Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

I really liked Underworld, and though the sequel was not as good, I also liked the prequel.

The BEST Vampire movie is undoubtedly lost boys though.

I couldn't get into Near Dark.

From Dusk 'til Dawn was pretty cool, for what it was.

I love Underworld, the first and the second. The prequel, not so much.

Lesbian Vampire Killers was one of the funniest things I saw in a long time.

I have only sen the last Blade Movie, and thought it was arse.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

I'm tired so if there was something excluding anime I didn't see it. I'm gonna cast my vote to Vampire Hunter D : Bloodlust. The 3 actual main characters catch your attention quickly and its beautifully animated. Add in the good story on top of that and your set. The original Vampire Hunter D seems to have the nastalgia factor getting people to say the story is better but I prefer Bloodlust.

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

Remember how the first hour was a film about a man and his dog as they live a lonely existence in an abandoned city?

The third act is much more video-gamey, and much the worse for it.

Angel was a pretty decent TV series. It could be a snooze at times, but the episode where he gets turned into a muppet is just priceless

Metallifan, thank you. I didn't want to be the first guy to say it, but I will throw my support behind that statement now that it's been made.

Movies, no. I haven't enjoyed a vampire film in years. I didn't like Twilight (either), Blade (any), Underworld (any), or I am Legend. Really, Shadow of the Vampire was one of the last good ones I saw. Dracula 2000 had a good idea, but poor execution. I guess Christopher Lee and Max Schreck and Bela Lugosi left me with very high standards, ones which Hollywood seems to be unable to meet.

Fifty wrote:I couldn't get into Near Dark.

What's not to like about White Trash Vampires?

My personal fav:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071276/

I have only seen two good ones in the past three years:

Lost Boys
Dusk 'til Dawn

Twilight and Blade spiralled the vampire genre into what it is now.

Hands up! This is a hijack! Anyone else know that the creator of twilight tried to copyright the term vampire? Not sparkly-doll, vampire!

New-ish information to me.

Fifty wrote:I really liked Underworld, and though the sequel was not as good, I also liked the prequel.

Jimi Nemesis wrote:I love Underworld, the first and the second. The prequel, not so much.

I thrid the motion of Underworld.
(Haven't seen the prequel but what's it like?)

I can't forgive Blade 1 for the way all the Elder vampires just got merrily herded to their deaths.

If you want a proper Elder, Viktor in Underworld was freaking amazing.

the first and third blade, from dusk till dawn, and of corse all of underworld

I'll admit to Underworld as a movie I sort of liked, since i was playing (Old) World of Darkness at the time, and our group had really played up the vampire/werewolf fighting with Gehenna nearing.

Beyond that.... Dracula (Oldman) wasn't too bad, and closer to the book then *most* of them. Coppala added some unnecessary stuff to the Dracula/Mina dynamic, but otherwise wasn't bad. Not much else lately I'd say has been really good.

The problem has been the general move of vampire from horrid monster to tragic figure/action star.

Remember, folks, they EAT PEOPLE. So take your glitter and go.

Underworld 1 and 2 were Glorious (not just Kate either)
the third one was pretty good too.

Shadow of the Vampire was an excellent film

30 days of night was good, the way it showed vampires was great, and the only reason it isn't my favourite is that it's more horror film style than action film.

Underworld 1 was ok and number 2 is one of my favourite vampire films (still haven't seen number 3).

The best in my opinion are the blade films, they keep vampires as evil, but still seeming emotionally like human. The way they mix with modern society is cool. It's nice to have a vampire film without everyone always running from them.

On a slightly of topic note: I really reccomend watching True Blood. They have managed to make vampires the good guys without covering up the fact they do eat people.

Dusk till dawn and 30days of night are good 'uns.

Underworld 3 was decidedly meh, but was ok. Lycans in it totally own all the vampires which kinda mucked up the first 2 films plots a bit.

Interview with the Vampire was good, but not the sequels or any other Vampire flick post since Christopher Lee hung up his cape, and that includes the Blade trilogy.

Anything from Hammer was good up until about 1972-ish.
I would place a Lee-Cushing Hammer Dracula flick above any other Vampire film.

Though a homage to Nosferatu is required and the better works of Bela Lugosi.

Orlanth wrote:Interview with the Vampire was good, but not the sequels or any other Vampire flick post since Christopher Lee hung up his cape, and that includes the Blade trilogy.

Anything from Hammer was good up until about 1972-ish.
I would place a Lee-Cushing Hammer Dracula flick above any other Vampire film.

Though a homage to Nosferatu is required and the better works of Bela Lugosi.

This is my problem,I seem to use the Hammer films/Nosferatu and Lugosis Dracula as a template by which to judge all Vampire films..which is why I am often sorely disappointed by modern fair.

FITZZ wrote:
This is my problem,I seem to use the Hammer films/Nosferatu and Lugosis Dracula as a template by which to judge all Vampire films..which is why I am often sorely disappointed by modern fair.

In the older films, the vampire was just another monster to be hunted and killed. These days the film-makers try to make them sympathetic characters (Blade, Interview with the vampire, Underworld, etc...), when in fact they are still monsters.

The reason why the Lost Boys and Near Dark are so good is because they don't set out to make Vampires into something they're not.

No-one's mentioned Innocent Blood yet? It's hardly the finest piece of cinema you'll see this year, but it is fantastically entertaining from start to finish

I'll also mention "Vampire's Kiss" starring Nicholas Cage. In its fashion it's truer to the myth of the vampire than representations of blood-sucking immortals with an allergy to sunlight. Plus it's fun to mock Cage's performance as famous cinematic vampires...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I can't forgive Blade 1 for the way all the Elder vampires just got merrily herded to their deaths.

If you want a proper Elder, Viktor in Underworld was freaking amazing.

Dammit MGS, the more you post on here, the more I like you

Victor(is it with a c, or a k?) is by far my fav version of a vampire period. That guy was SUCH a hardass. I agree with the Blade thoughts. I thought the movie was all in all decent to good, but there were some parts that made me feel off. I agree the thought of some transformed vampire would be able to not only BEST an elder vampire, but like 10 of them....that was just silly.

I love shadow of the vampire, that movie was just awesome, and kind of makes you wonder if the guy really WAS a vampire or not
From dusk till dawn is hilarious, and not only a decent vampire movie, but just a good ol kill gak and drink kind of movie.


Goldeneyescout - Your statement about Blade3, makes me realize your taste in movies will forever be tainted. That was by far the WORST blade movie ever made, and probably one of the worst vampire movies ever made. Jesus it was terrible.

Vampire Hunter D.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

Remember how the first hour was a film about a man and his dog as they live a lonely existence in an abandoned city?

The third act is much more video-gamey, and much the worse for it.

You do know its based off of the Omega Man right? And I think that was based off of a book that came out well before videogames.

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

Remember how the first hour was a film about a man and his dog as they live a lonely existence in an abandoned city?

The third act is much more video-gamey, and much the worse for it.

You do know its based off of the Omega Man right? And I think that was based off of a book that came out well before videogames.

The film "I am Legend", is based off of the book "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson, two other films have been produced that have been based on the book (Directly), The Omega Man,which Halonachos noted,and the 1964 film " The Last Man on Earth" Staring Vincent Price.
George Romero also credits the book as his inspiration for "Night of the Living Dead".

And,incidently,Halonachos is correct in his statement that the book came out a considerable time before the invention of "video games".1954 IIRC.

FITZZ wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

Remember how the first hour was a film about a man and his dog as they live a lonely existence in an abandoned city?

The third act is much more video-gamey, and much the worse for it.

You do know its based off of the Omega Man right? And I think that was based off of a book that came out well before videogames.

The film "I am Legend", is based off of the book "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson, two other films have been produced that have been based on the book (Directly), The Omega Man,which Halonachos noted,and the 1964 film " The Last Man on Earth" Staring Vincent Price.
George Romero also credits the book as his inspiration for "Night of the Living Dead".

And,incidently,Halonachos is correct in his statement that the book came out a considerable time before the invention of "video games".1954 IIRC.

While the movie is based off the book, having read said book, I think the term "based on" should be taken with a grain of salt. Really the only thing the two have in common is the name of the main character. It's a shame really, the book is such a great experience, while the movie is just a waste of time.

Lordhat wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

halonachos wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I Am Legend was pretty good up until it turned into a video-game.

How did I am Legend turn into a videogame?

Remember how the first hour was a film about a man and his dog as they live a lonely existence in an abandoned city?

The third act is much more video-gamey, and much the worse for it.

You do know its based off of the Omega Man right? And I think that was based off of a book that came out well before videogames.

The film "I am Legend", is based off of the book "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson, two other films have been produced that have been based on the book (Directly), The Omega Man,which Halonachos noted,and the 1964 film " The Last Man on Earth" Staring Vincent Price.
George Romero also credits the book as his inspiration for "Night of the Living Dead".

And,incidently,Halonachos is correct in his statement that the book came out a considerable time before the invention of "video games".1954 IIRC.

While the movie is based off the book, having read said book, I think the term "based on" should be taken with a grain of salt. Really the only thing the two have in common is the name of the main character. It's a shame really, the book is such a great experience, while the movie is just a waste of time.

Having read the book several times,I agree with Lordhat.

I had hoped for much more from the Will Smith film,I should have honestly known better.

I did however like "The last man on Earth",though it too is quite different from the book as well.

Let the Right One In

Check this out before the Hollywood remake appears (called Let Me In because Hollywood executives don't like long titles?!). Worth it for the final scene in the swimming pool alone. Watching the slaughter of three boys from an underwater point of view was complete genius and negated the need for what probably would have been a crap CGI sequence.

I was also quite pleased with 30 days of night, it really put vamps back in the 'not twinkly nor a suitable choice for a boyfriend' category.

The part where they force that girl to call for help as she walks down the street was suitably uncomfortable as things that want to kill and eat you should be.

I've not seen daybreakers but have been warned it's crap.

If anyone is interested, there was a really good tv series called Ultraviolet made by the British tv company Channel 4, starring Jack Davenport and Suzanna Harker, back in 98, that I would recommend.