Guy-64

I realize that a lot will be said about this film and that my comment may not matter, but I'm going to say a few words nonetheless. I, too, had been waiting for months, biting my fingernails in anticipation and I, too, sat in the theatre with a pounding heart waiting for the film to start, and I can't say I didn't enjoy watching it. But in all, I was disappointed. I had seen 'Dungeons and Dragons' (an apparent failure) a few months earlier, and I seriously couldn't find anything that set 'Lotr' apart from that film. (besides some possibly better acting and more expensive - though not always better - special effects). Things I liked were Christopher Lee, who gives away a classic performance, bringing back memories of his glory days, and the breath-taking design of Isengard and the Shire. Things I didn't like were Liv Tyler's ridiculous British accent, long scenes that weren't going anywhere, jokes that weren't funny and the fuzzy (if impressive) battle scenes. If you've read the books, you should of course still see this film, and if you haven't... well, I guess it's inevitable anyway.

A lot has been said about the way the film company 'butchered' Richard Williams' original vision of this film, and the way they basically turned an 'art film' into a Disney rip-off. Let me say 'phooie' to that.

I guess it's true that Williams intended the thief to be silent. But the voice of Jonathan Winters mostly enriches the story, instead of making it less worthwile. True, it was no doubt a commercially inspired choice, and some other commercially inspired choices in this film (such as the tacky songs) are certainly nerve-wrecking. But in all, 'Arabian Knight' provides a beautiful blend between personal vision and commercial know-how. And let's face it, without the latter, this wonderful film might never have had a chance to begin with.

Admittedly, 'Mark of the Vampire' may not be the best vampire-film out there. I haven't seen Browning's original Dracula yet (for which I am kicking myself as we speak) so I can't compare it with this one. At any rate, Terence Fisher's 'Dracula' is a lot better (although sometimes lacking the bizarre atmosphere of this film). The main problem with 'Mark of the Vampire' is that it's not really a vampire-film, even though it aspires to be. A disappointingly small section of the film is devoted to Lugosi, and in the few scenes in which he's clearly visible, he doesn't succeed in making the scary impression he is so famous for. As an old-fashioned mystery film with a surprise ending, or merely as a monster film with some truly beautiful special effects, 'Mark of the Vampire' certainly passes the grade. But if it's plain and simple bloodsucking and long sharp fangs you're after, go see 'Nosferatu' one more time.