Topical Ponderings: Are We Bored of Vampire Films?

The Frog brothers pull a silly pose

Last night I decided to finish The Lost Boys trilogy. The third film was possibly even more ridiculous than the previous two, but Corey Feldman, who had been faintly annoying as the older Edgar Frog in the second one, shone when he was placed in the foreground. The hedonistic, teenagery aspect of the previous Lost Boys film was pushed to the side in favour of comic vampire shenanigans. There was a nice little dig at Stephenie Meyer as well by including a deluded vampire romance writer. With a satisfying and humorous climax, the final instalment in The Lost Boys trilogy was neat and fun, although not necessarily good (certainly better than the lacklustre second film though).

This was all very well and good, but it got me thinking about the vast array of vampire films I have consumed over the past few years. They're everywhere, and practically everyone is trying to put a different spin on the bloodsuckers. But which works best? The contestants are: Dracula, Van Helsing, Fright Night, Dark Shadows and Daybreakers. The fight for the best vampire film is on!

Bizarre seems the most fitting adjective to describe Dracula (1992). The count alternates from being old with silly hair to young and dashing with a silly hat, seemingly randomly, and for some strange reason changes into a strange werewolf type creature occasionally. A lot of strange things happen for the sake of strangeness, but this seems to add to the film.

We actually end up rooting for the Count, as he seems a much better lover than Mina's dreadfully boring husband Jonathon Harker. The famous vampire is lovelorn, having become demonic after his one true love Elizabeta launched herself from a balcony. But his romantic prospects are looking up, as he discovers that the fiance of Harker, who he now has imprisoned in his playboy castle (well it seems that way) is actually Elizabeta reincarnated. Strangely, Dracula decides the best course of action is to turn Mina's best friend Lucy into a vampire first, which makes her various manly friends so pissed off that they decide to hunt Dracula down.

The acting talent on display is brilliant. Gary Oldman is Dracula, Wiona Ryder is Mina, Anthony Hopkins is a slightly deranged Van Helsing and Keanue Reeves is the frightfully boring Harker. Dracula is represented as the vampiric version of Heathcliff, incredibly romantic but equally dangerous. His ability to seduce women is his most terrifying power, which remains loyal to the book. So all in all, this is an arty take on vampires, and is possibly the definitive vampire film.

But while Dracula seemed perfectly content wreaking havoc across Whitby and other idyllic English locations, he always seemed more at home in Transylvania, which is marvellously recreated in the 2004 film Van Helsing. Hugh Jackman has replaced Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, the films titular action hero. He has a vast array of monsters to deal with, including werewolves, Frankenstein's monster, Mr. Hyde, harpies and Dracula himself. But this is, above all, a family film, Dracula with stabilisers on if you like. There are some fairly decent action sequences, but the stunts and the marvellous visuals take priority over any character development. Richard Roxburgh is Dracula on steroids. He has a castle, a cape and is bombastically evil. He is a comic book villain (the whole film is essentially a comic book like affair), not Gary Oldman's tortured soul. And Hugh Jackman just seems to good at killing vampire to be a vampire hunter. In the tradition of the original Van Helsing, Peter Vincent and Edgar Frog, vampire hunters are just dreadful at hunting vampires.

But lets not forget that Stephen Sommer's (director of Van Helsing) is the champion of family horror/action films. He was a major staple of my early cinematic experiences, Van Helsing used to be my favourite film at the age of around 10, closely followed by Sommer's other action romp The Mummy. While not a serious contender for the title of best vampire film, it does what it says on the tin, great visuals and family friendly action.

I suppose we need a brief mention of where vampire films went wrong: Twilight. Why is it so disastrous? Firstly, the vampires seem not to care about drinking people's blood. One of my favourite vampires is Mitchell from Being Human (a brilliant Aidan Turner), who tries his best to remain sober, but inevitably has the occasional bloody relapse which he then spends ages brooding over. He started of as a nice easy going chap, but by the event of his death he was fairly close to being evil. The anaemic Robert Pattison seems the sort of boy you'd invite round to dinner with your parents, not a tortured soul constantly doing battle with the urge to plunge his teeth into you throat. Secondly, it never seemed high on Dracula's agenda to have healthy, long term relationships. Although he yearned for Mina, he still didn't mind a brief murderous fling with her best friend beforehand. The film is tragically awful, and should be resigned to the scrapheap of cinema.

Moving on to 2011, and it was someones clever idea to remake an old horror flick: Fright Night. I've never seen the original, but I must admit that I quite enjoyed it. It tried is best to have some moments that were fairly scary. while maintaining a light, humorous tone. Anton Yelchin is non-descript as the typical teenager with the misfortune of having a vampire move in next door. But it's two supporting performances the make this film amusing. Colin Farrell is a marvellous vampire. While Richard Roxburgh came over as faintly camp and Gary Oldman marvellously out of his time, he plays a modern, fairly ordinary vampire who maintains the facade of being a friendly neighbour while draining kidnapped girls dry inside his house. David Tennant meanwhile plays celebrity vampire hunter Peter Vincent, a self-obsessed but ultimately useless figure forced to wear too tight leather trousers for a living. The melodrama is limited, which adds to the fun. Fright Night is nothing special, but still an enjoyable romp.

This year, Tim Burton decided to get a piece of the vampire action with Dark Shadows. Johnny Depp is Barnabus Collins, who becomes undead when Eva Green (a witch) takes revenge on his family for being jilted. In 1972, Barnabus is set free after 200 years imprisonment, and tries to make amends for the various villagers he's killed by helping out his oddball family. While Dracula actively tried to seduce women, Barnabus faces unwanted attention from all angles, Eva Green's still out to get him and Helena Bonham Carter's alcoholic professor fancies eternal youth. The fun emerges from Dark Shadows as it's so delightfully odd, and there's a lot going on, partially due to the fact that it was adapted from a soap. It proves that both Tim Burton and vampires can still be a lot of fun, and thrives from the marvellous performance of Johnny Depp.

Surely we've exhausted all the possible avenues to explore with our favourite bloodsuckers. It appears not. In Daybreakers, vampires get political. Although it's nowhere near as loyal to Stoker's vampires as the other films, it seems an excellent modern interpretation. In Stoker's day, our greatest fear was letting our passions control us and breaking strict moral and sexual codes. Nowadays, big corporations and the suppression of the proletariat (yes, vampires can be Marxist) is more relevant. Ethan Hawke is a nice vampire, uncomfortable with the evil corporation's harvesting of human blood. He needs to find a blood substitute as there aren't many humans left, and hungry vampires transform into demented bat-like creatures when going dry for too long. Represented here are our own struggle as we run out of resources and the fact that in certain societies, governments only worry about the lower orders when they start becoming a threat to their political power (or in this case, running rampage). Evil companies also sacrifice general decency and human lives for profit. The acting is nothing special and the horror is sparse, but this new dimension to the undead is refreshing and interesting.

So, in the end, I think ultimately Dracula  is artistically the best film, but for a bit of fun vampire action, you can't go wrong with Fright Night and Dark Shadows. Meanwhile, look to Daybreakers for an intelligent twist on a now increasingly tired aspect of horror.

And now, the ratings....
Lost Boys: The Thirst: 4/10
Dracula: 5/10
Van Helsing: 3/10
Twilight: 3/10
Fright Night: 5/10
Dark Shadows: 7/10
Daybreakers: 6/10