirrors. Jumbling together zombie walking dead mythology with bat lore, beheading replaces oak stakes through the heart as the cruel and unusual way to dispatch the coffin crowd. Silver bullets, holy water and crucifixes become conspicuous by their absence here, as an entire village seems to be running a low-tech version of THE TRUMAN SHOW just to play along with a law enforcement long shot. MARK OF THE VAMPIRE is not half as clever as it thinks it is. It's not hard to see why this film's geeks drove Tod Browning to film FREAKS.

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.

simeon_flake Well--if all the classic horror books I've read over the years are true--then "Mark of the Vampire" takes its source material from Lon Chaney's lost film "London After Midnight." And that may be where the biggest problem with this film comes from. I don't think I'm giving anything away from a movie this old--but the plot twist that Bela and Carol's characters are not "actual" vampires, but rather paid actors in some half baked plot to expose the real killer of the film is very disappointing for an old school horror fan like me.In fact, if you're one who is viewing this primarily for the presence of Lugosi, then you can't help but feel let down--this is more like one of Bela's "red herring" roles where he was cast more for his name value on the marquee. Of course, all the actors are fine in their roles, but why this film had to dodge "real" vampires--particularly in the wake of Bela's success about 4 years earlier as the "real Count Dracula" for Universal Pictures is beyond me. Overall, I would say it's not a terrible film by any means, but not one I may revisit for many repeat viewings.5 stars

bugsmoran29 I truly enjoyed the 'Mark of the Vampire," and I consider it one of my favorite Universal horror movies of all time. Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill and Lionel Barrymore make for a superlative movie double play combination. However, I have always wondered who had attacked Fedor, the male love interest in the movie; for he wasn't in on the plot to trick the Baron into re-enacting his crime? On two occasions he mentioned having being in a deep stupor. Could it be that he was a victim of the 'real' Count Mora. Also, how did they clean-up the abandoned castle so quickly to re-enact the crime? It is still a great little film but I wonder if about 10-15 minutes of critical film were lost on the editor's floor.