#6: Nosferatu (1922/Germany)



Possibly the most visually striking monster of all time, Nosferatu endures as the second best remembered film to come out of the German Weimer Republic (Fritz Lang's Metropolis being the first). This was one of the earliest projects of legendary director FW Murnau, and while it's certainly not up to his later standards, the film is visually unforgettable, especially through its usage of long shadows and awkwardly proportioned/angled camera shots, through the brilliance of actor Max Shrek as the Count,and through ingenious cinematic artistry such as the moment when the Count seems to fly up out of his opened coffin. Breathtaking stuff.

Though any version of this film is decent enough for viewing, I highly recommend checking out the Kino Ultimate edition or the new Kino blu ray release, as these are the only versions that play the film at its correct projection speed. While I believe the protagonist is directed to be over-the-top annoying so that we don't feel too guilty watching him come face to face with the vampire, at too high a projection speed, he comes off as so absurdly manic that it's beyond obnoxious and ruins some of the flavor of this otherwise slow and brooding film.

Yep. There's a lot I love about that version, but without Bela starring and Browning directing, it just isn't an equivalent product in my book.

I'm sorry to say that until now my only exposure to John Barrymore has been Joe Pesci telling Robert De Niro "Look at you, you're ****in' walking around like John Barrymore. A ****in' pink robe and a ****in' cigarette holder?" So I checked out the transformation scene on Youtube and wow, I will be watching this movie soon.

I know this is blasphemy but I think this movie really stinks. IMO Lugosi never pulls it together and manages to come off as nothing more than a somewhat intense waiter who is never threatening (I actually think Lugosi was better in Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein) and doesn't come close to the likes of Max Schreck, Christopher Lee, Klaus Kinski (my personal favorite) and Gary Oldman. The ominous and surreal vibe I expect from the story and setting (ranging from the novel to Nosferatu to even Coppola's goofball version) is absent save for some misplaced armadillos and a cool trick with a spider web. Suspense is never allowed to accumulate (the mystery of Dracula's true nature is derailed by explicitly showing him rise from the coffin, the claustrophic horror of being trapped at Castle Dracula is diminished by having Renfield not even last a single night, etc) and overall it's quite boring. I would chalk it up to age but it would be a discredit to the impact Frankenstein still carries.

While I ultimately prefer Werner Herzog's remake starring Klaus Kinski (my favorite adaptation of Dracula, if it could even be called an adaptation), this movie holds the honor of being one of only two movies to make me turn away. When I was 11 I got huge into horror movies and watched everything I could get my hands on. Nosferatu came on TV and I was excited to see it, having seen a picture of Count Orlok in a book and been fascinated ever since. The scene where Orlok comes down the hall to feast on Hutter was too much for me. The claustrophic feeling of being trapped, the suspense and the nightmareish production design was just too intense for my brain to handle. The other movie that made me recoil was Hannibal, which I saw around the same time. Seeing Anthony Hopkins drug Gary Oldman and convince him to cut his face off with a piece of mirror with heavy homoerotic overtones freaked me the hell out, made me sick to my stomach and forced me to tap out (still my greatest humiliation in life).

Yes, the power of Nosferatu is matched only by Gary Oldman in assless pants with a noose around his neck taking drugs and cutting his own face off.

#4: White Zombie (1932/USA)



Considering the genre, time period, and star actor, it's always tempting to compare "White Zombie" to the classic Universal Monster movies. However, while "White Zombie" is on par with the best of these films, it's also extraordinarily different. The Universal classics ("Frankenstein", "Dracula", "The Wolf Man", etc) tend to be relatively simple stories, often with a fascinating, easily identifiable monster at the center. "White Zombie" rejects that mold, offering something far more poignant and (at the same time), far less recognizable than the spirit-gummed prosthetic faces of the Universal monsters.

The plot is far more complex than what you normally get in a Universal monster film, including a conscious-laden human villain with a relatively well developed back-story and a somewhat elaborate reason for bringing the undead into the plot line. In a sense, Charles Beaumont becomes the protagonist of this film, far more compelling and likable than the naive couple he seeks to destroy. We can certainly empathize with his belief that he is a better suitor for Madeleine than her vapid, weak-willed fiancé. We understand and almost condone the passion that drives him, even when we know that his actions are wrong and will lead to terrible consequences. Because of this, by the time we get to the wedding ceremony, it becomes obvious that there can be no happy resolution at the close of "White Zombie"- only an end to suffering. I'd like to see a Universal monster film tackle that level of tragedy and emotional complexity. "Frankenstein" comes close, but even James Whale's brilliant work pales in comparison with "White Zombie" on certain dramatic levels (most notably the resolution).

Additionally, the supernatural presence in this film is far more alien and terrifying than what you find in most classic monster films, neither as civilized and inoffensive as "Dracula" nor as humane and misunderstood as "Frankenstein". Bela Lugosi, as the truly evil, remorseless, and cunning zombie master, is a terrifying force on the screen. He doesn't kill out of fear, hunger, or instinct. He does it because it suits his purpose. Of course, the band of undead that he commands is even more terrifying; even more inhuman and single-minded than its master. There is no one to reason with or beg to, here, and there is no well-documented weakness to use against this seemingly unstoppable force. The evil in this film is an immoral presence that does not stop to plan, worry, or second guess itself. Therein lies true classic terror.

"White Zombie" is a rich and brilliant horror film, compensating for its lack of flashy make-up and effects with strong production value, a compelling location ("uncivilized" Haiti), great atmosphere, a tragic storyline, and a terrifying enemy. If you respect classic horror films for their artistry and creativity as opposed to their mass-marketed camp appeal, than "White Zombie" is most certainly a film that you need to see.

And, for fans of Bela Lugosi, this is absolutely his greatest performance, hands down.


Though there are many public domain copies of this film out there right now, the absolute best version available (one of the few in which the audio is clear, and dialogue always discernable) can be watched for free on Youtube:

I love Frankenstein. Love love love Frankenstein. I much prefer the novel of Dracula to that of Frankenstein and when it comes to adaptations the Frankenstein movies almost always win out. Love Frank 31 way more than Drac 31 and the Hammer series deals with a much more interesting lead than the Dracula series. The only reversal is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which doesn't lick the boots of Bram Stoker's Dracula (which says a LOT). Why is it that Frankenstein adapts so much better, even though both stories are usually beyoned recognition?

Very curious to see what #2 and #1 are.

I remember #1 but not #2.

I've heard Frankenstein called the first science fiction novel. I don't know if thats true but the story is definitely more of a science fiction than a horror.

I think what it boils down to for me is the concept of Frankenstein gives more to work with, while the actual character of Dracula is much more interesting. For example, the Hammer Frankenstein movies all approach the concept of man creating life in a different way while building a story arc around the evil and madness of Victor Frankenstein. But in the Dracula series the monster is killed every time, making a proper arc impossible, and his stories use him more as a prop than a character. As a result I think all of the Hammer Frankensteins are at least watchable and most are enjoyable while the Dracula movies are very much a case of diminishing returns (IMO) once you get past Horror of Dracula and Dracula, Prince of Darkness.

And yet, Phantom Der Nacht is my favorite of all Dracula and Frankenstein movies because of how perfectly realized the character of Dracula is: He's highly threatening and creepy yet he also has an emotional quality that, while not making him particularly endearing, makes it possible to empathize with him.